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 filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yasumoto (US 2007/0283624 A1) fails to disclose claim 1’s “positioned so that the sensor and the switch overlap when viewed from a vertical direction.” Since Yasumoto is silent regarding the orientation of door 30’s rotational axis, and since setting a vertical orientation of this axis would be merely a design choice (doing so could, for example, allow for the door to more easily be held open at various degrees; see the rejection of claim 1 in the 3/27/26 non-final), it would have been obvious for Yasumoto’s door’s rotational axis to be oriented vertically and thus the sensor 44 and switch 45 would overlap when viewed from a vertical 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasumoto (US 2007/0283624 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yasumoto discloses A detection device that detects opening and closing of a door (30, fig. 1-2 or 7A-C, para 50-62) with respect to a device main body (body of printer 60, fig. 1), comprising:
a pressing member (41, fig. 3, para 50) attached to the door (see fig. 3);
a sensor (44, fig. 3, para 51,53,55-56) attached to the device main body (see fig. 3 and para 51-56), and configured to detect that the door is closed, by detecting the pressing member (Sensor 44 indirectly detects pressing member 41 via movement of intermediate element 43. See fig. 3 and para 51-56.); and
a switch (45, fig. 3, para 51,58-63) attached to the device main body (see fig. 3), and configured to interrupt power supply when pressing by the pressing member is released (see fig. 3,7A-C, and para 50-62), wherein
the sensor and the switch are
positioned above or below the pressing member in a state where the door is closed (If the axis of rotation of Yasumoto’s door 30 is vertical, then Yasumoto’s fig. 3 or 7A-C would read on this limitation. While Yasumoto appears to be silent with regard to the orientation of the door’s rotational axis, the orientation of the door’s rotational axis is merely a design choice that does not affect the fundamental functionality of the door. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the door 30 so that its rotational axis is vertical for the purpose of more easily allowing wider opening angles of the door and/or more easily propping the door open to various rotational degrees, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.), and
positioned so that the sensor and the switch overlap when viewed from a vertical direction (When Yasumoto’s door’s rotational axis is vertical, then Yasumoto’s fig. 2-3 or 7A-C would read on this limitation.).
Regarding claim 2, Yasumoto further discloses The detection device according to claim 1, comprising a link member (42+46+43+401+49, fig. 3 or 7A-C, para 50-62,71-79) that is attached to the device main body and comes into contact with the pressing member (see fig. 3 or 7A-C), wherein
the sensor detects that the door is closed, by being pressed by the pressing member (Since 43f can be considered to be a part of the sensor [44+43f], the sensor detects that the door is closed when the pressing member 41 indirectly presses 43f via 42 and 43.),
the switch
includes a lever (45a, fig. 3, para 58), and
interrupts power supply when pressing of the lever is released (see fig. 7A-C, para 71-79),
the link member presses the lever by being contacted by the pressing member (see fig. 7A-C, para 71-79), and
the link member and the sensor are aligned so as to come into contact with the pressing member in this order when the door is closed (see fig. 7A-C, para 71-79).
Regarding claim 13, Yasumoto further discloses A recording device, comprising: the detection device according to claim 1; the device main body; and the door (see title, fig. 1-3).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/JUSTIN SEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
August 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights