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 § 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.
2. Claims 1-6, 11-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0097604 (Nakamura) (hereinafter “Nakamura”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-7A show a medium transport device comprising:
a first transporter (200) configured to transport a medium (P) by nipping the medium along with rotation;
a second transporter (300) configured to transport the medium (P) and disposed on an upstream side of the first transporter (200) in a transport direction of the medium (P);
a first adjuster (including 220 and 320) configured to adjust a position of the medium (P) in a width direction by moving the first transporter (200) and the second transporter (300) in the width direction of the medium (P) with the medium (P) nipped by the first transporter (200) and the second transporter (300); and
a second adjuster (including 230 and 330) configured to adjust a contact pressure of the first transporter (200) for the medium (P) and a contact pressure of the second transporter (300) for the medium (P) based on resistance caused when the medium (P) is moved in the width direction and a type of the medium (see numbered paragraphs [0007], [0023], [0060] and [0062]). See also Fig. 6A and numbered paragraphs [0064] – [0067]. Nip pressure is maintained at second transporter (300), while, at the same time, nip pressure is reduced at first transporter (200) based upon conveyance of normal thickness sheets having reduced sliding friction (i.e., reduced resistance).
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 1-7A show a transport path (path in Fig. 6A) disposed between the first transporter (200) and the second transporter (300), configured such that the medium (P) is transported, and having a curved shape in the transport direction.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Figs. 1-7A show that the contact pressure of either one of the first transporter (200) and the second transporter (300) having a larger movement amount is set higher than the contact pressure of the other one of the first transporter (200) and the second transporter (300) having a smaller movement amount, comparing an amount of movement of the medium (P) in the width direction by the first transporter (200) due to the resistance and an amount of movement of the medium (P) in the width direction by the second transporter (300) due to the resistance. See, e.g., Fig. 7A where all movement is done by first transporter (200) and has contact pressure, while no movement is done by second transporter (300) and no contact pressure is applied.
Regarding claim 4, Figs. 1-7A show that the contact pressure of the first transporter (200) can be set lower than the contact pressure of the second transporter (300). See also numbered paragraph [0066].
Regarding claim 5, Figs. 1-7A show that the second adjuster (300) is configured to adjust the contact pressures during an operation of moving the medium in the width direction.
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 1-7A show that the second adjuster (including 230 and 330) is configured to adjust the contact pressures over an entire operation of transporting the medium.
Regarding claims 11-16, Figs. 1-7A show an image forming apparatus comprising:
the medium transport device according to claims 1-7, respectively, configured to transport a medium (P); and
an image former (10) configured to form an image on the medium (P).
Regarding claim 18, Figs. 1-7A show that the first transporter (200) is disposed on an upstream side of a transfer area (at 34) where the image is transferred onto the medium (P).
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.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of European Publication No. 2169531 (hereinafter “EP’531”). With regard to claim 10, Nakamura teaches that long sheets (A4) and shorter sheets (A3) are conveyed in the Nakamura apparatus. See, e.g., numbered paragraph [0030]. A4 sheets are inherently longer than A3 sheets. Numbered paragraphs [0064] – [0067] of Nakamura also explain that when normal thickness sheets (i.e., thin sheets) are conveyed, second rocking correction is not performed, but when thick sheets are conveyed, second rocking correction is performed and nip pressure is reduced. In other words, Nakamura teaches the relationship between thin sheets having greater nip pressure than thick sheets, but Nakamura does not explicitly state whether or not A4 sheets or A3 sheets are thick sheets or thin sheets.
EP’531 teaches that it is common in the art to utilize A4 paper in a thin sheet format and A3 paper in a thick sheet format in a medium transport device (image forming apparatus in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the Nakamura apparatus with A4 sheets that are long and thin and A3 sheets that are thick and shorter than the A4 sheets, because EP’531 shows that thin A4 sheets and thick A3 sheets are commonly used in image forming apparatuses similar to that of Nakamura. Providing Nakamura apparatus with thin long A4 sheets and thick short A3 sheets results in the contact pressure for a medium (thin A4 long sheet) having a length larger than a predetermined length (larger length than thick A3 length sheet) being higher than the contact pressure for a medium (thick A3 short sheet) having a length smaller than the predetermined length, as claimed.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues
However, Nakamura does not disclose or suggest moving the registration rollers themselves, nor moving multiple transporters together in the width direction while the medium is nipped thereby. Rather, Nakamura's skew correction relies on a rocking motion of selected downstream rollers and rotational movement of the paper about a fixed registration roller position.
In contrast, Claim 1 expressly recites "moving the first transporter and the second transporter in the width direction of the medium with the medium nipped by the first transporter and the second transporter". This requires a translational movement of the transporters themselves in the width direction, not a rocking operation that constitutes an angular motion about a fulcrum. Accordingly, Nakamura merely discloses rocking individual rollers to induce rotation of the paper, and fails to teach or suggest the claimed configuration in which plural transporters are moved in the width direction together while nipping the medium, as required by Claim 1.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. Numbered paragraph [0059] of Nakamura states
“[0059] On the other hand, when the controller 50 determines in step S140 that the paper P has deviated to the side, the processing proceeds to step S150. It is to be noted that in the present embodiment, the paper P deviates from the reference end position to a back side (of a paper surface of, for example, FIGS. 6A to 6C) in the paper width direction D2. In step S150, the controller 50 effects the first rocking correction by means of the pair of registration rollers 200 according to the obtained deviation amount of the paper P. Specifically, the controller 50 generates rocking command values based on the deviation amount of the paper P and supplies the rocking command values to the registration roller rocking motor 222, the loop roller rocking motor 262, and the conveying roller rocking motor 322, respectively. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 6A. The pair of registration rollers 200, the pair of loop rollers 240, and the pair of ADU conveying rollers 300 rock the paper P toward a front side in the paper width direction D2 while holding the paper P.”
In other words, the first and second transporters (200 and 300) move together with the sheet in the width direction while holding (nipping) it. As such, the first transporter (200) and second transporter (300) move the sheet in the width direction while nipping it, as claimed.
Next, applicant argues
2. Next, Nakamura's control of nip pressure is merely an auxiliary, preset adjustment performed during the rocking skew correction process. The controller only temporarily changes the nip pressure of the registration rollers 200 when executing the second rocking correction, so as to facilitate rotational movement of the paper.
However, Nakamura fails to teach or suggest "adjust[ing] a contact pressure of the first transporter for the medium and a contact pressure of the second transporter for the medium based on resistance caused when the medium is moved in the width direction", as expressly recited in Claim 1. In particular, Nakamura fails to teach or suggest dynamically controlling the contact pressure of the rollers in response to resistance generated during width-direction movement of the medium. Accordingly, Nakamura's nip pressure control is not related to resistance caused by width-direction movement of the medium, but merely serves as a supportive measure for rocking-based rotational correction, and therefore fails to teach or suggest the pressure adjustment mechanism, as required by Claim 1.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dynamically controlling the contact pressure of the rollers in response to resistance generated during width-direction movement of the medium) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 merely requires “a second adjuster configured to adjust a contact pressure of the first transporter for the medium and a contact pressure of the second transporter for the medium based on resistance caused when the medium is moved in the width direction and a type of the medium.” Any amount of adjustment meets this claim limitation. Nakamura teaches a second adjuster (including 230 and 330) configured to adjust a contact pressure of the first transporter (200) for the medium (P) and a contact pressure of the second transporter (300) for the medium (P) based on resistance caused when the medium (P) is moved in the width direction and a type of medium (see numbered paragraphs [0007], [0023], [0060] and [0062]). See, e.g., Fig. 6A and numbered paragraphs [0064] – [0067]. Nip pressure is maintained at second transporter (300), while, at the same time, nip pressure is reduced at first transporter (200) based upon conveyance of normal thickness sheets having reduced sliding friction (i.e., reduced resistance).
Next, applicant argues
Nakamura merely discloses using the thickness or type of the paper as a condition for determining whether to execute the second rocking correction, rather than as a basis for adjusting contact pressure. Accordingly, Nakamura fails to teach or suggest "adjust[ing] a contact pressure of the first transporter for the medium and a contact pressure of the second transporter for the medium based on ... a type of the medium", as expressly recited in Claim 1.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. Numbered paragraph [0023] states
[0023] The operation display 70 includes a touch panel incorporating a display unit and an input unit, and a plurality of operation keys including a start key and a determination key in the vicinity of the touch panel. This operation display 70 displays an operation menu screen and others and accepts, for example, image forming conditions related to a paper type such as thick paper that are input through touch operation of the operation menu screen or operation of the operation keys.
Then, numbered paragraph [0060] states
[0060] Here, sliding friction is caused between the paper P and the guide plate in the bent path R2 of the ADU 60, so that the rear end of the paper P is rocked by a reduced amount as compared to the leading end of the paper P. Consequently, the paper P can be on the rocking skew in a direction of arrow D3. The rocking skew of the paper P occurs prominently especially when the thick paper is used as the paper P. For this reason, in the present embodiment, additional registration rocking correction (hereinafter referred to as second rocking correction) is performed for correcting the skew of the paper P after the first rocking correction of step S150.
Then, numbered paragraphs [0066] – [0067] state
[0066] It is to be noted that when effecting the second rocking correction, the controller 50 may control the registration roller pressing/releasing motor 232 so that the pair of registration rollers 200 has a reduced nip pressure compared with, for example, its normal nip pressure during the first rocking correction. Thus, the paper P held by the pair of registration rollers 200 can be rocked (rotated) smoothly by the pair of loop rollers 240 and the pair of ADU conveying rollers 300.
[0067] It is also to be noted that when effecting the second rocking correction, the controller 50 may control the registration roller pressing/releasing motor 232 so that the pair of registration rollers 200 has a reduced nip pressure on one side as compared with its nip pressure on the other side. In this case, the nip pressure of the pair of registration rollers 200 is preferably higher on the side close to the deviation detecting sensor 280. A portion where the nip pressure of the pair of registration rollers 200 is higher thus serves as a fulcrum of rotation when the pair of loop rollers 240 and the pair of ADU conveying rollers 300 are rocked, whereby the skew of the paper P can be effectively corrected.
Numbered paragraphs [0023], [0060], and [0066] – [0067] explicitly teach that sheet type (e.g., thick sheet) is input by a user and this sheet type determines how nip pressure (contact pressure) int the first and second transporters (200 and 300, respectively) is adjusted according to the sheet type. Sheet contact pressure is lowered in the first transporter (200) and maintained in the second transporter (300) based upon whether the sheet type is a thick sheet or not. All of the limitations of claim 1 are met by Nakamura.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 8-9 and 19-20 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
6. 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.
7. 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