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 .
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.
Specification
JUMBO CASE - The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
TITLE - The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
ABSTRACT - The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it merely consists of a single run-on sentence without regard for proper grammatical form. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
the correcting section selectively executing the first operation and the second operation, as recited in claim 6
the first operation and the second operation selected according to a type of recording medium as recited in claim 7
the first operation and the second operation selected according to which of a first fixing device and a second fixing device fixes an image on the recording medium, as recited in claim 8
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim Interpretation
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.
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: a loading section, a supporting section, a correcting section introduced in claims 1, 2, and 3; a folding section in claim 4; a first fixing device, a second fixing device in claim 8; an image forming section in claims 9-16. Every term that is referred to as a “device”, “part”, “section”, “member”, “unit”, or “portion” to execute a function without sufficient structure, is being considered a generic placeholder reciting a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
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 § 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 6-8 and 14-16 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. The term “along” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “along” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination over prior art, this limitation is interpreted as best construed.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: means or structure to fix an image on the recording medium with a first fixing device or a second fixing device.
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(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2009/0127764 to Kamiya.
Kamiya teaches:
(claim 1) A post-processing device (500, Fig.1) comprising:
a loading section (803, Fig.1) that has a loading surface (15, Fig.3) directed obliquely upward and in which a recording medium (P1) is loaded on the loading surface in a state where one end of the recording medium is directed downward;
a supporting section (805, Fig.3) that supports the one end of the recording medium loaded on the loading surface; and
a correcting section (12, Fig.3) that has a facing surface (12a) facing toward the loading surface and that corrects deflection of the recording medium by coming into contact with the recording medium in a posture in which a lower end portion of the facing surface approaches closer to the loading surface than an upper end portion from a side of the recording medium, which is loaded on the loading surface, opposite to the loading surface and by thereafter coming into contact with the recording medium while moving such that the upper end portion approaches the loading surface in a state where the lower end portion is in contact with the recording medium (Fig.6A-7B).
(claim 2) A post-processing device comprising: a loading section (803, Fig.1) that has a loading surface (15, Fig.3) directed obliquely upward and in which a recording medium (P1) is loaded on the loading surface in a state where one end of the recording medium is directed downward; a supporting section (805) that supports the one end of the recording medium loaded on the loading surface; and a correcting section (12) that corrects deflection of the recording medium by coming into contact with a first part of the recording medium from a side of the recording medium, which is loaded on the loading surface, opposite to the loading surface and by thereafter coming into contact with a second part above the first part of the recording medium in a state of being in contact with the first part (Fig.6A-7B).
(claim 3) A post-processing device comprising: a loading section (803, Fig.1) that has a loading surface (15, Fig.3) directed obliquely upward and in which a recording medium (P1) is loaded on the loading surface in a state where one end of the recording medium is directed downward; a supporting section (805) that supports the one end of the recording medium loaded on the loading surface; and a correcting section (12) that corrects deflection of the recording medium by coming into contact with a part of the recording medium from a side of the recording medium, which is loaded on the loading surface, opposite to the loading surface and by thereafter coming into contact with the recording medium such that an area of the contact with the recording medium increases upward from the part (Fig.6A-7B).
(claim 4) The post-processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a folding section (800, Fig.1) that folds the recording medium by pushing an intermediate part (830) in an up-down direction of the recording medium in a state where the correcting section is in contact with the recording medium loaded on the loading surface [0059].
(claim 6) The post-processing device according to claim 1, wherein the correcting section is able to selectively execute a first operation of correcting deflection of the recording medium (of large size) by coming into contact with the recording medium in a posture in which the lower end portion of the facing surface approaches closer to the loading surface than the upper end portion from the side of the recording medium, which is loaded on the loading surface, opposite to the loading surface and by thereafter coming into contact with the recording medium while moving such that the upper end portion approaches the loading surface in a state where the lower end portion is in contact with the recording medium, and a second operation of correcting deflection of the recording medium (of small size) by coming into contact with the recording medium while being displaced upward in a posture, in which the facing surface is along the loading surface, from the side of the recording medium, which is loaded on the loading surface, opposite to the loading surface (Figs. 14-15).
(claim 7) The post-processing device according to claim 6, wherein the correcting section executes the first operation in a case where a first type recording medium is loaded on the loading surface, and executes the second operation in a case where a second type recording medium different from the first type recording medium is loaded on the loading surface (Fig.15).
(claims 9-12 and 14-15) An image forming apparatus (1000, Fig.1) comprising: an image forming section (300) that forms an image on a recording medium; and the post-processing (500) device according to claims 1-4 and 6-7 that executes post-processing on the recording medium on which the image forming section forms the image [0039].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0127764 to Kamiya, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 6,799,759 to McNamara et al.
Regarding claim 5, Kamiya teaches a post-processing device according to claim 4, but does not explicitly suggest the correcting section coming into contact with the recording medium under the folding section.
McNamara discloses a post-processing device comprising: a loading section (112) that has a loading surface directed obliquely upward and in which a recording medium (S) is loaded on the loading surface in a state where one end of the recording medium is directed downward; a supporting section (116) that supports the one end of the recording medium loaded on the loading surface; and a correcting section (132) that has a facing surface facing toward the loading surface and that corrects deflection of the recording medium by coming into contact with the recording medium, the correcting section comes into contact with the recording medium, which is loaded on the loading surface, under the folding section.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kamiya and McNamara to produce a post-processing apparatus according to claim 4 wherein the correcting section comes into contact with the recording medium, which is loaded on the loading surface, under the folding section, for at leas the purpose of eliminating curving and fluffing of the recording medium thus improving positioning control of the recording medium on the loading section.
Regarding claim 13, the combination further renders obvious an image forming apparatus comprising: an image forming section (Kamiya:300, McNamara:99) that forms an image on a recording medium; and the post-processing device according to claim 5 that executes post-processing on the recording medium on which the image forming section forms the image.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0127764 to Kamiya, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 2008/0304887 to Horie.
Regarding claim 8, Kamiya teaches a post-processing device according to claim 6, but does not explicitly suggest the first operation and the second operation selected according to which of a first fixing device and a second fixing device fixes an image on the recording medium.
Horie discloses an image forming apparatus wherein thin sheets had the tendencies of curling in the way in which their printed surface sides were convex by passing through a fixing apparatus, and thick sheets had the tendencies of curling in the way in which their printed surface sides were conversely concave by passing through the fixing apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kamiya and Horie to produce a post-processing apparatus according to claim 6 wherein the correcting section executes the first operation in a case where a recording medium, on which a first fixing device fixes an image, is loaded on the loading surface, and executes the second operation in a case where a recording medium, on which a second fixing device different from the first fixing device fixes an image, is loaded on the loading surface for at least the purpose of effectively positioning recording media with different curl tendencies, after fixing an image, on the loading section.
Regarding claim 16, Kamiya as modified above further renders obvious an image forming apparatus (Kamiya:1000,Fig.2) comprising: an image forming section (Kamiya:300) that forms an image on a recording medium; and the post-processing device according to claim 6 that executes post-processing on the recording medium on which the image forming section forms the image [0039].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLENE HEREDIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/Arlene Heredia Ocasio/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights