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. Due to Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, filed 1/16/2026, all previous prior art rejections are hereby withdrawn (see ¶8 below).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12-17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 14,17 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 14 recites the limitation "the pickup roller". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the image forming unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
6. Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link et al. USP 9,938,100 in view of Morikawa et al. USP 8,870,181.
Link discloses, regarding claim 12, A sheet conveying device comprising:
a conveyor (260,265) to convey a sheet in a conveyance direction (fig.2); and
a sound collector (201A,B) to collect sound generated by a conveyance of the sheet by the conveyor (C5/L53-56);
the sound collector is disposed upstream of a sheet separation portion (220) in the conveyance direction.
Link does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations of claims 12.
Morikawa teaches the sound collector (113a,113b) movable in a sheet width direction (A1) orthogonal to the conveyance direction (fig.3,5; C4/L7-9); a moving mechanism to move the sound collector in the sheet width direction (A1) (fig.3,5; C4/L7-9).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the sound collector movable in a sheet width direction orthogonal to the conveyance direction, as taught by Morikawa, in the device of Link, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of effectively detecting is a paper jam occurs (see at least C1/L49-52).
Link further discloses, regarding claim 13, further comprising:
a pickup roller (120), the pickup roller disposed upstream of the sheet separation portion in the conveyance direction (fig.2), wherein
the sound collector (200A,B) is disposed upstream of the pickup roller in the conveyance direction.
Regarding claim 14, further comprising:
a cover (180), wherein
the sound collector (200A,B) is disposed inside the cover and facing the pickup roller (fig.2) (C4/L5-10).
Regarding claim 15, An automatic document feeder comprising the sheet conveying device according to claim 13 to convey an original document sheet to an image reading unit (230,234) to read the original document sheet (fig.2).
7. Claims 16,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link et al. USP 9,938,100 in view of Morikawa et al. USP 8,870,181 further in view of Hara et al. USP 11,360,420.
Link, as modified above, discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims, and further discloses the automatic document feeding according to claim 15, and the sheet conveying device according to claim 13 to convey the sheet, but does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations of claims 16,17.
Hara teaches the use of An image forming apparatus (1) comprising an image forming unit (17,20) to form an image on a sheet.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an image forming apparatus comprising an image forming unit to form an image on a sheet, as taught by Hara, in the device of Link, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing both scanning and printing in the same device thus making the apparatus more versatile.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-4,6-11 are allowed.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. 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 2/2/2026