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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al (US 9340034).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda teaches an image forming apparatus (fig. 3) comprising:
a reading part configured with an image sensor capable of reading an image of a placed document while moving in a first direction with respect to the document (fig. 1:a scanner 317); and an image forming part configured with a print head that forms an image on a sheet conveyed in the first direction while moving in a second direction intersecting the first direction, based on input data or data read by the reading part (col. 4 lines: 40-45: the recording head 111 moves in a direction perpendicular to the sheet (y direction). Col. 11, lines 15-20: reading is possible with a resolution of at least the minimum unit in the y direction. Col. 12, lines: 1:10: the scanner 317 is adjacent to the recording head 111 in the x direction).
Regarding claim 2, Ikeda teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reading part is arranged in a manner capable of pivotal movement on one side of the first direction with respect to the image forming part (Col. 12, lines: 1:10: the scanner 317 is adjacent to the recording head 111 in the x direction), and wherein the image sensor is positioned on the one side of the first direction at the time reading is not performed.
Regarding claim 18, Ikeda teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image sensor extends in the second direction (col.1 Lines: 55-65: the nozzle array on the recording head extends in the y direction).
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.
Claims 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al (US 6443552).
Regarding claim 3, Ikeda teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising a conveyance unit configured to convey the document to be read by the reading part (claim 1: a conveyance unit configured to convey a print medium), wherein the reading part reads the image of the document conveyed by the conveyance unit in a state where the image sensor is positioned at a predetermined position in its movement area (embodied with scanner).
Ikeda Does not explicitly disclose wherein the reading part reads the image of the document conveyed by the conveyance unit in a state where the image sensor is positioned at a predetermined position in its movement area, wherein a direction in which the document is conveyed by the conveyance unit is a direction from the one side toward the other side in the first direction, and wherein a direction in which the document is discharged by the conveyance unit is a direction from the other side toward the one side in the first direction, and matches a direction for discharging a sheet on which an image has been formed by the image forming part,
Sasaki teaches wherein a direction in which the document is conveyed by the conveyance unit is a direction from the one side toward the other side in the first direction, and wherein a direction in which the document is discharged by the conveyance unit is a direction from the other side toward the one side in the first direction, and matches a direction for discharging a sheet on which an image has been formed by the image forming part (col. 2, lines :1-10:Validation printing involves loading the check from the top and then ejecting the check from the top after printing).
Ikeda and Sasaki are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ikeda with the teaching of Sasaki for validating check.
Regarding claim 4, Ikeda in view of Sasaki teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the conveyance unit is arranged in a manner capable of pivotal movement on the other side of the first direction with respect to the reading part (col. 18, lines 14-30: he discharge rollers 8 are set to the open position and the vertical discharge rollers 31 are set to the closed position (step S17). The slip S is then printed with the print head 14 while being conveyed upward (step S18). When the slip S is conveyed further upward …)
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein,
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Sasaki as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Nagasaka (US 20080309958).
Regarding claim 5, Ikeda in view of Sasaki does not teach the image forming apparatus according to claim 4, wherein, on a document table where the document whose image is to be read by the image sensor is positioned, the reading part is equipped with a first reading area where the document is placed on one surface and the image sensor moves on the other surface for reading the image of the document and a second reading area where the document conveyed by the conveyance unit passes on one surface and the image sensor remains on the other surface for reading the image of the document, wherein the second reading area is located on the other side of the first direction relative to the first reading area, and wherein the image sensor is positioned between the first reading area and the second reading area at the time reading is not performed.
Nagasaka wherein, on a document table where the document whose image is to be read by the image sensor is positioned, the reading part is equipped with a first reading area where the document is placed on one surface and the image sensor moves on the other surface for reading the image of the document (p0044: The second platen glass 15 is used to read an image from a document at an ADF side ) and a second reading area where the document conveyed by the conveyance unit passes on one surface and the image sensor remains on the other surface for reading the image of the document, wherein the second reading area is located on the other side of the first direction relative to the first reading area(p043:The first platen glass 13 is used to read an image from a document at an FB side.) and wherein the image sensor is positioned between the first reading area and the second reading area at the time reading is not performed (fig. 2: and p0038:A reading head 11, a first platen glass 13, a second platen glass 15).
Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Nagasaka are combinable because they both deal with image forming apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ikeda in view of Sasaki with the teaching of Nagasaka for to determine whether or not the light emitting unit and all the light receiving units are operating in a normal manner (p0004).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Sasaki as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Umetsu (US 8786648).
Regarding claim 6, Ikeda in view of Sasaki does not teach the image forming apparatus according to claim 3 further comprising: a first tray on which the document to be conveyed is placed; a second tray which is arranged on a lower side of the first tray in a manner capable of being inserted to or drawn out from a housing and on which a discharged document is to be placed; and an operation unit which is arranged on a side surface of the reading part on the one side of the first direction and configured to be capable of operating the image forming apparatus, wherein the operation unit does not overlap with the second tray in the second direction.
Umetsu teaches a first tray on which the document to be conveyed is placed; a second tray which is arranged on a lower side of the first tray in a manner capable of being inserted to or drawn out from a housing and on which a discharged document is to be placed (fig. 3: 110 and 112); and an operation unit which is arranged on a side surface of the reading part on the one side of the first direction and configured to be capable of operating the image forming apparatus, wherein the operation unit does not overlap with the second tray in the second direction (128 in fig. 3).
Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Umetsu are combinable because they both deal with image forming apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ikeda in view of Sasaki with the teaching of Umetsu for to determines whether or not to erase an erasable image printed on the recording medium.
Claims 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Umetsu as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Miyaji et al. (US 7245854).
Regarding claim 7, Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Umetsu does not teach the image forming apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the first tray includes a main tray fixedly installed on the housing and a sub-tray installed on the housing so as to be movable in a sliding manner, and wherein the sub-tray changes its position between a first position in which a part of an exterior shape of the housing is formed and a second position in which a surface that forms the part of the exterior shape of the housing, together with the main tray, forms a support surface that supports the placed document.
Miyaji teaches wherein the first tray includes a main tray fixedly installed on the housing and a sub-tray installed on the housing so as to be movable in a sliding manner, and wherein the sub-tray changes its position between a first position in which a part of an exterior shape of the housing is formed and a second position in which a surface that forms the part of the exterior shape of the housing, together with the main tray, forms a support surface that supports the placed document (claim 12 and fig. 4: sheet tray is provided in a tray pullout frame that is movable in the first direction relative to a main body of the image forming apparatus, and the at least one sheet tray is movable in the second direction substantially orthogonal to the first direction..).
Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Umetsu and Miyaji are combinable because they both deal with image forming apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Umetsu with the teaching of Miyaji for to provide an image forming apparatus that allows an operator in a wheelchair to readily carry out the operation of removing a stuck recording paper sheet and resuming driving and the operation of replenishing recording paper sheets.
Regarding claim 8, Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Umetsu and Miyaji teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 7, wherein, at the second position, the sub-tray can be brought into a first posture in which the surface that forms the part of the exterior shape of the housing is in a horizontal state.
Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Umetsu and Miyaji does not explicitly disclose a second posture in which the surface that forms the part of the exterior shape of the housing is inclined downwardly from the one side toward the other side in the first direction, change from upright position to the surface that forms the part of the exterior shape of the housing is inclined downwardly from the one side toward the other side in the first direction would have been a matter of choice in design since the claimed structures and the function they perform are the same as the prior art. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) citing In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719, 25 USPQ2d 1076, 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also stare decisis regarding changes in size or proportion in MPEP § 2144.04.
One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Miyaji because the all related to moveable trey.
Regarding claim 9, Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Umetsu and Miyaji teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 7, wherein a length of the sub-tray in the second direction is shorter than the second tray (Miyaji: 31-32 in fig. 4).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 10 -12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Sasaki as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ishii (US 20070242969).
Regarding claim 10, Ikeda in view of Sasaki does not teach the image forming apparatus according to claim 3, wherein a document conveyance center of the conveyance unit is located on one side of the second direction relative to a center position of the image forming apparatus, and wherein, in the reading part, a driving part that serves as a driving source for moving the image sensor is located outside the movement area of the image sensor as well as on the other side of the second direction relative to the center position.
Ishii teaches wherein a document conveyance center of the conveyance unit is located on one side of the second direction relative to a center position of the image forming apparatus (p0053: conveyance motor 46 in fig. 1), and wherein, in the reading part, a driving part that serves as a driving source for moving the image sensor is located outside the movement area of the image sensor as well as on the other side of the second direction relative to the center position (In FIG. 1, 10, a scanner unit 13 and p0021).
Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Ishii are combinable because they both deal with image forming apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ikeda in view of Sasaki with the teaching of Ishii for to determines whether or not to to reduce power consumption (p0009).
Regarding claim 11, Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Ishii teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the driving part is located near an end of the other side of the second direction (Ishii: In FIG. 1, 10, a scanner unit 13 and p0021).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 10 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, Ikeda in view of Sasaki and Ishii teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, of a bottom surface of the reading part facing the image forming part, a position corresponding to an accommodation part that accommodates the driving part is formed in a protruding manner (Ishii: fig. 1: 15 and 20 ).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 10 has been incorporated herein.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwata et al. (US 5579129).
Regarding claim 19, Ikeda does not teach teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reading part is further configured with a driving part that serves as a driving source for moving the image sensor, a transmission part that transmits a driving force generated by the driving part to the image sensor, and a guide part that guides the image sensor which moves in accordance with the driving force transmitted by the transmission part, and wherein the image sensor is configured with a sliding part that is capable of sliding on the guide part which extends in the first direction and a pressing part that presses the sliding part against the guide part.
Iwata teaches wherein the reading part is further configured with a driving part that serves as a driving source for moving the image sensor, a transmission part that transmits a driving force generated by the driving part to the image sensor (col. 8 lines 60-65:with the result that the driving force (rotational force) of the planetary gear 26 is transmitted to the speed-change gear 31 because of the engagement between the planetary gear 26 and the speed-change gear 31), and a guide part that guides the image sensor which moves in accordance with the driving force transmitted by the transmission part, and wherein the image sensor is configured with a sliding part that is capable of sliding on the guide part which extends in the first direction and a pressing part that presses the sliding part against the guide part (col. 14, lines: 25-35:by sliding the CS roller 9 on the image sensor 8 of complete contact type).
Ikeda and Iwata are combinable because they both deal with image forming apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Ikeda with the teaching of Iwata for to provide an original reading apparatus and an information processing apparatus having such an original reading apparatus, which have a simple construction and can read an original effectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 13-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Ikeda et al (US 9340034) teaches similar system. However, the closest prior art of record, namely Ikeda et al (US 9340034), does not disclose, teach or suggest, the claim limitation, as recited in dependent claim 13.
Claim 14-17 is found to be allowable because claims 14-17 is depending on claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (571) 270-5254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683