DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the non-modified embodiment of the claimed invention in the reply filed on 12/23/2024 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the rack” and “the drive gear” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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. The claim recites a pair of rack and pinion mechanisms but then proceeds to recite “the rack” and “the drive gear.” It is unclear as to which of the two recited racks the rack and to which of the two recited drive gears the drive gear are intended to refer. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiyama et al. (9,260,268).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama teaches a media folding device comprising:
a stacking portion (fig. 3, portion where media is stacked) on which media (fig. 3, note media) transported from an introduction path (fig. 1, item 241) are placed and which does not have an opening (see illustration, note that stacking portion is a plate and does not have an opening. Note further that “does not have an opening” can mean almost anything),
a folding roller pair (fig. 5, item 230) that folds the media at a folding position after the media have been stacked in the stacking portion (see fig. 9);
a bend forming mechanism (fig. 3, item 201/222) that includes a first abutting portion (fig. 3, paper stop corresponding to item 210) configured to abut against a front end of the media (see fig. 3), which are stacked in the stacking portion (see fig. 3), in a transport direction, and a second abutting portion (fig. 3, paper stop corresponding to item 222) that is configured to abut against a rear end of the media, which are stacked in the stacking portion, in the transport direction (see fig. 3), and that causes a folding position of the media to be nipped by the folding roller pair by shortening the relative distance between the first abutting portion and the second abutting portion to bend the media toward the folding roller pair (see figs. 3-5); and
a control unit, wherein the folding roller pair includes a first roller and a second roller (see fig. 7, note pair 230), and
the control unit is configured to change a distance between the first roller and the second roller (Note that the controller controls movement of the medium, which in turn pushes the rollers away from each other).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sugiyama teaches the media folding device according to claim 1, wherein the stacking portion is configured to allow bending of the media such that the folding position approaches the folding roller pair, and not allow bending of the media such that the folding position moves away from the folding roller pair (see fig. 9, Note that this could mean any number of things).
Regarding claim 3, Sugiyama teaches the media folding device according to claim 1, wherein the stacking portion includes a projecting portion (fig. 5, item 215) that protrudes toward the folding roller pair at a position corresponding to the folding position when the media are bent (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Sugiyama teaches the media folding device according to claim 1, wherein the folding roller pair transports and discharges the media folded by the folding roller pair (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Sugiyama teaches the media folding device according to claim 1, further comprising: a binding unit (fig. 5, item S1) for binding the media stacked in the stacking portion at a predetermined position in the transport direction, wherein a position at which binding is performed by the binding unit is set as the folding position (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Sugiyama teaches the media folding device according to claim 1, wherein the stacking portion includes a projecting portion which protrudes toward the folding roller pair (see illustration, note downward inclined portion projecting downward and left toward roller pair).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Jonker (2017/0355166).
Regarding claim 6, Sugiyama teaches the media folding device according to claim 1. Sugiyama does not teach a crease forming mechanism provided in the introduction path to form a crease in the media at the folding position. Jonker teaches a creaser roller for forming a crease on a medium in a place to be folded (Jonker, [0029]). It would have been obvious to add the crease roller disclosed by Jonker to the folding device disclosed by Sugiyama because doing so would allow for creasing prior to folding thereby facilitating more exact folding positioning during the folding of the media.
Regarding claim 7, Sugiyama in view of Jonker teaches the media folding device according to claim 6, wherein the crease forming mechanism includes a crease forming portion that is in contact with the media and that moves in a width direction intersecting the transport direction (Note that upon addition of the crease roller of Jonker to the device disclosed by Sugiyama, the crease roller would move across the medium in a direction intersecting the transport direction.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Hendricks et al. (2012/0070217).
Regarding claim 8, Sugiyama teaches the recording system comprising: a recording apparatus (fig. 3, item 400) that performs recording on a medium (fig. 3, note unlabeled medium); and the media folding device according to claim 1. Sugiyama does not teach wherein the recording apparatus includes: a movable body including a head for ejecting a liquid or a maintenance section performing maintenance of the head, a pair of rack and pinion mechanisms including a rack and a drive gear to move the movable body in a first direction in which the rack extends, and a switching mechanism provided for each of the rack and pinion mechanisms and switching presence and absence of meshing between the rack and the drive gear when the movable body is at an exchange position. Hendricks teaches this (Hendricks, see figs. 2-5 and 8-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the stacker unit disclosed by Sugiyama with the inkjet printing apparatus disclosed by Hendricks because doing so would amount to combining a known sheet processing device with a known printer type to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the structure of the device, but the amendments fail to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853