DETAILED ACTION
The indicated allowability of claim 8 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Sakamoto et al. US 2019/0127163 A1. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
Claims 8, 9, 11,12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakamoto et al. US 2019/0127163 A1 (hereinafter “Sakamoto”).
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto discloses a method for taking out paper sheets one-by-one from a paper sheet storage container (121), the method comprising:
blowing air into the paper sheet storage container from the side of or below an uppermost paper sheet in a stack of paper sheets within the paper sheet storage container causing at least a portion of the uppermost paper sheet to spread away from an adjacent paper sheet therebelow (refer to FIG. 9);
while the uppermost paper sheet is in a spread state, suctioning an upper surface of the uppermost paper sheet using a suction mechanism (112) thereby capturing the uppermost paper sheet from the paper sheet storage container; and
when one or a few paper sheets remain, blowing air into the paper sheet storage container from the side of an uppermost paper sheet against a flow path regulating portion (135).
Regarding claim 9 and 17, further comprising blowing air into the paper sheet storage container from the side of or below an uppermost paper sheet within the paper sheet storage container causing a center portion of the uppermost paper sheet to spread from an adjacent paper sheet therebelow (refer to 100C1 in FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 11, further comprising retaining one or more edges (by 135) of the uppermost paper sheet to prevent, due to the blowing of the air into the paper sheet storage container, the uppermost paper sheet from exiting the paper sheet storage container before being captured by the suction mechanism.
Regarding claim 12, refer to rejection to claim 1 and 11, Sakamoto discloses a method for taking out paper sheets one-by-one from a paper sheet storage container, the method comprising:
while holding at least an end portion of an uppermost paper sheet, blowing air from the side of or below an uppermost paper sheet creating a space between a raised portion of the uppermost paper sheet and a neighboring paper sheet;
capturing the uppermost paper sheet by suctioning the raised portion of the upper surface of the paper sheet via a suction mechanism; and
when one or a few paper sheets remain, blowing air into the paper sheet storage container from the side of an uppermost paper sheet against a flow path regulating portion.
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.
Claims 10, 13-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Matsui US 5,180,156 (hereinafter “Matsui”).
Regarding claims 10, 13-16, Sakamoto teaches the claimed invention except lifting the suction mechanism to remove the captured uppermost paper sheet from the paper sheet storage container (claims 13 requires lowering the suction mechanism.
Matsui teaches a known alternative suction mechanism including movable suction pad that is lowered and lifted to separate a topmost sheet from a stack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Sakamoto’s suction mechanism with suction pad arrangement of Matsui as a known alternative or equivalent suction mechanism that achieve the predictable result of separating a topmost sheet from stack.
Regarding claim 18, Sakamoto further comprising blowing air into the paper sheet storage container from the side of or below an uppermost paper sheet within the paper sheet storage container causing a center portion of the uppermost paper sheet to spread from an adjacent paper sheet therebelow (refer to 100C1 in FIG. 11).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Matsui teaches stopping the lowering of the suction mechanism and lifting the suction mechanism responsive to (i) a pressure in the suction mechanism becoming less than a predetermined value or (ii) an amount of decrease in the pressure in the suction mechanism becoming greater than a predetermined value.
Matsui to use a conventional suction detector (74) to determine whether a suction mechanism (50) has attracted and held a sheet. If the detector determines the sheet is attracted, then displacement (lowering) of the suction mechanism is stopped and then lifted upwards to separate a sheet from a stack.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Matsui, and in view of Suya et al. US 5,257,776 (hereinafter “Suya”).
Regarding claims 21-22, Sakamoto in view of Matsui fails to teach comprising lowering a tip of the suction mechanism no farther than a position above, and not in contact with, an upper surface of the uppermost paper sheet.
Suya teaches a suction mechanism (50, refer to FIG. 4b) that is positioned, without contact, above a sheet and vacuum developed in the suction mechanism attracts and flexes a sheet thereby enhancing separation of a topmost sheet from a stack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sakamoto in view of Matsui to lower a tip of the suction mechanism no farther than a position above, and not in contact, with an upper surface of the uppermost paper sheet as taught by Suya in order to flex and attract a single sheet from a stack.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-29 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8 and 12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3094. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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 on 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.
/LUIS A GONZALEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653