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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/6/2025 has been entered.
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: “an input unit” in claim 2 (identified as operation knob 81 in Applicant’s disclosure, refer to [0122] in published specification), “a switching unit” in claim 2 (identified as 82 in Applicant’s disclosure, refer to [0166]-[0168] in published specification), and “a holding unit” in claim 11 (identified as 69 in Applicant’s disclosure).
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 § 103
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.
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, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. US 2024/0025679 (hereinafter “Kubo”) in view of Miyazaki et al. US 2017/0015516 A1 (hereinafter “Miyazaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo teaches a medium transport device installable at an in-body discharge portion in a recording device (100, refer to FIG. 24), the recording device including a recording unit (103) configured to perform recording on a medium, the medium transport device comprising:
a transport unit (one of the pre-processing rollers 211A and 212A serving as the first conveyance roller and one of the upstream rollers 213a and 213b serving as the second conveyance roller, refer to [0158]) positioned, in the recording device, between a first discharge path (formed by 101 and 150) through which the medium is discharged to the in-body discharge portion and a first processing unit (400) configured to perform first processing on the medium discharged to the in-body discharge portion, the transport unit being configured to transport the medium discharged from the first discharge path in a medium transport direction to the first processing unit; and
an operation unit (215) configured to enable manual operation of the transport unit,
a unit mounting portion (131) mounted with a first processing unit (400),
wherein the operation unit transports the medium in a reverse direction (from downstream direction to upstream direction, toward 210Aa) opposite of the medium transport direction when being operated.
wherein the unit mounting portion is configured to be further mounted with a second processing unit (300) being a unit positioned downstream of the first processing unit in a transport direction of the medium, the second processing unit being configured to perform second processing on the medium received from the first processing unit.
Kubo teaches the claimed invention except
wherein the operation unit is configured to transport the medium while the first processing unit and the second processing unit remain attached to the recording device and remain connected to each other.
Miyazaki teaches a well-known post-processing device (7) that is attached to slide rails (33, refer to FIG. 3) to allow a user access to clear a jam. The post-processing unit remains attached to the recording device during jam clearance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kubo’s device with slide rails as taught by Miyazaki in order to allow a user to easily access a paper jam by a slidably attached post-processing apparatus. The combination would provide wherein Kubo’s first processing unit and second processing unit would remain attached to the recording device (in a separated state) and remain connected to each other (first processing unit and second processing unit are connected to each other, and also with recording device (by slide rail connection).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the operation unit is attachable and detachable (capable of being detached).
Regarding claim 8, a recording system (100) comprising:
the medium transport device according to claim 1; and
the recording device (100) including the recording unit (103) configured to perform recording on the medium, wherein a drive source (implicit, interpreted as a motor to drive elements of the recording device) is provided at the recording device.
Regarding claim 9, further comprising a first path forming member (broadest reasonable interpretation includes 150) attachable to and detachable from a device main body including the first discharge path, wherein the first discharge path is formed by attaching the first path forming member to the device main body.
Regarding claim 11, Kubo teaches wherein the recording unit is positioned below the transport unit and wherein the transport unit includes a holding unit (2102) configured to hold foreign matter generated in a transport path through which the medium is transported.
Regarding claim 12, Kubo teaches wherein the recording unit performs recording by ejecting a liquid onto the medium ([0052]).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo in view of Miyazaki, and further in view of Lee US 2015/0172491 A1 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 2, Kubo teaches wherein the transport unit includes a rotating body (211A/212A and/or 213a/213b) configured to be rotated by a power of a drive source (implicit) to transport the medium, the operation unit includes:
an input unit (215) configured to enable manual input of an operating force.
Kubo fails to explicitly teach wherein the operation unit includes a switching unit configured to switch between a transmission state in which the operating force is transmitted to the rotating body, and a decoupled state in which the operating force is not transmitted to the rotating body, and when the rotating body is driven by the power of the drive source, the switching unit is in the decoupled state.
Lee teaches the well-known concept of using an input unit (knob 500) directly feed rollers to manually remove sheets in the event of a jam. Lee also teaches use of a switching unit (clutch unit, [0046]-[0047]) to selectively connect the knob to the rollers to thereby avoid any load on the drive source of the feed rollers during use of the knob.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kubo’s device with a switching unit as taught by Lee in order to selectively connect the knob to the rollers to thereby avoid any load on the drive source of the feed rollers during use of the knob.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of references (see rejection of claim 2 as a guide) would teach wherein the rotating body (rollers): transports the medium downstream in a transport direction by rotating in a first rotation direction (taught by Iguchi) and transports the medium upstream in the transport direction by rotating in a second rotation direction opposite to the first rotation direction (taught by Kubo) and the rotating body is rotatable only in the second rotation direction (taught by Lee) when the operating force is input to the input unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 10, and 13-15 are 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.
Claim 16-18 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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 LUIS A GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3094. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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 McCullough can be reached on 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.
/LUIS A GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights