DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: the transport portion (corresponding in the instant disclosure to 20) and the rotation unit (corresponding in the instant disclosure to 50) in claims 1-20, and the pre-processing apparatus (corresponding in the instant disclosure to 110) and the post processing apparatus (corresponding in the instant disclosure to 120) in claims 19-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a housing" in lines 2 and 4 render the claims unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A housing is introduced in line 4 even though a housing has already been introduced in line 2. It is not clear if these are intended to be separate elements or the same. Based on the disclosed invention, it is considered that the two recitations of a housing are intended to be separate housings, as such they should be given different names. This is the interpretation that will be used below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lewalski et al. (US PGPub 2010/0090395 A1).
As to claim 1, Lewalski et al. teaches a transporting device (100) comprising:
a carrying-in unit (630) which comprises a transport portion (630, figure 1) that carries in a sheet-shaped transporting target (paragraph [0077] and figure 1);
a rotation unit (1050) that rotates the transporting target (paragraph [0086]), which is carried in by the carrying-in unit (figures 1 and 6-7), in a view toward a thickness direction, wherein the rotation unit (1050)
includes a contact member (1250) capable of coming into contact with one side of the transporting target in the thickness direction (figure 9 and paragraphs [0090]-[0091]), and
rotates the transporting target by the contact member being rotated in a view toward the thickness direction in a state in which the transporting target is pinched between the contact member and a disposition member (1230; figures 9, 17-18, and 20-21), which is disposed on the other side of the transporting target in the thickness direction (figure 9 and paragraphs [0090]-[0091]); and
a discharging unit (970) which comprises a discharging shaft (shaft connecting 970 in figure 7), the discharging unit discharges the transporting target rotated by the rotation unit (paragraph [0083] and figure 13).
As to claim 2, Lewalski et al. teaches wherein the rotation unit (1050) rotates the transporting target around a predetermined rotation shaft in a view toward the thickness direction (see figure 9).
As to claim 3, Lewalski et al. teaches wherein the rotation unit (1050) rotates the transporting target in a state in which a center of gravity of the transporting target is aligned with the rotation shaft (paragraph [0089] and figures 11 and 15-16).
As to claim 4, Lewalski et al. teaches wherein the rotation unit (1050) rotates the transporting target in a state in which a center portion of the transporting target in a carrying-in direction is aligned with the rotation shaft (paragraph [0089] and figures 11 and 15-16).
As to claim 5, Lewalski et al. teaches wherein the rotation unit (1050) rotates the transporting target in a state in which a center portion of the transporting target in a width direction is aligned with the rotation shaft (paragraph [0089] and figures 11 and 15-16).
As to claim 6, Lewalski et al. teaches wherein the rotation unit (1050) rotates the transporting target within a range of more than 0 degrees and less than 360 degrees (figures 17-18 and paragraph [0089]).
As to claim 7, Lewalski et al. teaches wherein the rotation unit (1050) rotates the transporting target within a range of more than 0 degrees and 180 degrees or less (figures 17-18 and paragraph [0089]).
As to claim 10, Lewalski et al. teaches wherein the rotation unit (1050) is a separated body separated from the carrying-in unit (630) and the discharging unit (970; where each unit is separately mounted on the frame, figures 6-9).
As to claim 12, Lewalski et al. teaches wherein the rotation unit rotates the transporting target in a state in which a movement of the transporting target by the carrying-in unit in a carrying-in direction is stopped (figures 15-20).
As to claim 13, Lewalski et al. teaches the transporting portion (630) transports the transporting target in a pinched state in which the transporting target is pinched in the thickness direction (figure 18), and
the rotation unit (1052) rotates the transporting target in a state in which the pinched state of the transporting portion is released (figures 17-18).
As to claim 14, Lewalski et al. teaches wherein the discharging unit discharges the transporting target after a rotation by the rotation unit is stopped (figures 19-20).
As to claim 16, Lewalski et al. teaches wherein the rotation unit (1052)
includes the disposition member (1230), and
rotates the transporting target by the contact member and the disposition member being rotated in a view toward the thickness direction in a state in which the transporting target is pinched between the contact member and the disposition member (figures 9, 17-18, and 20-21 and paragraphs [0090]-[0091]).
As to claim 17, Lewalski et al. teaches wherein the contact member comes into contact with the transporting target at a center of rotation (figures 17 and 21).
As to claim 18, Lewalski et al. teaches wherein the contact member starts coming into contact with the transporting target in a state in which a movement of the transporting target by the carrying-in unit in a carrying-in direction is stopped (figures 17-18 and 21-22).
As to claim 19, Lewalski et al. teaches a processing system (figure 1) comprising:
a pre-processing apparatus (116) which comprises a housing (figure 1) and that executes pre-processing on a transporting target (paragraph [0071]);
a post-processing apparatus (130) which comprises a housing (figure 1) and that executes post-processing on the transporting target (paragraphs [0072]); and
the transporting device (100) according to claim 1 (as noted above in detail for claim 1) that transports the transporting target, which is transported from the pre-processing apparatus, to the post-processing apparatus (figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewalski et al. (US PGPub 2010/0090395 A1) in view of Shinohara (US PGPub 2009/0202284 A1) and Helma et al. (7,870,824).
As to claim 8, Lewalski et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 1, except wherein the rotation unit is capable of rotating the transporting target in both directions of a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction, in a view toward the thickness direction.
Shinohara teaches wherein the rotation unit is capable of rotating the transporting target in both directions of a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction, in a view toward the thickness direction (paragraph [0103]). Helma teaches the provision of multiple processing stations to the sides of a rotation unit (figure 10 where the unit 630 is considered to correspond in combination to rotation unit 1052). One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to provide further processing units to allow for more processing options for the user and providing a rotation unit capable of rotating the transporting target in both directions to allow for more efficient transfer of the card to the desired location with predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lewalski et al. to have wherein the rotation unit is capable of rotating the transporting target in both directions of a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction, in a view toward the thickness direction as suggested by Shinohara and Helma because it is a well known technical solution allowing the rotation in different directions (paragraph [0103] of Shinohara) to different processing stations (figures 10 and 11B of Helma) with predictable results.
As to claim 9, Lewalski et al. as modified teaches wherein the rotation unit rotates the transporting target in a direction, at which a rotation angle until the transporting target faces a predetermined direction is smaller, among the both directions (see combination above, where in order to reduce time to rotate the transporting target to 640 in figure 10 of Helma, the ability to rotate clockwise as well as counter clockwise is provided).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewalski et al. (US PGPub 2010/0090395 A1) in view of Helma et al. (7,870,824).
As to claim 11, Lewalski et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 1, including the rotation unit rotates the transporting target such that a tip of the transporting target, which faces a downstream side in the carrying-in direction, faces the discharging direction (figures 17-19).
Lewalski et al. does not teach wherein the discharging unit discharges the transporting target in a discharging direction different from a carrying-in direction used by the carrying-in unit, in a view toward the thickness direction.
Helma et al. teaches wherein the discharging unit discharges the transporting target in a discharging direction different from a carrying-in direction used by the carrying-in unit, in a view toward the thickness direction (figure 11B).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lewalski et al. to have wherein the discharging unit discharges the transporting target in a discharging direction different from a carrying-in direction used by the carrying-in unit, in a view toward the thickness direction as taught by Helma et al. because it allows the provisioning of the processing units in an arrangement allowing for increased modularization (figures 11B and 10, column 20, lines 54-60) with predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewalski et al. (US PGPub 2010/0090395 A1) in view of Moore (7,819,401).
As to claim 20, Lewalski et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 19, except wherein the pre-processing apparatus includes an image forming apparatus that forms an image on a recording medium, which is used as the transporting target.
Moore teaches a preprocessing apparatus (12, upstream of a transportation unit 24 which is considered to correspond in combination to transportation unit 100 of Lewalski et al.), wherein the pre-processing apparatus includes an image forming apparatus that forms an image on a recording medium, which is used as the transporting target (column 5, lines 53-64 and column 6, lines 10-20).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lewalski et al. to have wherein the pre-processing apparatus includes an image forming apparatus that forms an image on a recording medium, which is used as the transporting target as taught by Moore because it is a well known apparatus providing for printing on the recording medium (column 5, lines 53-64) with predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the arguments regarding the 112(f) interpretation on pages 6-7, it is considered that the transporting portion and the contact member also comprise nonce words. The two housings in claim 20 do not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, these limitations are still considered to invoke 112(f).
With respect to the arguments regarding the limitation “rotates the transporting target by the contact member and the disposition member being rotated” on pages 8-11, it is considered that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations includes the disposition member being the directly driven member and the contact member being the following member as both are rotated by the motor and thereby rotate the transporting target as taught by Lewalski et al. and therefore it is considered that all of the limitations of the claimed invention are taught by Lewalski et al..
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853