DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tateishi et al (US Pat No 11,868,078).
Regarding claim 1, Tateishi discloses a swing controller comprising:
a swing member (74) including a swing shaft (72a) on which the swing member swings and a contact portion (P2 of 74a);
a spring including:
a rotation support shaft (75a) on which the torsion coil spring rotates, the rotation support shaft being disposed at a position different from a position of the swing shaft;
a fixed first arm (101); and
a second arm (75) on which the contact portion slides,
wherein the spring applies a force to the swing member (via arm),
and wherein the swing member swings by a medium contacting the swing member or a roller supported by the swing member in a predetermined direction which is a direction opposite to a direction in which the force is applied by the spring (e.g. in a case where a sheet or multiple sheets are placed under the arm while it’s in the state shown in figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Tateishi discloses the swing member swings by the medium in the predetermined direction, a reaction force in a direction opposite to the predetermined direction is applied to the swing member by a friction force between the contact portion and the second arm (e.g. via the contact point moving between the arm and swing member).
Regarding claim 7, Tateishi discloses the spring is a torsion coil spring.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateishi et al in view of Yamaguchi et al (US Pat No 8,781,388).
Regarding claim 2, Tateishi discloses a feed roller (72) to feed a medium, and a separation roller (73) disposed opposed the feed roller. Tateishi fails to disclose wherein the swing member supports the separation roller to swing the separation roller away from the feed roller when the swing member swings in the predetermined direction. However, Yamaguchi discloses a similar conveyance device including a feed roller (25U), separation roller (25D), wherein the separation roller is mounted on a swing member (22c) to swing away from the feed roller (shown between figures 3A and 3B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Tateishi with the teachings of Yamaguchi to achieve the predictable result of having a biased separation roller ensuring sheets are fed one by one.
Regarding claim 4, Tateishi discloses an elastic member disposed separate from the torsion coil spring, the elastic member applying a force to the swing member in the direction opposite to the predetermined direction (e.g. disclosed arm urging spring, see column 9, lines 9-24).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateishi et al in view of Yamaguchi et al, further in view of Kawarago et al (US Pat No 10,329,106).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that the combination fails to disclose circuitry for the separation roller. However, Kawarago discloses a similar conveyance device including circuitry (fig. 1) configured to: determine a rotation direction of the separation roller (via code wheel); and stop the separation roller from rotating based on a frequency of changes in the rotation direction of the separation roller (shown in figure 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination with the teachings of Kawarago to achieve the predictable result of using control signals to better separate sheets one by one.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art on record discloses or suggests each and every element of the applicant’s claimed invention including the features of claims 1, 2 and 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the claim amendment of claim 1 overcomes the rejection of record, as noted above the prior art is capable of performing the recited function. As noted in MPEP 2114, the functional limitation need not be taught by merely capable of being performed by the prior art (as noted in the rejection above).
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 Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619