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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-7, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mogi (JP 2011166393).
Mogi teaches a cleaning device comprising: a cleaning unit comprising a brush (52) that cleans a cleaning section by coming into contact with the cleaning section, the cleaning section being disposed in a transport space through which a medium (D) is transported; a support unit comprising a drum (51) that supports the cleaning unit, the support unit rotating about a rotation center to cause the cleaning unit to pass the cleaning section in a direction along a transporting direction in which the medium is transported; and a removing unit comprising a rib (58) that is disposed upstream of the cleaning section with respect to the transporting direction of the medium (figure 5 and 6e-6f) and an upper surface of the removing unit comes into contact with the cleaning unit to remove a substance adhering to the cleaning unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, the removing unit is disposed in a region through which the cleaning unit passes from an outside to an inside of the transport space (figure 5).
With regards to claim 3, a reservoir unit (see figure above) disposed on an upper surface of the removing unit, the reservoir unit having a recessed shape and being capable of storing the substance.
With regards to claim 4, the cleaning unit is disposed on a portion of an outer peripheral surface of the support unit in a rotation direction in which the support unit rotates (figure 5).
With regards to claim 5, there is a guide unit comprising a guide (surface of 51 that does not have brush; semispherical shaped surface) that is supported on the outer peripheral surface of the support unit and that guides the medium in a state such that the guide unit faces the cleaning section.
With regards to claim 6, the support unit causes the guide unit to continuously face the cleaning section when the medium is transported, and rotates to cause the cleaning unit to pass the cleaning section and clean the cleaning section in a predetermined cleaning period (figure 5).
With regards to claim 7, Mogi teaches a reading unit comprising an image sensor (40) including a reading portion disposed in a transport space through which a medium is transported, the reading unit reading an image on the medium; a cleaning unit comprises a brush (52) that cleans the reading portion by coming into contact with the reading portion; a support unit that supports the cleaning unit, the support unit comprising a drum (51) rotating about a rotation center to cause the cleaning unit to pass the reading portion in a direction along a transporting direction in which the medium is transported; and a removing unit comprising a rib (58) that is disposed upstream of the reading portion with respect to the transporting direction of the medium and an upper surface of the removing unit comes into contact with the cleaning unit, which moves as the support unit rotates, to remove a substance adhering to the cleaning unit.
With regards to claim 10, Mogi teaches a recording unit including a plurality of photoconductors (30-31, 34-36) that records an image on a medium; and the reading device according to claim 7 that reads the image recorded on the medium by the recording unit.
With regards to claim 13, Mogi teaches a cleaning means comprising a brush (52) for cleaning a cleaning section by coming into contact with the cleaning section, the cleaning section being disposed in a transport space through which a medium (D) is transported; support means comprising a drum (51) for supporting the cleaning means, the support means rotating about a rotation center to cause the cleaning means to pass the cleaning section in a direction along a transporting direction in which the medium is transported; and removing means comprising a rib (58) that is disposed upstream of the cleaning section with respect to the transporting direction of the medium and an upper surface of the removing means comes in contact with the cleaning means to remove a substance adhering to the cleaning means.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mogi (‘393) in view of Yamashita (PGPub 20200401355).
Mogi teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention including a recording unit including a plurality of photoconductor (30-31, 34-36) that records an image on a medium; and a reading device (40) according to claim 7 that reads the image recorded on the medium by the recording unit (claims 9, 11-12). Mogi however fails to teach a calibrating unit that is supported on an outer peripheral surface of the support unit and that calibrates the reading unit in a state such that the calibrating unit faces the reading portion (claim 8) and that the calibrating unit includes: a first calibrating unit having a predetermined color; and a second calibrating unit having a color that differs from the color of the first calibrating unit (claim 9).
Yamashita teaches a calibrating unit (69) that is supported on an outer peripheral surface of the support unit and that calibrates the reading unit in a state such that the calibrating unit faces the reading portion. The calibrating unit includes: a first calibrating unit (695) having a predetermined color (black); and a second calibrating unit (694) having a color (white) that differs from the color of the first calibrating unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reading device of Mogi so that it has a calibrating unit as taught by Yamashita to allow for inspection and correction to avoid abnormalities such as dots, streaks, dirt and displacement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant amended claim 1 clarify upstream and also to clarify what surface the removing unit comes in contact with the cleaning unit. A new search was required and a new rejection was made.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723