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 limitation(s) is/are:
• “disc-shaped urging member” as recited in at least claim 14 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “urging”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “urging” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
• “disc-shaped crease formation member” as recited in at least claim 15 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “crease formation”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “crease formation” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member)
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, there is no recitation in the specification that discusses the inclined surfaces being “identical” to one another. Thus, it is not clear if the inclined surfaces are identical in terms of their shape, positioning, function, etc. Further, since the originally filed specification does not provide written support for the inclined surfaces being identical, this is considered to be new matter.
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 10 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.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what is intended by the term “identical”. Does this term simply refer to the shape of the inclined surfaces? Does this term apply to the position of the inclined surfaces? If so, it is unclear how multiple inclined surfaces can be located at an “identical” position. Since it is not understood what is meant by the term “identical”, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably determined. Examiner recommends reciting a plurality of inclined surfaces in claim 9, and deleting the limitation to the inclined surfaces being identical from claim 10.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (US 20180009615) in view of Maruyama (US 20200307934), and further in view of Zuckerman (US 2094033).
Regarding claim 1, Sakuma discloses a recording medium processing apparatus comprising: a pressing unit comprising a plurality of transport rolls (the pressing unit comprises a plurality of rollers; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below), and a cutting unit comprising a rotary blade (cutter portion 311 includes rotary cutter 82; see paragraph [0057] and fig. 3A), wherein the plurality of transport rolls transport the recording medium (elastic body 85, 86, contact sheet P such that it is transported by the driving force received by shafts 81A, 81B; see paragraphs [0062-0063]), the plurality of transport rolls being disposed at positions displaced from each other in a transport direction of the recording medium (elastic body 85, 86 and the other transport rolls are displaced from one another along the transport direction; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sakuma does not explicitly disclose wherein the pressing unit is configured to press one surface of a transported recording medium against a to-be-pressed section; one surface of the recording medium is pressed against the to-be-pressed section located at an opposed position of the one surface.
Maruyama discloses wherein the pressing unit is configured to press one surface of a transported recording medium against a to-be-pressed section (rollers 61, 62 convey sheet S such that one surface of sheet S is pressed against guide walls 71, 72; see paragraphs [0041-0045] and fig. 2); one surface of the recording medium is pressed against the to-be-pressed section located at an opposed position of the one surface (guide wall 72 presses against and is opposed to the one surface of sheet S; see paragraphs [0041-0045] and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sakuma in view of Maruyama to include a to-be-pressed section (curved guide wall 72). Maruyama discloses several pairs of guide walls that form a conveying path between rollers (see paragraphs [0043-0045]). Further, the inclined surface of curved guide wall 72 is one of the elements that corrects the tilt of sheet S (see paragraphs [0084-0085]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including such a system in the device of Sakuma results in more accurate cutting due to proper alignment of a sheet. Therefore, in order to provide a conveying path capable of improving alignment of the sheet, such a modification would be obvious.
Sakuma as modified further discloses wherein the cutting unit is configured to cut the recording medium pressed against the to-be-pressed section (as modified to include a to-be-pressed section, rotary cutter 82 is capable of cutting sheet P when it is pressed against the to-be-pressed section; see paragraph [0064] and fig. 3A).
Sakuma as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a transport speed of the recording medium achieved by one of the plurality of transport rolls is surpassed by a transport speed of the recording medium achieved by the other transport roll located downstream of the one transport roll so that the recording medium in a flexed state is pulled.
Zuckerman teaches wherein a transport speed of the recording medium achieved by one of the plurality of transport rolls is surpassed by a transport speed of the recording medium achieved by the other transport roll located downstream of the one transport roll so that the recording medium in a flexed state is pulled (the higher speed of rollers 19, 21 relative to rollers 15-15 places the web under tension so that the web is pulled taut; see pg. 2, right column, lines 45-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sakuma in view of Zuckerman to make the transport speed of one of the transport rollers surpassed by a transport speed of a downstream transport roll so that the recording medium is pulled. Zuckerman discloses a system in which the downstream transport roll (rollers 19, 21) rotates faster than the upstream transport roll (rollers 15-15). As a result, the web is effectively pulled by rollers 19, 21. Zuckerman further discloses that this is beneficial because the web is easily severed when it is engaged by the cutting elements (see pg. 2, right column, lines 45-51). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement the teaching of Zuckerman into the modified device of Sakuma in order to improve cutting ability.
Regarding claim 2, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Maruyama further discloses wherein the pressing unit presses the one surface of the recording medium against the to-be-pressed section (rollers 61, 62 (which correspond to the pressing unit) convey sheet S such that one surface of sheet S is pressed against guide walls 71, 72; see paragraphs [0041-0045] and fig. 2), wherein the to-be-pressed section extends in a direction crossing the transport direction of the recording medium transported (since guide walls 71, 72 are three dimensional in nature, guide walls 71, 72 extend at least partially in the crossing direction, which is perpendicular to sheet conveying direction Vs; see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sakuma as modified further discloses wherein the pressing unit pulls one end side of the recording medium in a flexed state in a direction away from the other end side (as modified, elastic body 85, 86 move at a higher speed than the upstream transport rolls, thus pulling sheet P taut).
Maruyama further discloses pressing the one surface of the recording medium against the to-be-pressed section located at an opposed position of the one surface (guide wall 72 presses against and is opposed to the one surface of sheet S; see paragraphs [0041-0045] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Maruyama further discloses wherein the to-be-pressed section is disposed to extend along a direction crossing the transport direction of the recording medium (since guide walls 71, 72 are three dimensional in nature, guide walls 71, 72 extend at least partially in the crossing direction, which is perpendicular to sheet conveying direction Vs; see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Sakuma as modified further discloses wherein the cutting unit cuts the recording medium along the transport direction of the recording medium (rotary cutter 82 is positioned around shaft 81A, which extends in a direction orthogonal to the transport direction of sheet P – thus, rotary cutter 82 is configured to cut sheet P along the transport direction; see paragraph [0059] and fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 8, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sakuma as modified further discloses wherein between one region and the other region opposed to each other across a straight line connecting the one transport roll and the other transport roll (the one region and other region are opposite one another across a line connecting the transport rolls; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above), the recording medium in a flexed state is positioned in the one region (as modified, the to-be-pressed section displaces sheet P such that at least part of sheet P is positioned in the one region; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above), and at least part of the to-be-pressed section is disposed in the one region (as modified, at least part of the to-be-pressed section is located in the one region; see annotated portion of fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 9, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Maruyama further discloses wherein the to-be-pressed section is an inclined surface that is disposed laterally of a transport path of the recording medium (guide wall 72 is an inclined surface disposed laterally of sheet conveying direction Vs; see fig. 7), and inclined to a movement direction of the recording medium (guide wall 72 is inclined with respect to sheet conveying direction Vs; see fig. 7), and the pressing unit transports the recording medium to the inclined surface, and presses one surface of the recording medium against the inclined surface that is the to-be-pressed section (rollers 61, 62 convey sheet S such that one surface of sheet S is pressed against guide wall 72; see paragraphs [0041-0045] and fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Maruyama further discloses wherein the to-be-pressed section comprises an inclined surface (guide wall 72 is an inclined surface; see fig. 7).
Maruyama does not explicitly disclose a plurality of inclined surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sakuma in view of Maruyama to include a plurality of inclined surfaces since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, guide wall 71 can be replaced with a second guide wall 72, such that there are two inclined surfaces. It does not appear that replacing guide wall 71 with a second guide wall 72 would impede operation of the device, thus it would be a simple substitution of one guide wall for another.
As modified to include a plurality of inclined surfaces, Maruyama further discloses wherein the inclined surfaces, which are each identical as the inclined surface (as modified to include a plurality of inclined surfaces, guide walls 72 are identical to one another; see fig. 7), and the plurality of inclined surfaces are disposed at different positions in the transport direction of the recording medium (as modified to include a plurality of inclined surfaces, guide walls 72 are disposed at different positions along sheet conveying direction Vs; see fig. 7).
Sakuma as modified further discloses when the recording medium is cut by the cutting unit, the recording medium is in a state of being pressed against the plurality of inclined surfaces (as modified, rotary cutter 82 is capable of cutting sheet P when it is pressed against the inclined surfaces; see paragraph [0064] and fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 11, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Maruyama further discloses wherein one of the plurality of inclined surfaces provided is disposed on one surface of the recording medium transported (one surface of sheet S contacts upper guide wall 72; see fig. 8), other inclined surfaces are disposed on the other surface of the recording medium (as modified, the lower guide wall 72 contacts the bottom surface of sheet S due to pressing of guide 151: see fig. 8).
Sakuma as modified further discloses when the recording medium is cut by the cutting unit, one surface of the recording medium is in a state of being pressed against the one inclined surface, and the other surface of the recording medium is in a state of being pressed against the other inclined surfaces (as modified, rotary cutter 82 is capable of cutting sheet P when one surface is pressed against the upper inclined surface and the bottom surface is pressed against the lower inclined surface; see paragraph [0064] and fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 12, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sakuma as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein in the transport direction of the recording medium transported, the to-be-pressed section is disposed upstream of the cutting unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sakuma in view of Maruyama to make the to-be-pressed section disposed upstream of the cutting unit since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, the device would still operate as intended regardless of where the to-be-pressed section is located. In the event that the to-be-pressed section is located upstream of the cutting unit, it can improve cuttability via proper alignment of the sheet. If the to-be-pressed section is located downstream of the cutting unit, it still provides a conveyance path to guide the sheet through the machine. Thus, regardless of its location, the to-be-pressed section as taught by Maruyama still provides a benefit to the system.
Regarding claim 13, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sakuma as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein in the transport direction of the recording medium transported, the to-be-pressed section is disposed downstream of the cutting unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sakuma in view of Maruyama to make the to-be-pressed section disposed downstream of the cutting unit since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, the device would still operate as intended regardless of where the to-be-pressed section is located. In the event that the to-be-pressed section is located upstream of the cutting unit, it can improve cuttability via proper alignment of the sheet. If the to-be-pressed section is located downstream of the cutting unit, it still provides a conveyance path to guide the sheet through the machine. Thus, regardless of its location, the to-be-pressed section as taught by Maruyama still provides a benefit to the system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (US 20180009615) in view of Maruyama (US 20200307934), further in view of Zuckerman (US 2094033), and further in view of Abbey (US 3771738).
Regarding claim 3, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Sakuma as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the to-be-pressed section is formed in a cylindrical shape or a column shape, and is provided rotatably around a rotational shaft which extends in the crossing direction.
Abbey discloses wherein the to-be-pressed section is formed in a cylindrical shape or a column shape (tensioning roller units 23, 24, which correspond to the to-be-pressed section, are formed as cylindrical rollers; see fig. 12), and is provided rotatably around a rotational shaft which extends in the crossing direction (tensioning roller units 23, 24 are rotatably mounted on shafts supported by upright supporting units 21, 22; see col. 2, lines 54-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sakuma in view of Abbey to make the to-be-pressed section formed in a cylindrical shape. The tensioning rollers of Abbey are an alternative configuration of a tensioning element, and thus it would be a simple substitution of elements to replace the to-be-pressed section of Sakuma as modified with the tensioning rollers of Abbey. Doing so would not impede the device from operating and would still allow the web to be moved along under tension.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (US 20180009615) in view of Maruyama (US 20200307934), further in view of Zuckerman (US 2094033), and further in view of Frye (US 4459888).
Regarding claim 14, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sakuma as modified further discloses wherein the rotary blade is configured to rotate (rotary cutter 82 is positioned around shaft 81A, which is driven to rotate; see paragraphs [0059, 0063]), and a disc-shaped urging member (pressing member 83; see fig. 3A).
Sakuma as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the cutting unit further includes: an opposed blade disposed at a position different from a position of the rotary blade in an axial direction of the rotary blade, disposed at a position different from a position of the rotary blade in a radial direction of the rotary blade, and disposed at an opposed position of one surface of the rotary blade in part, the opposed blade being configured to rotate.
Frye discloses an opposed blade (rotary slitter member 18 is positioned opposite rotary slitter member 19; see fig. 2) disposed at a position different from a position of the rotary blade in an axial direction of the rotary blade (rotary slitter member 18 is offset in the axial direction (left right direction as shown in fig. 2) from rotary slitter member 19; see fig. 2), disposed at a position different from a position of the rotary blade in a radial direction of the rotary blade (rotary slitter member 18 is offset in the radial direction (up down direction as shown in fig. 2) from rotary slitter member 19; see fig. 2), and disposed at an opposed position of one surface of the rotary blade in part (rotary slitter member 18 is positioned such that it is opposed to at least one surface of rotary slitter member 19; see fig. 2), the opposed blade being configured to rotate (rotary slitter member 18 is rotatably mounted on shaft 20; see col. 3, lines 52-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sakuma in view of Frye to include an opposed blade. Frye discloses that other paper slitters with only one blade pressed against a band often incur a plowing effect, which causes tearing of the sheet rather than precise incising (see col. 1, lines 26-38). Including opposed blades which do not directly contact one another avoids this problem, and allows for minimizing or eliminating the plowing effect (see col. 4, line 62-col. 5, line 23). Therefore, in order to provide for more accurate cuts with less dust generation, it would be obvious to include an opposed blade in the modified device of Sakuma.
Sakuma as modified further discloses a disc-shaped urging member capable of urging the recording medium to be cut against the rotary blade (pressing member 83 is pressed against rotary cutter 82 to facilitate cutting of sheet P; see paragraph [0064] and fig. 3A).
Sakuma as modified does not explicitly disclose that the recording medium is urged against an outer peripheral surface of the opposed blade.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sakuma to make the urging member urge the recording medium against the opposed blade since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). Sakuma discloses a system in which the urging member (pressing member 83) urges the sheet against rotary cutter 82. Rearranging pressing member 83 so that it is located on shaft 81A would allow pressing member 83 to urge the sheet against the opposed blade.
Regarding claim 15, Sakuma as modified discloses the limitations of claim 14 as described in the rejection above.
Sakuma as modified further discloses wherein the cutting unit further includes a disc-shaped crease formation member (disk 84; see fig. 3A) that is disposed coaxially with the opposed blade (disk 84 is located on shaft 81B, which is where the opposed blade is located; see paragraph [0060] and fig. 3A), and forms a crease along one direction on a cut piece which is moved in the one direction (disk 84 is capable of forming a crease in sheet P via its insertion into groove 87; see paragraph [0062]), the cut piece being produced by cutting the recording medium by the cutting unit (an edge of sheet P is cut off when sheet P is pressed between rotary cutter 82 and pressing member 83; see paragraph [0064]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-20 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 interpretation of the terms “disc-shaped urging member” and “disc-shaped crease formation member” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained because these two terms do not have sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Inclusion of “disc-shaped” is not sufficient structure because it is not clear how being “disc-shaped” allows the structures to perform an urging function or a crease formation function, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20150001782 to Sakuma, drawn to a post-processing device and image forming apparatus.
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 HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights