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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election of Species I (i.e., Fig. 7), directed to amended claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). None of the claims were withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
3. Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the ejection roller" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
4. Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0126827 (Fehrenback et al.) (hereinafter “Fehrenbach”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-14 show a media ejecting apparatus, comprising:
a conveyance roller (40 or 42) to convey a first medium (12) and a second medium (14) following the first medium (12);
an ejection roller (46 or 52) to eject the first medium (12) and the second medium (14); and
circuitry (including “control unit” and “evaluation unit” in numbered paragraphs [0024] – [0025] and [0076] – [0080]) configured to reduce a first ejection speed (brake or stop in numbered paragraph [0079]) at which the ejection roller (46 or 52) ejects the first medium (12),
wherein the circuitry (including “control unit” and “evaluation unit” in numbered paragraphs [0024] – [0025] and [0076] – [0080]) is configured to:
determine a first skew (numbered paragraph [0077]) of the first medium (12) and a second skew (numbered paragraph [0077]) of the second medium (14); and
change a reference (angular displacement in numbered paragraphs [0077] and [0079]) for determining whether to reduce the first ejection speed (brake or stop), based on the first skew (numbered paragraph [0077]) or the second skew (numbered paragraph [0077]). See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0076] – [0080].
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 1-14 show a sensor (“sensors” in numbered paragraphs [0076] – [0077]) to detect the first medium (12) and the second medium (14), wherein, the circuitry (including “control unit” and “evaluation unit” in numbered paragraphs [0024] – [0025] and [0076] – [0080]) is configured to:
reduce the first ejection speed (brake or stop in numbered paragraph [0079]) in a case where a distance (Y) between the first medium (12) and the second medium (14) detected by the sensor (“sensors” in numbered paragraphs [0076] - [0077]) is equal to or larger than a threshold when the ejection roller (46 or 52) ejects the first medium (12); and change the reference by changing the threshold or correcting the distance based on the first skew or the second skew. See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0077] – [0080]. Numbered paragraph [0080] teaches changing gap Y between sheets.
Regarding claim 3, Figs. 1-14 show that the circuitry (including “control unit” and “evaluation unit” in numbered paragraphs [0024] – [0025] and [0076] – [0080]) is configured to change the reference (angular displacement in numbered paragraphs [0077] and [0079]), based on a relationship between the first skew and the second skew.
Regarding claim 5, Figs. 1-14 disclose a media ejecting method, comprising:
conveying a first medium (12) and a second medium (14) following the first medium (12) with a conveyance roller (40 or 42);
ejecting the first medium (12) and the second medium (14); and
reducing a first ejection speed (brake or stop in numbered paragraph [0079]) at which the ejection roller (46 or 52) ejects the first medium (12),
wherein the reducing includes determining a first skew (numbered paragraph [0077]) of the first medium (12) and a second skew (numbered paragraph [0077}) of the second medium (14), and changing a reference (angular displacement in numbered paragraphs [0077] and [0079]) for determining whether to reduce the first ejection speed (brake or stop), based on the first skew or the second skew. See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0076] – [0080].
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 1-14 disclose a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors (including “control unit” and “evaluation unit” in numbered paragraphs [0024] – [0025] and [0076] – [0080]) on a media ejecting apparatus (Fig. 6), causes the one or more processors (including “control unit” and “evaluation unit” in numbered paragraphs [0024] – [0025] and [0076] – [0080]) to perform a media ejecting method, the media ejecting apparatus (Fig. 6) including a conveyance roller (40 or 42) to convey a first medium (12) and a second medium (14) following the first medium (12) and an ejection roller (46 or 52) to eject the first medium (12) and the second medium (14),
the method comprising reducing a first ejection speed (brake or stop in numbered paragraph [0077]) at which the ejection roller (46 or 52) ejects the first medium (12),
wherein the reducing includes determining a first skew (numbered paragraph [0077]) of the first medium (12) and a second skew (numbered paragraph [0077]) of the second medium (14), and changing a reference (angular displacement in numbered paragraphs [0077] and [0079]) for determining whether to reduce the first ejection speed (brake or stop), based on the first skew or the second skew. See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0076] – [0080].
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.
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fehrenback as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0212889 (Jiang et al.) (hereinafter “Jiang”). With regard to claim 4, Fehrenback teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the conveyance roller (40 or 42) and the ejection roller (46 or 52) that are both driven, but Fehrenback does not teach separate motors for the conveyance roller (40 or 42) and the ejection roller (46 or 52), as claimed.
Jiang shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a media ejecting apparatus (Fig. 1) with a conveyance motor (201) to drive a conveyance roller (belt roller in first conveyance device 2 in Fig. 5); and an ejection motor (301) to drive an ejection roller (belt roller in second conveyance device 3 in Fig. 4), wherein the conveyance motor (201) and the ejection motor (301) are separate from each other, for the purpose of allowing the first and second conveyance devices (2 and 3) to operate independently from one another. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the Fehrenback apparatus with different motors for the conveyance and ejection rollers, for the purpose of allowing the conveyance and ejection rollers to operate independently from one another, as shown in Jiang.
Conclusion
6. 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