DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant's claims 4 and 9 recite that "a difference between the hardness of the third roller and the hardness of the first roller is greater than a difference between a hardness of the fourth roller and a hardness of the second roller". The applicant's specification merely gives an open.
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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka in view of Samoto et al (US Pub No 2011/0309564).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Tezuka discloses a medium conveying apparatus comprising:
a feed roller (14) to feed a medium;
a separation roller (15) located to face the feed roller and provided to be rotatable in a direction opposite to a medium feeding direction or stoppable;
a first conveyance roller pair (16), including a first roller and second roller, located on a downstream side of the feed roller and the separation roller in a medium conveying direction to convey the medium fed by the feed roller while the separation roller is rotating in the direction opposite to the medium feeding direction or stopping;
a first pressing part (42) to press the second roller to the first roller;
a processing device (20) located on a downstream side of the first conveyance roller pair in the medium conveying direction to execute predetermined processing on the medium conveyed by the first conveyance roller pair;
a second conveyance roller pair (17), including a third roller and a fourth roller, located on a downstream side of the processing device in the medium conveying direction to convey the medium on which the predetermined processing is being executed by the processing device; and
a second pressing part (43) to press the third roller to the fourth roller,
wherein a pressing force of the second pressing part is less than a pressing force of the first pressing part (see [0117] and [0118].
It is noted that Tezuka fails to explicitly disclose the relationship between the roller hardness. However, Samoto discloses a similar conveyance device including upstream rollers (28) and downstream rollers (29) wherein the hardness of the downstream roller is lower than the hardness of the upstream roller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Tezuka with the teachings of Samoto to achieve the predictable result of increasing the contact area for driving the sheet with the downstream roller pair (see at least [0040] of Samoto).
Regarding claim 5, Tezuka is capable of causing a pressing force W1 of the first pressing part and a pressing force W2 of the second pressing part satisfy W1/W2 > 1.3.
Regarding claim 8, Tezuka discloses at least one roller of the first conveyance roller pair and at least one roller of the second conveyance roller pair are driven by a single motor (27, shown in figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Tezuka discloses a pressing force W1 of the first pressing part and a pressing force WO of the separation roller pressing part constantly satisfy W1/WO > 3 (e.g. since the biasing forces of each spring of Tezuka is disclosed to be independently controllable, the equation is capable of being satisfied).
Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka in view of Samoto, further in view of Iwasaki (US Pub No 2005/0111064).
Regarding claim 2, It is noted that Tezuka and Samoto fail to explicitly disclose the relationship between the roller diameters. However, Iwasaki discloses a similar device wherein a sheet conveyance device with upstream roller pair (1, corresponding to the first roller pair) and downstream roller pair (2, corresponding to the downstream roller pair) and a processing device (3) therebetween which discloses details of the roller’s diameter such that the diameter of at least one roller of the second conveyance roller pair is greater than a diameter of at least one roller of the first conveyance roller pair. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Tezuka with the teachings of Iwasaki to achieve the predictable result of achieving a smoother transition when feeding a sheet during scanning when the trailing edge of the sheet being conveyed (see Iwasaki at least [0028]). Iwasaki discloses the both rollers of the second conveyance roller pair have the same diameter, and both rollers of the first conveyance roller pair have the same diameter (e.g. outside “diameters” of the first/second roller “pair”).
Regarding claim 7, It is noted that Tezuka fails to explicitly disclose the relationship between the roller diameters. However, Iwasaki discloses a similar device wherein a sheet conveyance device with upstream roller pair (1, corresponding to the first roller pair) and downstream roller pair (2, corresponding to the downstream roller pair) and a processing device (3) therebetween which discloses details of the roller’s diameter such that the diameter of at least one roller of the second conveyance roller pair is greater than a diameter of at least one roller of the first conveyance roller pair. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Tezuka with the teachings of Iwasaki to achieve the predictable result of achieving a smoother transition when feeding a sheet during scanning when the trailing edge of the sheet being conveyed (see Iwasaki at least [0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted above, see 112(a) section, the applicant's claimed invention is rejected under new matter since the claimed subject matter was not explicitly disclosed at the time of filing. While the specification does provide a general disclosure and open-ended example where there can be differences in hardnesses of each roller of each pair, the explicit requirement by the claimed invention is not disclosed. To the contrary, in [0093] of the published application, the applicant’s specification states it is preferable that the hardness of each roller of the pair is the same for the specific reason of “the conveyance force exerted by a roller located on the upper side and the conveyance force exerted by a roller located on the lower side become identical, and the medium conveying apparatus 100 can suppress exertion of a stripping (shearing) force on a conveyed medium and can satisfactorily convey the medium.”
Since the above rejection is in place, the previous rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights