Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 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.
2. Claims 1-2 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0029525 (Shimoyama et al.) (hereinafter “Shimoyama”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0277335 (Bradford et al.) (hereinafter “Bradford”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-20 of Shimoyama show a medium feeding device (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a plurality of transporters (53 in Fig. 3) each including a stacking unit (55) on which a medium is stackable in a vertical direction,
a feeder (including 67 and 69) that feeds air to a plurality of media, each of which is the medium, stacked on the stacking unit (55) to cause the plurality of media to float and separate,
a delivery unit (61) that successively delivers the media floated and separated by the feeder (including 67 and 69), and
a detector (including 93 and 97) that detects a state of the medium floated and separated by the feeder (including 67 and 69); and
at least one processor (15) configured to:
upon detection of the state of possibility of jam or multi feeding of the medium by the detector (including 93 and 97), change an amount of air feed by the feeder (including 67 and 69) of the one transporter (53). See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0133] – [0134]. Shimoyama teaches most of the limitations of claim 1 including processor (15), but does not explicitly show that upon detection of a jam or multi feeding by detector (including 93 and 97) during transport by one of the transporters (53 in Fig. 3), processor (15) switches to another transporter, as claimed.
Bradford shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a medium feeding device (Fig. 1) with a processor (45) that operates such that upon detection of a state of possibility of jam or multi feeding of a medium by a detector (110) of one (e.g., including 102 and 107) of a plurality of transporters (including 102 and107 and including 104 and 109) during transport, switch to another transporter (including 104 and 109) at a predetermined timing to feed the medium. See, e.g., numbered paragraph [0021] of Bradford. Referring back to Shimoyama , numbered paragraph [0140] and Figs. 6-8A teach that when a misfeed is detected (A3 greater than prescribed value), the process is eventually shut down. Similarly, Bradford explains that the prior art suffers from shut down delays upon sensing of jams or misfeeds. See, e.g., numbered paragraph [0005] of Bradford. Thereafter, Bradford explains how it is advantageous to switch to another transporter after a jam or misfeed is detected to allow a print job to be continued, rather than having to shut down as found in the prior art. See, e.g., numbered paragraph [0008] of Bradford. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to operate the Shimoyama apparatus such that the processor switches to another transporter when a jam or misfeed is detected to avoid having to shut down, as taught by Bradford. Once again referring to Shimoyama, Fig. 8A teaches that when misfeed or jam is detected in step S7, air feed is adjusted in step S8 and at a later time the Shimoyama apparatus can shut down after step S14. As such, air adjustment occurs before any shut down. Again, Bradford teaches that it is advantageous to have the processor switch to another transporter to keep the print job going, rather than shut down. As such, switching would occur after adjusting the air. Accordingly, operating the Shimoyama apparatus, according to the teachings of Bradford, results in switching to another transporter upon detection of a jam or muti feeding by the detector and also upon the detection of the jam or multi feeding by the detector, the amount of air is changed by the feeder of the transporter before being switched, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Bradford teaches that the processor (45) is configured to:
when there is another one (including 104 and 109) of the plurality of transporters (including 102 and 107 and including 104 and 109) by which the medium is feedable, switch to the another transporter (including 104 and 109). See, e.g., numbered paragraph [0008]. The Shimoyama apparatus would operate in the same manner, according to the teachings of Bradford.
Regarding claim 9, Figs. 1-20 of Shimoyama.show that the detector (including 93 and 97) includes an image capture unit (93) that captures a floated and separated state of an end of the medium.
Regarding claim 10, Figs. 1-20 of Shimoyama show that the detector (including 93 and 97) includes a photoelectronic sensor (93) that detects a floated and separated state of an end of the medium with a light receiving unit that receives light from a projector (97).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Figs. 1-20 of Shimoyama show that a condition to detect a state of possibility of jam or multi feeding of the medium by the detector (including 93 and 97) is that a predetermined number (e.g., 4 sheets in Fig. 6) or less of the plurality of media are floated.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Figs. 1-20 of Shimoyama show that a condition to detect a state of possibility of jam or multi feeding of the medium by the detector (including 93 and 97) is that a predetermined number (1) or more of the plurality of media are not separated, and in a bundle state. See, e.g., step S7 in Fig. 8A.
Regarding claim 13, Fig. 2 of Shimoyama show an image forming apparatus comprising:
the medium feeding device according to claim 1; and
an image former (11) that forms an image on the medium fed by the medium feeding device (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Fig. 2 of Shimoyama show an image forming apparatus comprising:
the medium feeding device according to claim 2; and
an image former (11) that forms an image on the medium fed by the medium feeding device (Figs. 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 3-8 and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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, Mike 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights