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 .
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 5 is objected to because it appears “herein” should instead be –wherein--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the target" in lines 11,12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the target" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1,2,11, as best understood by the Examiner (see ¶3,4 above), are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura USP 8,919,772
Okumura discloses, regarding claim 1, A conveyor (50) comprising:
a first guide plate (52) including:
a first roller shaft (62); and
a first roller (61) having a first hardness and attached to the first roller shaft; and
a second guide plate (51) disposed opposite to the first guide plate and including:
a second roller shaft (74); and
a second roller (71) having hardness and attached to the second roller shaft (at least C11/L53-56 discloses the roller made of rubber or resin),
wherein parallelism between the first roller shaft and the second roller shaft is variable, and the first guide plate and the second guide plate guide the target, and the first roller and the second roller nips and conveys the target in a conveyance direction (E) (see at least fig.4).
Okumura does not expressly disclose the second roller having a second hardness higher than the first hardness of the first roller, however, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the second roller with a hardness higher than that of the first roller since it is well known for the selection of a known material to be used based on its suitability for its intended use (see MPEP 2144.07).
Okumura further discloses, regarding claim 2, wherein the first guide plate is fixed,
the second guide plate (51) is movable relative to the first guide plate (52) to vary the parallelism between the first roller shaft and the second roller shaft (see at least fig.4).
Regarding claim 11, An image forming apparatus (1; fig.1) comprising the conveyor (50) according to claim 1.
8. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura USP 8,919,772 in view of Hari USP 10,124,973.
Okumura discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶7 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claims 3,4.
Hari teaches [regarding claim 3] wherein the second guide plate (72) is openably closable with respect to the first guide plate (71), and [regarding claim 4] further comprising a hinge shaft (72a) to couple one end of the first guide plate to one end of the second guide plate, wherein another end of the second guide plate is rotatable with respect to another end of the first guide plate about the hinge shaft (see at least fig.7).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the second guide plate to be openably closable with respect to the first guide plate, and further comprising a hinge shaft to couple one end of the first guide plate to one end of the second guide plate, wherein another end of the second guide plate is rotatable with respect to another end of the first guide plate about the hinge shaft, as taught by Hari, in the device of Okumura, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of generating an open space to as to remove a jammed sheet (C12/L38-43).
Regarding claim 5, Okumura, as modified above, discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims, and further discloses the hinge shaft (72a) being perpendicular to the conveyance direction, but does not expressly disclose the hinge shaft being parallel to the conveyance direction. However, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the hinge shaft to be parallel to the conveyance direction is held to be an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 6-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Azeta et al. (USP 4,953,846) discloses a first roller (1) and first roller shaft (2), a second roller (4) and a second roller shaft (fig.5), wherein the parallelism between the first roller shaft and the second roller shaft is variable (see at least fig.5,7,8).
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE A. NICHOLSON III whose telephone number is (571)272-5487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Michael C 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.
/LESLIE A NICHOLSON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 3/20/2026