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
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) 1-3 and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashizume et al. 2016/0214407 in view of Imoto US 2015/0070456.
Hashizume discloses a medium conveying apparatus comprising:
(Re claim 1) “a housing in which an opening is provided” (2,2c figure 1). “a conveying roller configured to convey a medium through the opening” (25,26 figure 1). “a rotating shaft to which the conveying roller is attached, the rotating shaft extending in a medium width direction intersecting a conveying direction of the medium” (25-27 figure 3). “a soundproof member attached to the rotating shaft and configured to prevent sound occurring on an inside of the housing from leaking to an outside of the housing through the opening” (26,27 figure 4A). “the soundproof member comes into contact with the medium conveyed by the conveying roller” (26, P figure 4A).
Hashizume is silent with regard to removing electric charges of the medium.
Imoto teaches that a roller is used to remove electric charges of the medium (para 0050).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Hashizume to include that a roller is used to remove electric charges of the medium because printers require the paper to have to correct charge to be able to function properly.
(Re claim 2) Hashizume discloses that the soundproof member is an elastic roller
Hashizume is silent with regard to the elastic roller having conductivity.
Imoto teaches that the elastic roller having conductivity (para 0050, 0055).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Hashizume to include that the elastic roller having conductivity because printers require the paper to have to correct charge to be able to function properly.
(Re claim 3) “a diameter of the elastic roller is larger than a diameter of the conveying roller” (para 0095).
(Re claim 6) “the soundproof member includes a first soundproof
member and a second soundproof member, and the conveying roller is disposed between the first soundproof member and the second soundproof member in the medium width direction” (25,26 figure 4A).
(Re claim 7) “the conveying roller includes a first conveying roller and a second conveying roller, and the soundproof member is disposed between the first conveying roller and the second conveying roller in the medium width direction” (25,26,35 figure 5A).
(Re claim 8) “wherein the soundproof member is attached to the rotating
shaft to be configured to idle” (26 figure 4A). When the motor is idle the soundproof member is idle as well.
(Re claim 9) “further comprising a pair of conveyance guide plates disposed downstream of the opening in the conveying direction and configured to guide the medium on both upper and lower sides of the medium, wherein the soundproof member is formed long to cover a space between the pair of conveyance guide plates” (25,26,29,30 figure 4A).
(Re claim 10) “the opening is a paper feeding port to which the medium is supplied” (para 0062).
(Re claim 11) Hashizume does not disclose that the opening is a paper discharge port from which the medium is ejected.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to duplicate some or all of the soundproof member at the discharge port for the same reason it is located at the feeding port, because it reduces the noise that escapes the housing. Mere duplication of parts is not considered to be patentably distinct In re Harza.
Hashizume discloses a recording apparatus comprising:
(Re claim 12) “a housing in which an opening is provided” (2,2C figure 1). “a conveying roller configured to convey a medium through the opening” (25,26,2C figure 33). “a rotating shaft to which the conveying roller is attached, the rotating shaft extending in a medium width direction intersecting a conveying direction of the medium” (25-27 figure 3). “a soundproof member attached to the rotating shaft and configured to prevent sound occurring on an inside of the housing from leaking to an outside of the housing through the opening” (26,27 figure 4A). “a recording unit configured to perform recording on the medium” (55 figure 6). “the soundproof member comes into contact with the medium conveyed by the conveying roller” (26,P figure 4A).
Hashizume is silent with regard to removing electric charges of the medium.
Imoto teaches that a roller is used to remove electric charges of the medium (para 0050).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Hashizume to include that a roller is used to remove electric charges of the medium because printers require the paper to have to correct charge to be able to function properly.
Hashizume discloses a post-processing apparatus comprising:
(Re claim 13) “a housing in which an opening is provided” (2,2C figure 1). “a conveying roller configured to convey a medium through the opening” (25,26,2C figure 3). “a rotating shaft to which the conveying roller is attached, the rotating shaft extending in a medium width direction intersecting a conveying direction of the medium” (25-27 figure 3). “a soundproof member attached to the rotating shaft and configured to prevent sound occurring on an inside of the housing from leaking to an outside of the housing through the opening” (26,27 figure 4A). “a post-processing unit configured to perform post-processing on the medium” (55 figure 6). “the soundproof member comes into contact with the medium conveyed by the conveying roller” (26,P figure 4A).
Hashizume is silent with regard to removing electric charges of the medium.
Imoto teaches that a roller is used to remove electric charges of the medium (para 0050).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Hashizume to include that a roller is used to remove electric charges of the medium because printers require the paper to have to correct charge to be able to function properly.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashizume/Imoto in view of Ninomiya US 2007/0177916.
Hashizume/Imoto disclose the system as rejected above.
Hashizume/Imoto do not disclose that the soundproof member includes a sheet-shaped first member having conductivity.
Ninomiya teaches that the soundproof member includes a sheet-shaped first member having conductivity (50 figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include the soundproof member includes a sheet-shaped first member having conductivity because it further blocks the opening in the housing and assists in correcting the charge of the medium.
(Re claim 5) Hashizume/Imoto does not disclose that a sheet-shaped second member is stuck to the first member.
Ninomiya teaches that a sheet-shaped second member is stuck to the first member (56, 50 figure 2,3, para 0048).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Hashizume/Imoto to include that a sheet-shaped second member is stuck to the first member because it improves the efficacy of charge removal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,197,024 discloses a sound dampening roller where the foam material is larger in diameter than the feed roller. US 4,465,390 discloses a sound dampening roller at the discharge opening.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655