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) 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al (US Pub No 2020/0142340).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses a document conveying apparatus comprising:
a feed roller (70) to feed a medium;
a separation part (72) located to face the feed roller;
a plurality of conveyance rollers (82) paced in a direction intersecting a document conveying direction to convey the document fed by the feed roller to a downstream side in the document conveying direction;
a plurality of facing rollers (90) located to respectively face the plurality of conveyance rollers; and
an imaging device (see paragraph [0108]) to image the document conveyed by the feed roller, the separation part, the plurality of conveyance rollers, and the plurality of facing rollers, wherein
the feed roller, the separation part, the plurality of conveyance rollers, and the plurality of facing rollers are located such that a first nip region formed by the feed roller and the separation part does not overlap with second nip regions formed by the plurality of conveyance rollers and the plurality of facing rollers when viewed in the document conveying direction (as shown in figure 2).
It is noted that Maeda fails to explicitly disclose the feed roller overlaps at least one roller of the plurality of conveyance rollers and the plurality of facing rollers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maeda to slightly adjust the width of the feed roller such that overlap exists since such a modification would merely entail routine experimentation, and further the applicant’s disclosure lacks criticality of the overlapping nature of the non-nipping regions of the rollers (e.g. obvious to try with exceptionally limited possibilities and entirely predictable results).
Regarding claim 5, Maeda with the proposed change noted above, one of three limited and possible ways to reach the claimed construction would be having a length of the feed roller is larger than a length of the separation part in the direction intersecting with the document conveying direction. Since this is one of limited possibilities, it is determined to be obvious in view of the modification for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, again Maeda with the proposed change noted above, with the limited possible ways in which it can be modified to read of the claimed construction, teaches the feed roller, the separation part, the plurality of conveyance rollers, and the plurality of facing rollers are located such that, when viewed from the medium conveying direction, the first nip region formed by the feed roller and the separation part does not overlap with the second nip regions formed by the plurality of conveyance rollers and the plurality of facing rollers, and the feed roller overlaps with at least a part of the second nip region. With feed roller overlapping with at least part of the second nip region, one having ordinary skill would be able to determine the amount of overlap desired for best conveyance result, and further the applicant’s disclosure lacks criticality of the overlapping nature of the feed roller with the nip regions.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al in view of Kuno et al (JP 2014-101218).
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that Maeda is silent to the hardness of the rollers. However, Kuno discloses the hardness of the rollers having a shorter axial width is desired to be higher than that of the rollers having the longer axial width. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Maeda with the teachings of Kuno to achieve the predictable result of reducing the occurrence of glossy streaks is by the pressure contact force of the nip portion in the image forming area of the recording paper (as taught by Kuno).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose the claimed imaging device and width of the feed roller; as noted in the rejection above, the prior art discloses the image reading device as a possible embodiment (e.g. image reading device). Further, regarding the width of the roller, since the original non-final rejection in this application, the modification for the width of at least one of the feed roller or the facing roller has been present. As noted in the rejection above, that has been simplified to solely relate to the width of the feed roller as required by the now claimed invention. This modification has not been challenged (and the applicant’s current remarks fail to challenge the legitimacy of the proposed modification) and a simple “the prior art doesn’t disclose the claimed feature” argument is provided. The previous rejection was a 103 which obviated this feature and remains since the applicant failed to provide any arguments to the matter since the original non-final rejection.
Further, relating to the overlapping nature, as noted in the previous response to arguments (emphasis added), the applicant’s original disclosure lacks any criticality to these features. It is noted that the applicant points to paragraphs [0044] and [0045] and discusses the adherence of graphite and ink. However, these paragraphs relate specifically as to reasons the nipping regions do not overlap, and not for the non-nipping regions as noted in the rejection above.
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