DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-4 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaertel et al. (US Pub No. 2012/0019841 A1) in view of Van Dongen et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0159298 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Schaertel et al. discloses
an imaging unit (30) that capture images of a plurality of stacked recording media (11); and
at least one processor (i.e. image processor),
wherein the processor stops supply of the recording media when it is determined that a fold is generated in the recording media from the images captured by the imaging unit ([0021]).
Schaertel et al. does not disclose the imaging unit to be at an edge side of the media or multiple imaging units.
Van Dongen et al. discloses an imaging unit (20, 21 in Fig. 3) at an edge side of the recording media (10, 11), for the purpose of detecting out-of-plane deformations such as folds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Schaertel et al. by including an imaging unit located
at the edge side as disclosed by Van Dongen et al., for the purpose of detecting out-of-plane deformations such as folds.
While Van Dongen et al. disclose multiple imaging components (20, 21), it would
additionally have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Schaertel et al. and Van Dongen et al. by including multiple imaging units, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and for the purpose of more accurately detecting deformations, over a wider viewing range. It is noted that in Fig. 3 of Van Dongen, 20 and 21 are across from each other in the width direction. Furthermore, at least one of 20, 21 is shown to be at the leading end, wherein it would be “obvious to try” to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place two imaging units across from each other in the width direction at the leading end, for the purpose of ensuring a deformation is detected across the entire length of the sheet.
Regarding Claim 3, Schaertel et al. discloses
a moving unit (40) that relatively moves the imaging units and a recording medium from the leading end portion to a rear end portion of the recording medium in a supply direction (i.e. from 20 towards the right, in Fig. 1) of the recording media.
Regarding Claim 4, Schaertel et al. discloses
the moving unit is a transport unit (40) that transports an uppermost stacked recording medium in the supply direction toward a processing apparatus (i.e. the internal scanning components of 10) that processes the recording medium.
Regarding Claims 8-11, Schaertel et al. does not disclose an image forming unit.
Van Dongen et al. discloses an image forming unit (printer, [0002]) that serves as a processing apparatus and forms an image on each of the recording media supplied from the medium supply system, for the purpose of reproducing sheets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Schaertel et al. by including the image forming unit as disclosed by Van Dongen et al., for the purpose of reproducing sheets. It is noted that either the scanner may be replaced or augmented with an image forming unit or the claimed components may be applied to a printer.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaertel et al. (US Pub No. 2012/0019841 A1) in view of Van Dongen et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0159298 A1) in view of Shimoyama et al. (US Pub No. 2015/0029525 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Schaertel et al. and Van Dongen et al. do not disclose a supply unit.
Shimoyama et al. discloses a supply unit (67) that supplies air to the recording media from the edge side of the plurality of stacked recording media to float a plurality of recording media, wherein the imaging unit (93) captures images of the plurality of recording media floated by the supply unit, for the purpose of evaluating sheet separation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Schaertel et al. and Van Dongen et al. by including
a supply unit as disclosed by Shimoyama et al., for the purpose of evaluating sheet
separation. It is noted that by the modification of Claim 1, this would apply to both
imaging units.
Regarding Claim 6, Schaertel et al. discloses
a moving unit (40) that relatively moves the imaging units and the recording media in a supply direction (i.e. from 20 towards the right, in Fig. 1) of the recording media,
wherein the imaging units are respectively disposed on both sides in a width direction of the recording media to face leading end portions of the recording media (i.e. see the Claim 1, 2 rejections above).
Regarding Claim 7, Schaertel et al. discloses
the moving unit is a transport unit (40) that transports an uppermost stacked recording medium in the supply direction of the recording media toward a processing apparatus (i.e. the internal scanning components of 10) that processes the recording medium.
Regarding Claims 12-14, Schaertel et al. does not disclose an image forming unit.
Van Dongen et al. discloses an image forming unit (printer, [0002]) that serves as a processing apparatus and forms an image on each of the recording media supplied from the medium supply system, for the purpose of reproducing sheets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Schaertel et al. by including the image forming unit as disclosed by Van Dongen et al., for the purpose of reproducing sheets. It is noted that either the scanner may be replaced or augmented with an image forming unit or the claimed components may be applied to a printer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimosaka et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0198908) discloses optical sensors 113 used in detecting a fold.
Kadota (US Pub No. 2019/0002225) discloses stopping sheet transport when a fold is detected ([0068]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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 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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights