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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 and 18-20 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 1 recites the limitation "a motor" in lines 16 and 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since there are two recitations. It is unclear if the two recitations of motor are intended to be the same motor or if the intention is to recite two different motors or, in the instance of the “not driven by a motor”, if it is intended to not be driven by any motor. Therefore the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. The interpretation used below is that the limitation is met if the pressing component is not driven at a point in time.
Claims 2-8 and 18-20 depend from claim 1 and inherit this issue therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakeno et al. (JP 3918458 B2) in view of Kaneko et al. (JP 3918545 B2; hereinafter Kaneko2).
As to claim 1, Kaneko et al. teaches a recording-medium-processing apparatus (figure 7) comprising:
an advancing member (661) configured to push a recording-medium batch by advancing toward a portion of the recording-medium batch (figure 7), the recording-medium batch (S) having a first end and a second end (figure 7), the portion of the recording-medium batch being located between the first end and the second end (figure 7);
a pressing component (67) configured to press the recording-medium batch that is traveling with a pushed portion of the recording-medium batch leading a movement of the recording- medium batch (figure 7), the pushed portion being a portion where the recording-medium batch is being pushed by the advancing member (figure 7); and
a transporting component (68) located on a downstream side from the pressing component in a direction of travel of the recording-medium batch (figure 7) and configured to transport toward the downstream side the recording-medium batch that is being pressed by the pressing component (figure 5).
Kakeno et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a motor is configured to drive the transporting component, and the pressing component is not driven by a motor; or
a speed of transport of the recording-medium batch by the transporting component in the direction of travel is greater than a speed of transport of the recording- medium batch by the pressing component in the direction of travel.
Kakeno2 teaches wherein a motor is configured to drive the transporting component, and the pressing component is not driven by a motor (paragraphs [0071]-[0072], where the drive to the pressing component is turned off, this corresponds to the description of the force being ineffective in the instant disclosure at paragraphs [0032]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kakeno et al. to have wherein a motor is configured to drive the transporting component, and the pressing component is not driven by a motor as taught by Kakeno2 because it prevents misalignment of large sheet bundles (paragraphs [0071]-[0072]).
As to claim 2, Kakeno et al. as modified teaches wherein a force that moves the recording-medium batch toward the downstream side in the direction of travel of the recording-medium batch is ineffective for the pressing component with respect to the recording-medium batch (paragraphs [0071]-[0072] of Kakeno2), and
wherein the pressing component is incapable of applying to the recording-medium batch the force that moves the recording-medium batch toward the downstream side in the direction of travel of the recording-medium batch (paragraphs [0071]-[0072] of Kakeno2).
As to claim 3, Kakeno et al. as modified teaches wherein the pressing component includes a pair of rotatable members that are in pressure contact with each other (67, figure 7 of Kakeno et al.), and
wherein the pair of rotatable members are each configured to rotate by receiving a force from the recording-medium batch and are each incapable of applying to the recording-medium batch the force that moves the recording-medium batch toward the downstream side in the direction of travel of the recording-medium batch (paragraphs [0071]-[0072] of Kakeno2).
As to claim 4, Kakeno et al. as modified (citations to Kakeno et al. unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein the pressing component has a function of transporting the recording-medium batch (figures 12-14), and
wherein the speed of transport of the recording-medium batch by the transporting component in the direction of travel is greater than the speed of transport of the recording- medium batch by the pressing component in the direction of travel (figures 12-14 of Kakeno et al., where modified to have the pressing component 67 is not powered as in paragraphs [0071]-[0072] of Kakeno2).
As to claim 5, Kakeno et al. as modified teaches wherein the transporting component starts to transport the recording-medium batch with the recording-medium batch being pressed by the pressing component (figure 5).
As to claim 6, Kakeno et al. as modified (citations to Kakeno et al. unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein the transporting component (68) transports the recording-medium batch while pressing the recording-medium batch (figures 5 and 13-14), and
wherein a pressing force applied from the pressing component to the recording-medium batch is greater than a pressing force applied from the transporting component to the recording-medium batch (paragraphs [0110]-[0118], where the springs bias the pressing component 67 further toward the recording-medium batch).
As to claim 7, Kakeno et al. teaches wherein a pressing force applied from the pressing component to the recording-medium batch is reduced after the transporting component starts to transport the recording-medium batch (figure 14).
As to claim 8, Kakeno et al. as modified teaches wherein the advancing member advances in such a manner as to reach the transporting component (figures 12-14 of Kakeno et al. and paragraphs [0071]-[0072] of Kakeno2, where in order for the sheet to be conveyed without conveying force from 67 one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to ensure the recording-medium batch would be further conveyed as originally desired).
As to claim 18, Kakeno et al. as modified (citations to Kakeno et al. unless otherwise indicated) teaches an image forming system (figure 1) comprising:
an image forming apparatus (A) configured to form an image on a recording medium (figure 1); and
the recording-medium-processing apparatus (60) according to claim 1 (as noted above in detail for claim 1), which is configured to process the recording medium having the image formed by the image forming apparatus (figure 1).
As to claim 19, Kakeno et al. as modified (citations to Kakeno et al. unless otherwise indicated) teaches an image forming system (figure 1) comprising:
an image forming apparatus (A) configured to form an image on a recording medium (figure 1); and
the recording-medium-processing apparatus (60) according to claim 2 (as noted above in detail for claim 2), which is configured to process the recording medium having the image formed by the image forming apparatus (figure 1).
As to claim 20, Kakeno et al. as modified (citations to Kakeno et al. unless otherwise indicated) teaches an image forming system (figure 1) comprising:
an image forming apparatus (A) configured to form an image on a recording medium (figure 1); and
the recording-medium-processing apparatus (60) according to claim 3 (as noted above in detail for claim 3), which is configured to process the recording medium having the image formed by the image forming apparatus (figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-17 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As noted above in detail, it is considered that the newly added limitations of claim 1 are unclear and taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation by the above combination.
Conclusion
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 JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights