DETAILED ACTION
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, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are 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 separation roller pressing part (29) to press the separation roller toward the feed roller;
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 toward 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 toward the fourth roller, wherein the first and third roller are driven by a single motor (27), and
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). Further, as noted my Samoto, to ensure the relationship, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the hardness of the opposing rollers would need to be substantially the same (i.e. if the hardness of the opposing rollers were different the disclosed increase in contact area would be irrelevant).
Further, 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 claims 5 and 11, 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 claims 10 and 12, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 7/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s exhaustive remarks that the references alone do not disclosed the claimed invention (see pages 5-9 addressing each piece of art individually); In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, since the rejection is based on a combination of 3 references to teach recited features, the combination must be addressed.
It is noted in the rejection above that the aspect that the hardness of the opposing rollers are not disclosed however would be obvious. Given the applicant’s original disclosure and lack of explicit criticality to the features of having differing hardness for one set of rollers and having same hardness for opposing rollers, these features would be considered to be obvious since one having ordinary skill would understand experimenting with variables of the roller would routine in finding an optimal, desired roller. Criticality must be established by the original disclosure of at least inherent thereto.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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