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
Applicant’s arguments and amendments in the Amendment filed March 20, 2026 (herein “Amendment”) with respect to the rejection to claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments in the Amendment, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Makoto, Japanese Patent Document No. JP H01-108697 A.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1–2, 9 and 13–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo, US Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0144224 A1 (herein “Cardillo”) in view of Makoto, Japanese Patent Document No. JP H01-108697 A, with reference to the provided machine English language translation (herein “Makoto”).
Regarding claim 1, with deficiencies of Cardillo noted in square brackets [], Cardillo teaches a sheet processing machine (Cardillo Abstract, fig. 1, processing machine for processing plate like (sheet) elements) with a device for monitoring sheets (Cardillo Abstract, ¶76, various sensors detecting position and passage of the plate like element (sheet) and a register) and a transfer mechanism for moving the sheets along a handling direction within the sheet processing machine (Cardillo Abstract, ¶66, control of gripping elements and a gripping bar for grasping and moving the plate like elements (sheet) for placing the plate-like elements within a processing machine (handling direction) and a conveyor), the sheet processing machine comprising:
the device comprising a light emitting element and a light receiving element assigned to the light emitting element forming a light barrier in a sheet passage between the light emitting element and the light receiving element (Cardillo ¶¶ 90 and 97, front pre correction module as a light curtain sensor including a beam emitter (light emitting element) and a beam receptor (light receiving element) for detecting a breaking of a light beam as a light curtain (light barrier) by passage of the plate-like element (sheet passage)), and
a control unit connected to the light receiving element and adapted to register each sheet passing through the light barrier, (Cardillo ¶¶ 87, 90 and 99, register including a front pre-correction sensor module sensing when the plate-like element (sheet) breaks the light beam to detect the passage, and receive measurements in order to control via a microprocessor, an actuator interacting with the plate-like element (register each sheet)),
the control unit comprising a storage module for storing [a target shape] of the sheets (Cardillo ¶¶ 99–100, register including a control unit configured to receive measurements from the front correction sensor (information about the sheet processing machine) and including a microprocessor, where in order to receive measurements, the microprocessor would have some kind of memory/buffer or cache (storage module)),
[wherein the control unit is configured to register each sheet passing through the light barrier by counting the sheets passing the device for obtaining a current number of sheets and comparing a signal sequence, corresponding to the shape of each sheet, provided by the light receiving element of each passing sheet with a signal sequence corresponding to the target shape stored in the storage module].
Cardillo does not explicitly teach, but Makoto teaches a target shape (Makoto page 2, 5th and last paragraphs, a reference value selection circuit stores reference values including the reference size including length, width and shape for a paper sheet) and comparing a signal sequence, corresponding to the shape of each sheet, provided by the light receiving element of each passing sheet with a signal sequence corresponding to the target shape stored in the storage module (Makoto page 2, second from last and last paragraph which ends on page 3, a shape of a paper sheet is stored as a reference value in the memory circuit, and paper sheets to be measured are determined to have a sameness by performing a comparison operation with the reference value, where page 3, 3rd through 8th full paragraph teaches that the size measuring circuit consists of light emitting elements and receivers that generate respective signals converted into a pulse signal (signal sequence) when a paper passes through a pass line transmitted by the light emitting elements).
Further, Cardillo does not explicitly teach where Guggisberg teaches wherein the control unit is configured to register each sheet passing through the light barrier by counting the sheets passing the device for obtaining a current number of sheets (Guggisberg col. 2, ll. 8–18, a photoelectric cell receives a light-jet (light barrier) from a flas set at the central axis of the photoelectric cell which is connected to a counter, each interruption of the light barrier registers one count (each passing sheet) and the electric counter is able to register the count of the sheets (current number of sheets)).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Cardillo and Makoto together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Cardillo to include the reference values as disclosed in Makoto at least because doing so would allow for easily and quickly performing the sorting work on all kinds of paper sheets. See Makoto page 4.
Further, taking the teachings of Cardillo and Guggisberg together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sheet processing of Cardillo to include the sheet counting as disclosed above in Guggisberg at least because doing so would allow for efficacious and accurate counting of paper sheets even at very high speed. See Guggisberg col. 2, ll. 15–18.
Regarding claim 2, Cardillo teaches wherein the light barrier formed in the sheet passage by the light emitting element and the light receiving element is a light curtain (Cardillo ¶97, emitted light falls within at least two longitudinally spaced lateral axis of detection P1 and P2 and therefore a light curtain).
Regarding claim 9, Cardillo does not explicitly teach, but Makoto teaches wherein the target shape comprises a target size of the sheet and/or a target contour of the sheet (Makoto page 2, last and second to last paragraph, reference values for a sheet stored in the memory circuit include a reference size (target size) including length, width and shape).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Cardillo and Makoto together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Cardillo to include the reference values as disclosed in Makoto at least because doing so would allow for easily and quickly performing the sorting work on all kinds of paper sheets. See Makoto page 4.
Regarding claim 13, Cardillo teaches wherein the device for monitoring sheets is arranged between a waste removal station and a blank separation station of the sheet processing machine (Cardillo ¶¶62–63, figs. 1–2, register 60 positioned between waste ejection station 4 and feeder station 2 which separates out the input sheets (blank separation station)).
Regarding claim 14, Cardillo teaches wherein the sheets are made of paper, cardboard, foil or a composite material thereof (Cardillo ¶60, plate-like elements and sheets relate to elements comprising cardboard, paper or any other material routinely used in the packaging industry).
Claims 3 and 8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo in view of Makoto in view of Guggisberg as set forth above regarding claim 1, further in view of Nishio, US Patent No. 11,630,621 B2 (herein “Nishio”).
Regarding claim 3, Cardillo teaches wherein the light curtain extends over at least 80% of a width of the sheet passage (Cardillo ¶¶ 80, 97, emitted light falls within at least two longitudinally spaced lateral axis making a light curtain, where the spacing between the sensors is between 500 and 1500 millimeters, shown in fig. 5D, element 7b as extending over a majority portion of the sheet 10).
While Cardillo teaches a light curtain of 500 mm, and that the sheet 10 width is as wide as the sheet passage, Cardillo does not explicitly teach a sheet having a width that a light curtain of 500 mm would be 80% or more of the width of. Nishio teaches at least 80% of a width of the sheet (Nishio fig. 5, reference number 510 illustrating sheet settings of a size width being 520.70mm, where 500mm is 96% of the width of 520.70 mm and thus at least 80%, especially over at least 90%).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Cardillo as modified above and Nishio together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Cardillo to include custom sheet widths including ones that would be 520.70mm as disclosed in Nishio at least because doing so would reduce frequency of having to replace paper in the printer and also reduce paper waste. See Nishio col. 1, ll. 59–62.
Regarding claim 8, Cardillo does not explicitly teach, but Nishio teaches wherein the target shape of the sheets is determined by the control unit based on a reference file transferred to the sheet processing machine from a remote computer (Nishio col. 9, ll. 14–22, and col. 10, ll. 32–37, and 57, imposition-printing template patterns (reference file) matching the width of the paper are stored in the database of the information processing apparatus shown in figs. 2A/2B, col. 7, l. 47 – col. 8, l. 19, as being remote/connected by a network to the printer (sheet processing machine) , where the imposition-printing template patterns include information about page size of template (target shape of sheets as the size includes length and width)).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Cardillo as modified above and Nishio together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Cardillo to include the printing template patterns and network as disclosed in Nishio at least because doing so would reduce frequency of having to replace paper in the printer and also reduce paper waste. See Nishio col. 1, ll. 59–62.
Claims 4–5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo, Makoto and Guggisberg, as set forth above regarding claim 1, further in view of Achenbach et al., US Patent No. 10,640,301 (herein “Achenbach”).
Regarding claim 4, where deficiencies of Cardillo are noted in square brackets [], Cardillo teaches wherein the light receiving element and the light emitting element are mounted on a first [rail] and a second [rail], respectively (Cardillo fig. 6, ¶77, as shown, sensors 7 facing each other (one being a emitter, the other a receiver) are mounted so as to be positioned facing each other, and where there are lines running from the sensors down to the controller 40). Cardillo does not, but Achenbach teaches sensors mounted onto a rail (Achenbach, col. 5, ll. 50–53, sensor unit with a sensor rail where sensors providing a light barrier, are secured thereto).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Cardillo as modified above, and Achenbach together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mounting of the sensors of Cardillo to be on rails as disclosed in Achenbach at least because doing so would provide precise conveyance of items in a processing system. See Achenbach col. 2, ll. 28–32.
Regarding claim 5, where deficiencies of Cardillo are noted in square brackets [], Cardillo teaches wherein the first [rail] and the second [rail] are parallel to each other (Cardillo fig. 6, ¶77, as shown, sensors 7 with structures connected to each one respectively, being parallel). Cardillo does not, but Achenbach teaches sensors mounted onto a rail (Achenbach, col. 5, ll. 50–53, sensor unit with a sensor rail where sensors providing a light barrier, are secured thereto).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Cardillo as modified by Makoto and Guggisberg, and Achenbach together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mounting of the sensors of Cardillo to be on rails as disclosed in Achenback at least because doing so would provide precise conveyance of items in a processing system. See Achenback col. 2, ll. 28–32.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo, in view of Makoto in view of Guggisberg, as set forth above regarding claim 1, further in view of Araki et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0229941 A1 (herein “Araki”).
Regarding claim 6, Cardillo does not explicitly teach, but Araki teaches wherein an expected number of sheets is stored in the storage module of the control unit, the expected number being determined based on the number of sheets provided in a loading station of the sheet processing machine and/or the number of sheets taken from the loading station (Araki ¶¶ 70–72, 58, sheets remaining in the tray (number of sheets provided in a loading station) is checked for whether the remaining sheets have decreased by a predetermined number (expected number), where information on quantity control (including predetermined number of sheets) is stored in RAM memory), and the control unit is adapted to compare a current number of sheets having passed the sheet passage with the expected number of sheets (Araki ¶¶ 75–76, it is determined whether the number of sheets transported from the tray (passed the sheet passage) has exceeded the predetermined number).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Cardillo as modified above, and Araki together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Cardillo to store a predetermined number of sheets and compare a number of sheets passing through as disclosed in Araki at least because doing so would prevent transport failure of sheets. See Araki ¶4.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo, Makoto, Guggisberg and Araki as set forth regarding claim 6 from which claim 10 depends, and further in view of Nishio.
Regarding claim 10, Cardillo does not explicitly teach, but Nishio teaches wherein the sheet processing machine comprises a human-machine-interface connected to the control unit (Nishio col. 9, ll. 59–65, col. 21, ll. 45–55, and col. 22, ll. 26–34, figs. 4–6, and printer displays information on a display of the printer including form fields that can be edited to control the printer, and other printer information be displayed to a user).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Cardillo as modified above and Nishio together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing machine of Cardillo to include the input/output capable printer display as disclosed in Nishio at least because doing so would reduce frequency of having to replace paper in the printer and also reduce paper waste. See Nishio col. 1, ll. 59–62.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo, Makoto, and Guggisberg, as set forth above regarding claim 1, further in view of Dabon et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0248433 A1 (herein “Dabon”).
Regarding claim 7, Cardillo does not explicitly teach, but Dabon teaches wherein the target shape of the sheets is determined based on a reference sheet being passed through the sheet passage (Dabon ¶¶ 7, 37, 68, and 41, an original printout as a template (reference sheet) is processed via scanning to determine patterns to be consolidated in a new document file, where the scanning process involves scanning a hardcopy page, thus some kind of sheet passage).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Cardillo as modified above and Dabon together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing machine of Cardillo to determine a target shape of sheets based on an original template sheet as disclosed in Dabon at least because doing so would provide optimization for sheets of paper in making copies of a desired output. See Dabon ¶7.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo, Makoto, Guggisberg and Araki and Nishio, as set forth above regarding claim 10, further in view of Maruyama, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0247879 A1 (herein “Maruyama”).
Regarding claim 11, Cardillo does not explicitly teach but Maruyama teaches wherein the control unit is adapted to transmit a warning message to the human-machine-interface of the sheet processing machine if the current number of sheets is lower than the expected number of sheets, especially if there are no more sheets in the loading station (Maruyama ¶47, fig. 6, paper feed warning screen is displayed on the operation unit (human-machine-interface) if paper runs out (no more sheets in the loading station) during printing).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Cardillo as modified above and Maruyama together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing machine of Cardillo to output a paper running out warning on a display as disclosed in Maruyama at least because doing so would provide a better user interface that avoids increasing user operations, and thus provides a better user experience. See Maruyama ¶222.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo, Makoto, Guggisberg and Araki and Nishio, as set forth above regarding claim 10, further in view of Sawada, US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0272384 A1 (herein “Sawada”).
Regarding claim 12, Cardillo does not explicitly teach, but Sawada teaches wherein the control unit is adapted to transmit a warning message to the human-machine-interface if the target shape of at least one sheet is not matching the target shape (Sawada ¶¶ 53 and 37, if the roll paper width (the target shape of at least one sheet) is smaller than (not matching) the output sheet size (the target shape), the printer driver displays a warning via the user interface unit (human-machine-interface)).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Cardillo as modified above, and Sawada together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing machine of Cardillo to include the user interface unit that displays a warning regarding mismatch of paper sizes and thus shapes as disclosed in Sawada at least because doing so would allow for borderless printing and thus additional formatting options beyond usual processing systems. See Sawada ¶¶ 23–24, 62.
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 MICHELLE M KOETH whose telephone number is (571)272-5908. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 09:00-17:00, Friday 09:00-13:00, EDT/EST.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
MICHELLE M. KOETH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2671
/MICHELLE M KOETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights