DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a first frame” and “a second frame” (Claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is noted that while these structures are disclosed in [0050] of Applicant’s specification and stated as being in Fig. 3, they do not appear to be shown.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 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.
Regarding Claim 1, “a driving portion” is recited as causing the rollers to rotate as well as to whirl. However, Applicant’s disclosure appears to assign these functions to two separate drive motors (i.e. M1L, M2L). Therefore, this is considered to be new matter, wherein this driving portion is not particularly defined and the disclosure shows a collection of motors (not a single one) to perform the functions.
Claims 2-14 are rejected by dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, “a driving portion” is recited as causing the rollers to rotate as well as to whirl. However, Applicant’s disclosure appears to assign these functions to two separate drive motors (i.e. M1L, M2L). Therefore, this is considered to be new matter, wherein this driving portion is not particularly defined and the disclosure shows a collection of motors (not a single one) to perform the functions. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claims 2-14 are rejected by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 11, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tharayil (US Pub No. 2010/0327518 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tharayil discloses
a correcting portion provided with (1) a first correcting roller (i.e. left 51 in Fig. 1) rotatable about a first rotational axis (50) and whirlable about a first axis (i.e. the pivot point shown in Fig. 5/6) in a crossing direction crossing a conveyance direction of a sheet and the first rotational axis, the first correcting roller being configured to correct a position of the sheet in the widthwise direction, and (2) a second correcting roller (i.e. right 51 in Fig. 1) disposed at a position different from the first correcting roller in the widthwise direction, rotatable about a second rotational axis (50) and whirlable about a second axis (i.e. the pivot point shown in Fig. 5/6) parallel to the first axis (i.e. both are vertical), and configured to correct the position of the sheet in the widthwise direction;
a driving portion configured to (1) rotatably drive the first correcting roller about the first rotational axis and the second correcting roller about the second rotational axis (i.e. via the motor assembly in [0030], wherein drive force is transmitted to 51 from 41) and (2) whirlably drive the first correcting roller about the first axis and the second correcting roller about the second axis (i.e. via the mechanism inducing lateral movement of 66, [0035]); (it is noted that a driving portion may comprise both of these structures)
a side end detecting portion (22/24) configured to detect a side end of the sheet in the widthwise direction of the sheet; and
a control portion (70) configured to control the driving portion,
wherein based on a detection result of the side end detecting portion, the control portion executes a first correcting control (i.e. first iteration of the feedback loop in Fig. 8) in which the correcting portion corrects the position of the sheet in the widthwise direction and executes a second correcting control (i.e. second iteration of the feedback loop in Fig. 8) in which the correcting portion corrects the position of the sheet in the widthwise direction after the first correcting control (via iterative feedback loop control, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 2, Tharayil discloses
(1) a first whirlable driving portion (i.e. a "portion" of the mechanism inducing lateral movement, [0035]) configured to whirlably drive the first correcting roller (51) and (2) a second whirlable driving portion (i.e. another "portion" of the mechanism inducing lateral movement, [0035]) configured to whirlably drive the second correcting roller (51), and
wherein the first correcting roller and the second correcting roller are independently whirlable (i.e. "independently pivoted", [0039]).
Regarding Claim 3, Tharayil discloses
the driving portion is provided with (1) a first rotatable driving portion ([0004], a "portion" of the differential drive system of [0010], also in [0030] a motor assembly is associated with each nip assembly 30) configured to rotatably drive the first correcting roller about the first rotational axis and (2) a second rotatable driving portion ([0004], another "portion" of the differential drive system of [0010], also in [0030] a motor assembly is associated with each nip assembly 30) configured to rotatably drive the second correcting roller about the second rotational axis, and
wherein the first correcting roller and the second correcting roller are independently rotatable (i.e. due to the "differential" drive system, [0003], [0010], [0038]).
Regarding Claim 6, Tharayil discloses
the control portion executes the second correcting control after the first correcting control and before a trailing end of the sheet passes through the first correcting roller and the second correcting roller (i.e. continuous adjustments are made while the sheet remains engaged by 30, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 11, Tharayil discloses
an image forming portion (i.e. printing system, [0001], [0023], [0024], [0026]) configured to form an image on a sheet conveyed by the sheet conveying device.
Regarding Claim 12, Tharayil discloses
wherein the control portion corrects an oblique movement of the sheet by a rotational speed difference between the first correcting roller rotatably driven by the first rotatable driving portion and the second correcting roller rotatably driven by the second rotatable driving portion (i.e. corrects skew [0010], [0038], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 14, Tharayil discloses
the control portion simultaneously corrects the oblique movement of the sheet and the position of the sheet in the widthwise direction ([0042]).
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/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tharayil (US Pub No. 2010/0327518 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (US Pub No. 2018/0346271 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Tharayil discloses wherein the control portion corrects the oblique movement of the sheet by a rotational speed difference between the first correcting roller rotatably driven by the first rotatable driving portion and the second
correcting roller rotatably driven by the second rotatable driving portion (i.e. corrects skew [0010], [0038], [0041]) but does not disclose first and second oblique movement detecting portions or third and fourth correcting controls.
Nakamura et al. discloses a first oblique movement detecting portion (35) configured to detect oblique movement of the sheet; and a second oblique movement detecting portion (37) disposed downstream of the first oblique movement detecting portion in the conveyance direction and configured to detect the oblique movement of the sheet ([0084], [0085], [0098], [0099]),
wherein the control portion executes a third correcting control (S26, Fig. 5) in which the correcting portion corrects the oblique movement of the sheet and the position of the sheet in the widthwise direction based on a detection result of the side end detecting portion and the first oblique movement detecting portion (S21), and executes a fourth correcting control (S35, Fig. 7) in which the correcting portion corrects the oblique movement of the sheet and the position of the sheet in the widthwise direction based on a detection result of the side end detecting portion and the second oblique movement detecting portion after the third correcting control (S31), for the purpose of correcting sheet skew and lateral position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tharayil by including the first and second oblique movement detecting portions and third and fourth correcting controls, as disclosed by Nakamura et al., for the purpose of correcting sheet skew and lateral position.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tharayil (US Pub No. 2010/0327518 A1) in view of Wick (US Pub No. 2020/0270084 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Tharayil discloses
a first frame (62, Fig. 5) that supports (1) the first correcting roller, the first frame being whirled about the first axis; and
a second frame (i.e. other 62) that supports (1) the second correcting roller the second frame being whirled about the second axis.
Tharayil does not disclose the frames to support first and second motors.
Wick discloses whirling of alignment rollers (12) and their drive motors (14) about an axis (A), for the purpose of correcting sheet skew and lateral position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Tharayil by including the whirling of alignment
rollers and their drive motors as disclosed by Wick, for the purpose of correcting sheet
skew and lateral position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record shows placement of the detecting portions (Claim 5) or the controls (Claims 7-10) as claimed, in combination with the remaining elements.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that “that Tharayil's driven wheel 40 is rotatably driven by a motor assembly ([0030]) but that Tharayil's left and right idler rollers 51 are not rotatably driven as claimed”, it is noted that Claim 1 does not require the correcting rollers to be directly driven by motors and that the claim requires “a driving portion”. “Portion” may be taken as a partial section of a structure or as an assembly/collection of structures.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Furthermore, it is unclear if Applicant intends to invoke 112(f) with “a driving portion” but if so, it is noted that the specification lacks the necessary support for this interpretation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am - 5:30pm.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 February 20, 2026