CTFR 18/418,556 CTFR 84150 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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. It is noted that the objection to the title is withdrawn in view of the amendments. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a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. 07-30-05 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: “detection section” in claim 1. 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. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: detection section – paragraph 19 If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murase (US 2022/0377192) in view of Shiota (US 2019/0037092) . Regarding Claim 1, Murase teaches a reading device (Paragraph 2), comprising: a placement section configured to hold a plurality of documents (Element 71 and paragraph 29, wherein a plurality of documents can be placed on the document setting portion); a feed roller configured to feed the documents from the placement section (Element 72 and paragraph 29, wherein the documents are fed from the document setting portion); a separation section configured to separate the documents fed by the feed roller (Paragraph 29, wherein the conveying rollers are in a pair that would move one document at a time, therefore would correspond to the separation section); a reading section configured to scan the documents being transported in a transport direction (Paragraphs 26 and 29 and Element 20, wherein there is a reading unit to read the documents); a control section configured to determine a transport error of the documents (Element 6 and paragraphs 55 and 64, wherein the inclination is detected, which corresponds to a transport error) by performing a judgment that a particular document is skewed based on an image of the particular document scanned by the reading section (Paragraphs 93-95, wherein the inclination is corrected based on the image data. The angle is determined based on the sheet edge being displaced in the nip, paragraph 50). Murase does not teach determining a transport error occurs when both 1)the control section determines that the particular document is skewed and 2) the detection section detects one or more documents remaining in the placement section; and in response to the transport error, causing the transport of documents to end leaving the one or more remaining documents in the placement section. Shiota teaches determining a transport error occurs when both 1)the control section determines that the particular document is skewed and 2) the detection section detects one or more documents remaining in the placement section (Paragraphs 78 and 79, wherein the sheets and skew are detected to determine if the sheet needs to be stopped); and in response to the transport error, causing the transport of documents to end leaving the one or more remaining documents in the placement section (Paragraphs 78 and 79, wherein feeding is stopped when the error is detected). Murase and Shiota are combinable because they both deal with correcting skew in scanning of documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Murase with the teachings of Shiota for the purpose of more appropriately detecting the transport state of the document (Shiota: Paragraph 6). Regarding Claim 2, Murase further teaches wherein the control section performs the judgment that a particular document is skewed based on an image of a tip end region of the particular document scanned by the reading section (Paragraphs 93-95, wherein the inclination is corrected based on the image data. The angle is determined based on the sheet edge being displaced in the nip, paragraph 50). Regarding Claim 3, Murase further teaches wherein the control section is configured to calculate, based on the image of the tip end region of the particular document, a tilt angle of the particular document with respect to a scanning direction and a tip end distance in the scanning direction from the side edge portion of the particular document to the nip region (Paragraphs 93-95, wherein the angle of inclination is corrected based on the image data. The angle is determined based on the sheet edge being displaced in the nip, paragraph 50) and perform the judgment based on the tilt angle and the tip end distance (Paragraphs 93-95, wherein the inclination is corrected based on the image data. The angle is determined based on the sheet edge being displaced in the nip, paragraph 50). Regarding Claim 4, Murase further teaches wherein the control section is configured to correct the tilt angle using an amount by which the tilt angle of the particular document is estimated to change during transportation (Paragraphs 93-95, wherein the angle of inclination is corrected based on the image data. The angle is determined based on the sheet edge being displaced in the nip, paragraph 50). Regarding Claim 7, Murase further teaches the control section is configured to obtain a position of a rear end of the particular document based on an image scanned by the reading section (Paragraph 63, wherein the region corresponding to the end of the document is detected) and perform the judgment that the preceding document is skewed based on the position of the rear end of the particular document (Paragraphs 63 and 64, wherein the angle of inclination is adjusted to correct the skew accordingly). Regarding Claim 8, Murase further teaches the control section is configured to obtain a width of the particular document from an image of the preceding document scanned by the reading section and, when the width is determined to be less than or equal to a threshold value, the control section performs the judgment that the particular document is skewed (Paragraph 107, wherein the edge is determined of the document based on the shadow and the skew is adjusted according to the threshold). Regarding Claim 9, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above. Regarding Claim 10, Murase teaches a reading device (Paragraph 2), comprising: a placement section on which a plurality of documents is placed (Element 71 and paragraph 29, wherein a plurality of documents can be placed on the document setting portion); a feed roller that feeds the documents from the placement section (Element 72 and paragraph 29, wherein the documents are fed from the document setting portion); a separation section that separates the documents being fed by the feed roller (Paragraph 29, wherein the conveying rollers are in a pair that would move one document at a time, therefore would correspond to the separation section); a reading section that scans the documents being transported in a transport direction (Paragraphs 26 and 29 and Element 20, wherein there is a reading unit to read the documents); a control section that determines a transport error of the documents (Element 6 and paragraphs 55 and 64, wherein the inclination is detected, which corresponds to a transport error); and wherein when assuming that a document fed first is a preceding document and that a document fed after the preceding document is a subsequent document, the control section performs a skew judgment based on an image of a tip end region of the preceding document scanned by the reading section, wherein the image of a top end region does not include the rear end of the preceding document, and the size of the image of the tip end region in the transport direction is smaller than that of the preceding document (Paragraphs 93-95, wherein the inclination is corrected based on the image data. The angle is determined based on the sheet edge being displaced in the nip, paragraph 50) and, the skew judgment determining whether a side edge portion of the preceding document is displaced into a nip region sandwiched between the feed roller and the separation section (Paragraphs 93-95, wherein the inclination is corrected based on the image data. The angle is determined based on the sheet edge being displaced in the nip, paragraph 50). Murase does not teach a detection section that detects the documents that are placed on the placement section; and determines a transport error when the side edge portion of the preceding document is determined to be displaced into the nip region and also the detection section detects the subsequent document. Shiota teaches a detection section that detects the documents that are placed on the placement section (Paragraphs 63 and 64, wherein the documents on the document tray are detected); and determines a transport error when the side edge portion of the preceding document is determined to be displaced into the nip region and also the detection section detects the subsequent document (Paragraphs 78 and 79, wherein the sheets and skew are detected to determine if the sheet needs to be stopped); and in response to the transport error, causing the transport of documents to end leaving the one or more remaining documents in the placement section (Paragraphs 78 and 79, wherein feeding is stopped when the error is detected). Murase and Shiota are combinable because they both deal with correcting skew in scanning of documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Murase with the teachings of Shiota for the purpose of more appropriately detecting the transport state of the document (Shiota: Paragraph 6). Regarding Claim 11, Murase further teaches wherein the control section calculates, based on the image of the tip end region of the preceding document, a tilt angle of the preceding document with respect to a scanning direction and a tip end distance in the scanning direction from the side edge portion of the preceding document to the nip region (Paragraphs 93-95, wherein the angle of inclination is corrected based on the image data. The angle is determined based on the sheet edge being displaced in the nip, paragraph 50) and performs the skew judgment based on the tilt angle and the tip end distance (Paragraphs 93-95, wherein the inclination is corrected based on the image data. The angle is determined based on the sheet edge being displaced in the nip, paragraph 50). Regarding Claim 12, Murase further teaches wherein the control section corrects the tilt angle using an amount by which the tilt angle of the preceding document is estimated to changes during transportation (Paragraphs 93-95, wherein the angle of inclination is corrected based on the image data. The angle is determined based on the sheet edge being displaced in the nip, paragraph 50). Regarding Claim 15, Murase further teaches the control section obtains a position of a rear end of the preceding document based on an image scanned by the reading section (Paragraph 63, wherein the region corresponding to the end of the document is detected) and performs the skew judgment based on the position of the rear end of the preceding document (Paragraphs 63 and 64, wherein the angle of inclination is adjusted to correct the skew accordingly). Regarding Claim 16, Murase further teaches the control section obtains a width of the preceding document from an image of the preceding document scanned by the reading section and, when the width is determined to be less than or equal to a threshold value, the control section performs the skew judgment (Paragraph 107, wherein the edge is determined of the document based on the shadow and the skew is adjusted according to the threshold). Regarding Claim 17, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 10 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 6, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murase (US 2022/0377192) in view of Shiota (US 2019/0037092) further in view of Suzuki (US 2012/0314267) . Regarding Claim 5, Murase in view of Shiota does not teach a rear end detection section that is provided between the feed roller and the reading section in the transport direction and that detects a rear end of the document, wherein the control section is configured to obtain a document length, which is a length of the particular document in the transport direction from a tip end to the rear end of the particular document, based on an image of a tip end region of the particular document scanned by the reading section and a detection result of the rear end detection section and perform the judgment based on the document length. Suzuki does teach a rear end detection section that is provided between the feed roller and the reading section in the transport direction and that detects a rear end of the document (Paragraph 73, wherein the length of the document is determined), wherein the control section the control section is configured to obtain a document length, which is a length of the particular document in the transport direction from a tip end to the rear end of the particular document, based on an image of a tip end region of the particular document scanned by the reading section and a detection result of the rear end detection section (Paragraph 73, wherein the length of the document is determined) and perform the judgment based on the document length (Paragraph 141, wherein the skew is corrected taking into account the length). Murase and Suzuki are combinable because they both deal with correcting skew in scanning of documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Murase in view of Shiota with the teachings of Suzuki for the purpose of ensuring proper correction of the skew and avoiding multifeed issues (Suzuki: Paragraphs 139 and 141). Regarding Claim 6, Murase in view of Shiota does not teach a rear end detection section that is provided between the feed roller and the reading section in the transport direction and that detects a rear end of the document, wherein the control section performs the skew judgment at a timing when the rear end detection section detects the rear end of the particular document. Suzuki does teach a rear end detection section that is provided between the feed roller and the reading section in the transport direction and that detects a rear end of the document (Paragraph 73, wherein the length of the document is determined), wherein the control section performs the skew judgment at a timing when the rear end detection section detects the rear end of the particular document (Paragraph 141, wherein the skew is corrected taking into account the length). Murase and Suzuki are combinable because they both deal with correcting skew in scanning of documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Murase in view of Shiota with the teachings of Suzuki for the purpose of ensuring proper correction of the skew and avoiding multifeed issues (Suzuki: Paragraphs 139 and 141). Regarding Claim 13, Murase in view of Shiota does not teach a rear end detection section that is provided between the feed roller and the reading section in the transport direction and that detects a rear end of the document, wherein the control section obtains a document length, which is a length of the preceding document in the transport direction from a tip end to the rear end of the preceding document, based on an image of a tip end region of the preceding document scanned by the reading section and a detection result of the rear end detection section and performs the skew judgment based on the document length. Suzuki does teach a rear end detection section that is provided between the feed roller and the reading section in the transport direction and that detects a rear end of the document (Paragraph 73, wherein the length of the document is determined), wherein the control section obtains a document length, which is a length of the preceding document in the transport direction from a tip end to the rear end of the preceding document, based on an image of a tip end region of the preceding document scanned by the reading section and a detection result of the rear end detection section (Paragraph 73, wherein the length of the document is determined) and performs the skew judgment based on the document length (Paragraph 141, wherein the skew is corrected taking into account the length). Murase and Suzuki are combinable because they both deal with correcting skew in scanning of documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Murase in view of Shiota with the teachings of Suzuki for the purpose of ensuring proper correction of the skew and avoiding multifeed issues (Suzuki: Paragraphs 139 and 141). Regarding Claim 14, Murase in view of Shiota does not teach a rear end detection section that is provided between the feed roller and the reading section in the transport direction and that detects a rear end of the document, wherein the control section performs the skew judgment at a timing when the rear end detection section detects the rear end of the preceding document. Suzuki does teach a rear end detection section that is provided between the feed roller and the reading section in the transport direction and that detects a rear end of the document (Paragraph 73, wherein the length of the document is determined), wherein the control section performs the skew judgment at a timing when the rear end detection section detects the rear end of the preceding document (Paragraph 141, wherein the skew is corrected taking into account the length). Murase and Suzuki are combinable because they both deal with correcting skew in scanning of documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Murase in view of Shiota with the teachings of Suzuki for the purpose of ensuring proper correction of the skew and avoiding multifeed issues (Suzuki: Paragraphs 139 and 141). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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. /NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 2 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 3 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 4 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 5 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 6 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 7 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 8 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 9 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 10 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 11 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 12 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 14 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 15 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 16 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 17 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/418,556 Page 18 Art Unit: 2699
Prosecution Insights