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 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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuura et al. US 8,902,437 (“Matsuura”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuura disclosed a medium processing system comprising:
a pre-processing device (100);
a first delivery device (including 107 and some of rollers 307) that receives a recording medium from the pre-processing device and that delivers the recording medium;
a first post-processing device (300) that receives the recording medium delivered from the first delivery device and that performs post-processing on the recording medium;
one second delivery device or a plurality of second delivery devices (other rollers 307 and/or 410) that are connected in series with the first delivery device, that receive the recording medium delivered from an upstream side in a transport direction of the recording medium, and that deliver the recording medium;
a second post-processing device (400) that receives the recording medium delivered from the one second delivery device or the plurality of second delivery devices and that performs post-processing on the recording medium;
a first controller (301, 302) that is provided at the first delivery device and that communicates with the first post-processing device, the pre-processing device, and the second delivery device that receives the recording medium from the first delivery device, the first controller controlling the first delivery device and the first post-processing device; and a second controller (401, 402) that is provided at the one second delivery device or the plurality of second delivery devices, that, for the second delivery device that receives the recording medium from the first delivery device, communicates with the second post-processing device and controls the second delivery device and the second post-processing device that receives the recording medium from the second delivery device, and that, for another one of the plurality of second delivery devices that receives the recording medium delivered from the second delivery device, communicates with the second delivery device that delivers the recording medium and with the second post-processing device and controls the other one of the plurality of second delivery devices and the second post-processing device that receives the recording medium from the other one of the plurality of second delivery devices (see at least Figures 1 and 2).
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) 2-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura in view of Anno et al. US 2006/0238777 (“Anno”).
Regarding claims 2-5, Matsuura disclosed a medium processing system comprising:
a pre-processing device (100);
a first delivery device (including 107 and some of rollers 307) that receives a recording medium from the pre-processing device and that delivers the recording medium in a plurality of directions (see Figures 2-4);
a first post-processing device (300) that receives the recording medium delivered in a first direction from the first delivery device and that performs post-processing on the recording medium;
a second post-processing device (400) that receives the recording medium delivered in a second direction differing from the first direction from the first delivery device and that performs post-processing on the recording medium; and
a first controller (301, 302, 401, 402) that is provided at the first delivery device, that controls the first delivery device, the first post-processing device, and the second post-processing device, that communicates with the pre-processing device.
Matsuura further disclosed the pre-processing device includes a pre-processing controller (101, 102) that controls the pre-processing device.
Ostensibly, while a malfunction occurs in the second post-processing device that is performing the post-processing on the recording medium, the first delivery device may deliver the recording medium in the first direction and cause the first post-processing device to perform the post-processing on the recording medium. However, Matsuura does not specify this last point.
Anno teaches when a malfunction occurs in a second post-processing device that is performing post-processing on recording medium, causes a first delivery device to deliver the recording medium in a first direction and causes a first post-processing device to perform the post-processing on the recording medium (see at least paragraphs 0124 and 0127). Furthermore, Anno teaches when, for the post-processing by the first post-processing device, post-processing that is same as the post-processing by the second post-processing device in which the malfunction has occurred is possible, the first controller causes the post-processing that is the same to be performed on the recording medium (see paragraphs 0124, 0127, and 0151). Even when the malfunction of the second post-processing device is eliminated, the first controller causes the first post-processing device to perform the post-processing on the recording medium until an entirety of the post-processing performed on the recording medium by the first post-processing device ends (see paragraphs 0124, 0127, and 0151 referencing finishing the processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Anno and Matsuura to allow alternate processing to avoid down time due to an error or malfunction as taught by Anno. Moreover, when the post-processing by the first post-processing device differs from the post-processing by the second post-processing device in which the malfunction has occurred, the pre-processing controller would cause the pre-processing device to deliver a recording medium on which the post-processing is to be performed by the first post-processing device, as that would be the one available.
Regarding claims 6-9, Matsuura disclosed the limitations of claim 1 as listed above, and further disclosed a plurality of the second delivery devices are provided (Figures 1-4).
Ostensibly, while a malfunction occurs in the second post-processing device that is performing the post-processing on the recording medium, the first delivery device may deliver the recording medium in the first direction and cause the first post-processing device to perform the post-processing on the recording medium. However, Matsuura does not specify this last point.
Anno teaches when a malfunction occurs in a second post-processing device that is performing post-processing on recording medium, causes a first delivery device to deliver the recording medium in a first direction and causes a first post-processing device to perform the post-processing on the recording medium (see at least paragraphs 0124 and 0127). Furthermore, Anno teaches when, for the post-processing by the first post-processing device, post-processing that is same as the post-processing by the second post-processing device in which the malfunction has occurred is possible, the first controller causes the post-processing that is the same to be performed on the recording medium (see paragraphs 0124, 0127, and 0151). Even when the malfunction of the second post-processing device is eliminated, the first controller causes the first post-processing device to perform the post-processing on the recording medium until an entirety of the post-processing performed on the recording medium by the first post-processing device ends (see paragraphs 0124, 0127, and 0151 referencing finishing the processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Anno and Matsuura to allow alternate processing to avoid down time due to an error or malfunction as taught by Anno. Moreover, when the post-processing by the first post-processing device differs from the post-processing by the second post-processing device in which the malfunction has occurred, the pre-processing controller would cause the pre-processing device to deliver a recording medium on which the post-processing is to be performed by the first post-processing device, as that would be the one available.
Regarding claims 10-14, Matsuura disclosed the limitations of claim 1 and further disclosed a plurality of the second delivery devices are provided (Figures 1-4), and the pre-processing device includes a pre-processing controller (101, 102) that controls the pre-processing device. The second post-processing device and the first post-processing device may alternately perform the post-processing on the recording medium (see at least Figure 2). Ostensibly, while a malfunction occurs in the second post-processing device that is performing the post-processing on the recording medium, the first delivery device may deliver the recording medium in the first direction and cause the first post-processing device to perform the post-processing on the recording medium. However, Matsuura does not specify this last point.
Anno teaches a plurality of the second post-processing devices are provided, and when a malfunction occurs in one of the plurality of the second post-processing devices that is performing post-processing on a recording medium and another one of the plurality of the second post-processing devices is capable of performing post-processing, the first controller causes a transport path to be changed such that a recording medium moves to the other one of the plurality of the second post-processing devices and causes the other one of the plurality of the second post-processing devices that is capable of performing the post-processing to process the recording medium (as discussed above and seen in paragraphs 0124, 0127, and 0151).
When, for the post-processing by the other one of the plurality of the second post-processing devices, post-processing that is same as the post-processing by the one of the plurality of the second post-processing devices in which the malfunction has occurred is possible, the first controller causes the post-processing that is the same to be performed on the recording medium (paragraphs 0124, 0127, and 0151).
When the post-processing by the other one of the plurality of the second post-processing devices differs from the post-processing by the one of the plurality of the second post-processing devices in which the malfunction has occurred, the pre-processing controller causes the pre-processing device to deliver a recording medium on which the post-processing is to be performed by the other one of the plurality of the second post-processing devices (see paragraphs 0124, 0127, and 0151).
Even when the malfunction of the one of the plurality of the second post-processing devices is eliminated, the first controller causes the other one of the plurality of the second post-processing devices to perform the post-processing on the recording medium until an entirety of the post-processing performed on the recording medium by the other one of the plurality of the second post-processing devices ends (as mentioned above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Anno and Matsuura to allow alternate processing to avoid down time due to an error or malfunction as taught by Anno. Moreover, when the post-processing by the first post-processing device differs from the post-processing by the second post-processing device in which the malfunction has occurred, the pre-processing controller would cause the pre-processing device to deliver a recording medium on which the post-processing is to be performed by the first post-processing device, as that would be the one available.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD J SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3096. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/HOWARD J SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights