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 .
This action is in response to the documents received on June 18, 2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2026 with respect to the disclosure of TANAKA et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12 of the pending remarks/arguments, Applicant has argued that TANAKA et al. fails to disclose setting a folding position based on a length of a sheet and executing a C-folding of a sheet as required in the amended claims. However, as referenced in the rejection of anticipation by TANAKA et al., column 8 lines 36-57 of TANAKA et al. acknowledges the necessity of knowing a length of a sheet to be folded for the purpose of proper positioning of a first fold and a second fold in the sheet to establish a tri-fold. In particular column 8 lines 48-52 of TANAKA et al. states the controller 101 (including a processor; abstract) adjusts a position of the first and second folds based on the determined length of the sheet. Furthermore, figure 3 of TANAKA et al. illustrates a series of steps executed by the processing system, wherein steps 5-7 Figure 9B illustrates a C-fold in a sheet, also described as a tri-fold.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims as anticipated by Sakata have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over TANAKA et al. in view of SANAKA.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TANAKA et al. (US 11,509,784).
In reference to claims 1 and 19, TANAKA et al. discloses a sheet processing system (figure 2) comprising: at least one processor (CPU; column 3 lines 7-8) functioning by executing instruction stored in at least one memory (102; ROM, RAM); a receiving unit 103 configured to display and receive (user interface) a length (figure 4C; column 3 lines 53-57; 5 lines 35-36) from an end of a sheet to a first folding position (figures 9A-9C & 13A-14B); a setting unit 402 configured to set a second folding position, different from the first folding position, based on a length of the sheet (column 6 lines 41-50; column 8 lines 36-57), the length accepted by the receiving unit 103 and a margin (column 3 lines 21-57); and an executing unit 110 configure to execute C-folding of the sheet in a first folding position and the second folding position (969).
Regarding claim 2, TANAKA et al. further discloses the setting unit 402 determines the second folding position such that the sheet will not be caught at the first folding position nor the second folding position (figure 4A; column 5 lines 60-).
With respect to claims 3 and 12, TANAKA et al. further discloses the acceptance unit as a (first) display 103 of a range of limited imputable values (figure 4C; trays 1-trays 4; column 5 lines 60-67).
In reference to claims 5 and 8, TANAKA et al. further discloses the at least one processor configured to obtain a table of ranges for panel fold widths based on the first folding position and the second folding position (column 6 line 66- column 7 line 21), wherein amongst the ranges of the fold widths of the panels defined in the table, the receiving unit 103 sets the range of the fold width corresponding to the length (size) of the sheet and the margin (column 5 lines 48-51).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, TANAKA et al. further discloses the at least one processer configured to obtain a table of ranges for panel fold widths based on the first folding position and the second folding position (column 6 line 66- column 7 line 21), wherein amongst the ranges of the fold widths of the panels defined in the table, the setting unit 402 sets the first and second folding positions (figure 4B) according to the table (column 5 lines 48-51).
With respect to claims 9-11, TANAKA et al. further discloses the value of the margin (deviation) is determined by a size (S104; figure 10; column 3 lines 21-38) or type of sheet (figure 4C), such that the margin would result in a change in size of a panel extending between the first and second fold lines (figure 9B & 9C).
In reference to claims 14 and 15, TANAKA et al. further discloses the acceptance unit 103 displays an input field for an initial input of a sheet length from a range of preset lengths (figure 4C; each TRAY holds a sheet of a different length).
Regarding claim 18, TANAKA et al. discloses a sheet processing method comprising: a receiving 103 a length (figure 4C; column 3 lines 53-57; 5 lines 35-36) from an end of a sheet to a first folding position (figures 9A-9C & 13A-14B); and setting a second folding position based on a length of the sheet (402; column 6 lines 41-50; column 8 lines 36-57), the length accepted by an acceptance unit 103 and a margin (column 3 lines 21-57).
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.
Claims 12, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in TANAKA et al. (US 11,509,784).view of SAKATA (US 8,434,751)
With respect to claims 12, 13 and 17, TANAKA et al. discloses a sheet processing system comprising at least one processor (CPU; column 3 lines 7-8) configured to display setting information (figures 4A-4C), but does not reference a display as claimed.
SAKATA teaches a sheet processing system (figure 3) comprising: at least one processor (CPU-150; claim 7) functioning by executing instruction (program) stored in at least one memory (ROM-151); an acceptance unit 1104 configured to accept a length from an end of a sheet to a first folding position 1102, wherein the acceptance unit 1104 includes a (first) display that displays a schematic diagram (figure 8) of the sheet subjected to a folding process and performs limits of imputable values (1101) of the first and second folding positions in input fields 1102, 1105. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the acceptance unit of TANAKA et al. to include a display as claimed since column 8 lines 7-15 of SAKATA suggest such a modification provides a detailed visual feedback for the purpose of adjusting settings of the sheet processing system.
Regarding claim 16, although TANAKA et al. discloses a sheet processing system comprising at least one processor (CPU; column 3 lines 7-8) configured to display setting information (figures 4A-4C), TANAKA et al. does not disclose the display configured to display the the input field as claimed. Figure 8 of SAKATA teaches an acceptance unit that displays “0” as an initial value in an input field 1102, 1105 of the acceptance unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the acceptance unit display of TANAKA et al. to display “0” as claimed since column lines of SAKATA suggests such a display establishes a visual initial value of a fold setting for the purpose of distinguishing when a fold position has been received by the acceptance unit.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GLORIA R WEEKS whose telephone number is (571)272-4473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-2pm & 5pm-7pm EST.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
Other helpful telephone numbers are listed for applicant's benefit:
Allowed Files & Publication (888) 786-0101
Assignment Branch (800) 972-6382
Certificates of Correction (703) 305-8309
Fee Questions (571) 272-6400
Inventor Assistance Center (800) PTO-9199
Petitions/special Programs (571) 272-3282
Information Help line 1-800-786-9199
/GLORIA R WEEKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
September 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights