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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments in the Interview on 6/15/2026 and as filed on 6/24/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 6-8 are 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.
Claim 6 recites “the driving source and the moving mechanism are disposed at the mobile body”, however, claim 1 recites the moving mechanism includes the driving source. It is not clear how the driving source and moving mechanism are separate elements [claim 6] while the moving mechanism includes the driving source [claim 1]. It is not clear if the driving source and moving mechanism are separate elements or part of the same mechanism. For the purposes of this Action, either case will be interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1,2,6,16, as best understood by the Examiner (see ¶2,3 above), are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taguchi et al. USP 8,028,979.
Taguchi discloses, regarding claim 1, A recording-medium processing apparatus, comprising:
a mobile body (5B) that supports a to-be-pressed portion (5A) against which a first end portion of a recording medium that is to undergo a folding process is pressed, the mobile body allowing the to-be-pressed portion to move relative to the mobile body; and
a moving mechanism that includes a driving source (5C), and moves the to-be-pressed portion relative to the mobile body (see at least fig.1,2; C5/L21-33).
Regarding claim 2, further comprising: a processor configured to:
set a distance of movement of the to-be-pressed portion,
wherein the processor is configured to set the distance of movement based on a quantity of displacement of a fold formed in a processed recording medium that is the recording medium subjected to the folding process after having the first end portion pressed against the to-be-pressed portion (see at least C5/L29-36).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the driving source (5C) and the moving mechanism are disposed at the mobile body (5A) (fig.1,2).
Regarding claim 16, An image forming system (fig.1), comprising:
an image forming apparatus that forms an image on a recording medium; and
a recording-medium processing apparatus that performs a process on the recording medium on which the image is formed by the image forming apparatus,
wherein the recording-medium processing apparatus includes the recording-medium processing apparatus (18) according to claim 1 (see at least C4/L36-39).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al. USP 8,028,979 in view of Iida USP 9,902,586.
Taguchi discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶6 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Iida teaches wherein the processor is configured to: specify the quantity of displacement of the fold based on a captured image obtained by capturing an image of the processed recording medium; and set the distance of movement based on the quantity of displacement of the fold specified based on the captured image (see at least C32/L15-19,60-C33/L8).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the processor to specify the quantity of displacement of the fold based on a captured image obtained by capturing an image of the processed recording medium; and set the distance of movement based on the quantity of displacement of the fold specified based on the captured image, as taught by Iida, in the device of Taguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of printing the images at the correct locations with respect to the folding position (C32/L65-C33/L3).
9. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al. USP 8,028,979 in view of Anezaki USP 10,367,959.
Taguchi discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶6 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
Anezaki teaches wherein the processor is configured to set a distance of movement of the to-be-pressed portion, wherein the processor is configured to: obtain image information serving as information on an image formed on the recording medium; and set the distance of movement of the to-be-pressed portion based on the image information (see at least fig.15,18, C9/L24-37).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the processor to set a distance of movement of the to-be-pressed portion, wherein the processor is configured to: obtain image information serving as information on an image formed on the recording medium; and set the distance of movement of the to-be-pressed portion based on the image information, as taught by Anezaki, in the device of Taguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of obtaining a high quality booklet and preventing wasted sample output (C9/L37-42).
10. Claims 7,8, as best understood by the Examiner (see ¶2,3 above), are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al. USP 8,028,979 in view of Matsumoto USP 9,302,879.
Taguchi discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶6 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claims 7,8.
Matsumoto teaches [regarding claim 7] wherein the mobile body (443) includes an actuator (L1) that operates by receiving a driving force from the driving source (M1) to touch the recording medium, and wherein the driving force is fed to both of the to-be-pressed portion and the actuator from the driving source used in common (see at least fig.3A, C6/L43-54).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the mobile body with an actuator that operates by receiving a driving force from the driving source to touch the recording medium, and wherein the driving force is fed to both of the to-be-pressed portion and the actuator from the driving source used in common, as taught by Matsumoto, in the device of Taguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a compact device for simpler repair and replacement for a user.
Regarding claim 8, Taguchi, as modified by Matsumoto, does not expressly disclose the moving mechanism including a disconnector that disconnect the driving force transmitted from the driving source toward the to-be-pressed portion; however, Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the moving mechanism with a disconnector that disconnects the driving force transmitted from the driving source toward the to-be-pressed portion, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the use of clutches to disconnect driving force from a driving source is a well known feature in the art. An advantage of adding a disconnector would be to simplify the apparatus for operation without having to add a second motor or other devices.
11. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al. USP 8,028,979 in view of Yamada USP 6,343,785.
Taguchi discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶6 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 9.
Yamada teaches the to-be-pressed portion includes a first edge-side portion (19c) against which a first edge portion of the first end portion of the recording medium in a longitudinal direction is pressed, and a second edge-side portion (19d) against which a second edge portion of the first end portion of the recording medium in the longitudinal direction is pressed, and wherein the moving mechanism moves the to-be-pressed portion to change a positional relationship between the first edge-side portion and the second edge-side portion in a direction crossing the longitudinal direction (see at least fig.4, C4/L16-24).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the to-be-pressed portion with a first edge-side portion (19c) against which a first edge portion of the first end portion of the recording medium in a longitudinal direction is pressed, and a second edge-side portion (19d) against which a second edge portion of the first end portion of the recording medium in the longitudinal direction is pressed, and wherein the moving mechanism moves the to-be-pressed portion to change a positional relationship between the first edge-side portion and the second edge-side portion in a direction crossing the longitudinal direction, as taught by Yamada, in the device of Taguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing skew by maintaining rear alignment of the recording medium regardless of the position of a postprocessor.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 5,17 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
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE A. NICHOLSON III whose telephone number is (571)272-5487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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 C 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.
/LESLIE A NICHOLSON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 7/8/2026
Prosecution Insights