Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. 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: 1) “heating unit” in claim 12; 2) “recording unit” in claim 13; and 3) “post-processing unit” in claim 14.
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 § 102
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 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.
3. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Publication No. 59-69331 (hereinafter “JP’331”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-4 show a medium transportation device (Fig. 1) transporting a medium (8) onto which liquid is discharged, the medium transportation device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a transportation roller pair (including 2 and 6) that nips and transports the medium (8), wherein the transportation roller pair (including 2 and 6) includes a first uneven roller (2) of which a surface coming into contact with the medium (8) is provided with protrusions and recesses (see elements 22-24), and
a second uneven roller (6) that is a roller disposed to face the first uneven roller (2) and of which a surface coming into contact with the medium (8) is provided with protrusions and recesses (see elements 32-34), and
a protrusion portion (e.g., 24) of one (2) of the first uneven roller (2) and the second uneven roller (6) faces a recess portion of another (6) of the first uneven roller (2) and the second uneven roller (6).
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 3 shows that a gap is provided between a protrusion portion (24) of the first uneven roller (2) and a protrusion portion (34) of the second uneven roller (6).
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.
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’331 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,918,069 (Brown, Jr. et al.) (hereinafter “Brown”). With regard to claim 2, JP’331 shows that the rollers (2 and 6) are driven, but does not show any first or second gears, as claimed.
Brown shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a medium transportation device (Fig. 1) with a first gear (37) provided at a first roller (including 22 and 28); and a second gear (37’) provided at a second uneven roller (including 25’ and 23), wherein the first gear (37) and the second gear (37’) mesh with each other, for the purpose of driving the first and second rollers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the apparatus of JP’331 with first and second gears, for the purpose of driving the first and second rollers, as shown in Brown.
5. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’331 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,607,836 (Miyasaka) (hereinafter “Mikasaka”). JP’331 teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, except for a heating unit, as claimed.
Miyasaka teaches that it is well-known in the art to utilize a roller pair (including 5a and 5) in a photocopier for conveying sheets in the photocopier. Also, lines 62-67 in column 1 teach that “As is well known, the ambient temperature around the copying machine tends to rise partly due to the heat emitted by the working machine, and also to the climatic factor. It is therefore unavoidable for the feed rollers 105 and input pulley 105b to be subjected to a rising temperature.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the roller arrangement of JP’331 in a photocopier because Miyasaka explicitly shows that it is common in the art to utilize roller pairs to convey sheets in photocopiers. Utiliziing the roller pair arrangement of JP’331, in a photocopier, in a manner as taught by Fig. 2 and column 1, lines 62-67 of Miyasaka, results in the roller pair being heated, as claimed.
6. Claims 1, 4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0198370 (Harada et al.) (hereinafter “Harada”) in view of JP’331.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-2 of Harada show a medium transportation device (Fig. 2) transporting a medium (P) onto which liquid is discharged, the medium transportation device (Fig. 2) comprising:
a transportation roller pair (e.g., 68) that nips and transports the medium (P), wherein the transportation roller pair (68) includes a first roller (one roller 68), and
a second roller (other roller 68) that is a roller disposed to face the first roller (one roller 68) and of which a surface coming into contact with the medium (P). Harada teaches the medium transportation device (Fig. 2) with the first and second rollers (68), but does not show that the first and second rollers (68) have protrusions and recesses, as claimed.
JP’331 shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a medium transportation device (Fig. 1) with a transportation roller pair (including 2 and 6) that nips and transports the medium (8), wherein the transportation roller pair (including 2 and 6) includes a first uneven roller (2) of which a surface coming into contact with the medium (8) is provided with protrusions and recesses (see elements 22-24), and
a second uneven roller (6) that is a roller disposed to face the first uneven roller (2) and of which a surface coming into contact with the medium (8) is provided with protrusions and recesses (see elements 32-34), and
a protrusion portion (e.g., 24) of one (2) of the first uneven roller (2) and the second uneven roller (6) faces a recess portion of another (6) of the first uneven roller (2) and the second uneven roller (6). Page 1 of the machine translation of JP’331 teaches that the roller pair with protrusions and recesses provides a simple paper feeder with excellent paper feed accuracy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the Harada apparatus with a roller pair having protrusions and recesses, for the purpose of providing a simple paper feeder with excellent paper feed accuracy, as taught by JP’331.
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 3 of JP’331 shows that a gap is provided between a protrusion portion (24) of the first uneven roller (2) and a protrusion portion (34) of the second uneven roller (6).
Regarding claim 13, Figs. 1-2 of Harada show a recording apparatus comprising:
a recording unit (20) performing recording by discharging liquid onto a medium (P); and
the medium transportation device (Fig. 2) according to claim 1 that transports the medium (P) on which the recording is performed by the recording unit (20).
Regarding claim 14, Figs. 1-2 of Harada show a post-processing apparatus (including 42) directly or indirectly coupled to a recording apparatus (2) performing recording by discharging liquid onto a medium, the post-processing apparatus (including 42) comprising:
a post-processing unit (42) performing post-processing on the medium (P) on which the recording is performed by the recording apparatus (2); and
the medium transportation device (Fig. 2) according to claim 1 that transports, toward the post-processing unit (including 42), the medium (P) on which the recording is performed by the recording apparatus (2).
Regarding claim 15, Figs. 1-2 of Harada show a relay apparatus (50) that is disposed between a recording apparatus (2) performing recording by discharging liquid onto a medium and a post-processing apparatus (including 42) performing post-processing (e.g., stitching) on the medium (P) on which the recording is performed by the recording apparatus (2) and that passes the medium (P) from the recording apparatus (2) to the post-processing apparatus (5), the relay apparatus (50) comprising:
the medium transportation device (Fig. 2) according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 3 and 5-11 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.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Mike 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653