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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto US 2025/0320078 in view of Shiina US 2009/0295069 and Nakamura US 5540426.
Regarding claims 1 and 6: Fujimoto teaches a sheet feeding apparatus (sheet feeding apparatus title) comprising:
a roller (fig. 3A and 3B, roller 5, paragraph 0036, 0037) that is involved in conveyance of a sheet-like medium in the sheet feeding apparatus;
an allower (control unit, paragraph 0038) that, in response to the trigger received by the receiver (all controller are inherently functioned by receiving and transmitting signals), allows the roller to move along a plane perpendicular to a rotation shaft of the roller (roller 5 movement from fig. 3A to fig 3B and vice versa) to a position different from a position where the roller is normally used in the image forming apparatus (sheet intake position, paragraph 0038 note: as seen in fig. 3A and 3B, obvious, it is very difficult/almost impossible to replace roller 5 when roller 5 is in the position as shown in fig. 3B; the replacement position should be when roller 5 is in fig. 3A position).
Note: paragraph 0040 of Fujimoto teaches to use rotational shaft for supporting a rotational roller (separation roller 9). Although the specification of Fujimoto does not clearly state that the pick up roller and the pickup roller frame are supported by a shaft, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use a shaft for supporting the pick up roller for rotation, and a shaft for supporting the pick up roller frame for rotation. Such method has been used by humans for thousands of years and has proven to be efficient and reliable.
Fujimoto does not teach the sheet feeding apparatus is part of an image forming apparatus to transport sheets.
Shiina teaches: the sheet feeding apparatus is part of an image forming apparatus to transport sheets (paragraph 0004, conventionally, in an image forming apparatus, such as a printer, a copy machine, or a facsimile machine, there is provided a sheet feeding apparatus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fujimoto to include: the sheet feeding apparatus of Fujimoto is part of an image forming apparatus to transport sheets.
The reason of doing so would have increase the usage of Fujimoto and efficiently separate and feeding sheet of paper in the image forming apparatus of Shiina.
Fujimoto as modified still does not teach a receiver that electrically or mechanically receives a trigger for replacement of the roller.
Nakamura teaches: a receiver that electrically or mechanically receives a trigger for replacement of the roller (column 8, lines 5-9, the CPU 31 also receives signal from a roller replacement switch SWI…..the roller replacement switch is actuated, e.g., by a serviceman).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fujimoto to include: a receiver that electrically or mechanically receives a trigger for replacement of the roller.
The reason of doing so would have highly increase the safety for the serviceman to prevent the controller from moving the roller unexpectedly during the roller replacement process.
Regarding claims 4, 9: Fujimoto teaches the image forming apparatus (see rejection of claims 1 and 6) according to claim 1, 6, further comprising a sheet feed tray that stores a plurality of the sheet-like media in a stack (sheet loading tray 1, paragraph 0024),
the roller is a pickup roller (paragraph 0036) pick up roller 5 is freely detachable…to be replaceable) that picks up the sheet-like medium stored in the sheet feed tray (fig. 1),
the image forming apparatus (see rejection of claims 1 and 6) further includes a connection member (pick up roller frame 52, paragraph 0036) that pivotally supports a first rotation shaft (see pick up roller 5 is rotatable about a center, fig. 3A and fig. 3B) and is rotatable about a second rotation shaft different from the first rotation shaft (see pick up roller frame is rotatable about shaft 51, fig. 3A and fig. 3B), and
the pickup roller is moved between the position where the pickup roller is normally used (fig. 3B, retract position, paragraph 0037) and a position different from the position where the pickup roller is normally used by rotation of the connection member about the second rotation shaft (fig. 3A, intake position paragraph 0037).
Note: paragraph 0040 teaches to use rotational shaft for supporting a rotational roller (separation roller 9). Although the specification of Fujimoto does not clearly state that the pick up roller and the pickup roller frame are supported by a shaft, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use a shaft for supporting the pick up roller for rotation, and a shaft for supporting the pick up roller frame for rotation. Such method has been used by humans for thousands of years and has proven to be efficient and reliable.
Claim(s) 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto US 2025/0320078 in view of Shiina US 2009/0295069 and Nakamura US 5540426 and Kamata (US 10514637).
Regarding claims 5 and 10: Fujimoto teaches: the image forming apparatus according to claims 4, 9 further comprising:
a sheet feed roller (feed roller 7, paragraph 0026) that conveys the sheet-like medium that has been picked up by the pickup roller; and
a separation roller (separation roller 9, paragraph 0027) that is provided opposite to the sheet feed roller and pressed against the sheet feed roller (fig. 2), wherein
the allower, with the separation roller moved to a position where the separation roller does not press the sheet feed roller, allows movement of the pickup roller to a position different from the position where the pickup roller is normally used. (Note: in order to replace the pick up roller, the pick up roller has to move to a position different from the position where the pick up roller is normally used (see rejection of claim 1, 6) regardless whether the separation roller is pressing the sheet feed roller or not.
Fujimoto does not clearly state that the separation roller can move to a position where the separation roller does not press the sheet feed roller.
Kamata teaches the separation roller can move to a position where the separation roller does not press the sheet feed roller (fig. 5 and fig 6, column 7, lines 64-66, the separation roller 36 is separated from the sheet feed roller 35 by a predetermined distance based on a signal from the processor 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fujimoto to include: the separation roller can move to a position where the separation roller does not press the sheet feed roller,
The reason of doing so would have allow medium of different thickness to effectively and smoothly be separated and move through the sheet feeding path.
Note: after the modification, the separation roller can move to a position where the separation roller does not press the sheet feed roller; and when separation roller moved to a position where the separation roller does not press the sheet feed roller, the allower should also allow movement of the pickup roller to a position different from the position where the pickup roller is normally used for proper replacement of the pick up roller when the pick up roller is to be replaced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have made the allower such that the allower, with the separation roller moved to a position where the separation roller does not press the sheet feed roller, allows movement of the pickup roller to a position different from the position where the pickup roller is normally used in order to replace the pick up roller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KING Y POON whose telephone number is (571)270-0728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Alexander Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights