Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Publication No. 6-9108 (hereinafter “JP’108”). A machine translation of JP’108 is included with the Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-3 show a media conveying apparatus comprising:
a media table (23);
a feed roller (22) to feed a medium placed on the media table (23) in a media feeding direction (left in Fig. 2);
a separation roller (20) facing in the feed roller (22) to separate the medium (i.e., right side of element 20 faces left side of element 22);
a sensor (see step 303 in Fig. 3) to detect multi-feed of the medium: and
circuitry (element 24 and numbered paragraph [0007] of the machine translation) configured to:
in response to detection of multi-feed of the medium by the sensor (see step 303 in Fig. 3), rotate the separation roller (20) in a direction opposite (right) to the media feeding direction (left) to convey the medium toward the media table (23);
stop the rotation of the separation roller (20) in the direction opposite (right) to the media feeding direction (left) after conveyance of the medium toward the media table (23); and
restart rotation of the feed roller (22) in the media feeding direction (left).
Regarding claim 5, Figs. 1-3 disclose a media feeding method, comprising:
feeding a medium (“bill” in numbered paragraph [0001] of the machine translation) placed on a media table (23) in a media feeding direction (left in Fig. 2) by a feed roller (22);
separating the medium (bill) by a separation roller (20) facing the feed roller (22) (i.e., right side of element 20 faces left side of element 22);
in response to detection of multi-feed of the medium (bill) by a sensor (step number 303 in Fig. 2) to detect multi-feed of the medium (bill), rotating the separation roller (20) in a direction opposite (right) to the media feeding direction (left) to convey the medium toward the media table (23);
stopping the rotation of the separation roller (20) in the direction opposite (right) to the media feeding direction (left) after conveyance of the medium (bill) toward the media table (23); and
restarting rotation of the feed roller (22) in the media feeding direction (left).
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 1-3 show a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a method for controlling a media conveying apparatus (Fig. 1) including a feed roller (22) to feed a medium (bill) placed on a media table (23) in a media feedinq direction (left in Fig. 2), and a separation roller (20) facing the feed roller (22) (i.e., right side of element 20 faces left side of element 22) to separate the medium (bill) , the method comprising:
in response to detection of multi-feed of the medium by a sensor (see step 303 in Fig. 3) to detect multi-feed of the medium (bill), rotating the separation roller (20) in a direction opposite (right) to the media feeding direction (left) to convey the medium (bill) toward the media table (23);
stoppinq the rotation of the separation roller (20) in the direction opposite (right) to the media feedinq direction (left) after conveyance of the medium (bill) toward the media table (23); and
restarting rotation of the feed roller (22) in the media feeding direction (left).
Regarding claim 7, Figs. 1-3 show that the feed roller (22) rotates by the rotation of the separation roller (20) when the medium is conveyed toward the media table (23). Both of the rollers (22 and 20) are operated by the same motor (24) at the same time as a connected system.
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.
3. Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’108 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese Publication No. 2008-239330 (hereinafter “JP’330”). With regard to claim 3, JP’108 teaches most of the limitations of this claim including conveying the medium (bill) toward the media table (23), but JP’108 does not teach that in conveying the medium toward the media table, a moving speed of an outer circumferential surface of the feed roller is higher than a moving speed of an outer circumferential surface of the separation roller, as claimed.
JP’330 shows that it is well-known in the art to connect a feed roller (201) to a separating roller (202) in a manner such that a moving speed of an outer circumferential surface of the feed roller (201) is higher than a moving speed of an outer circumferential surface of the separation roller (202). See, e.g., numbered paragraph [0016] of the machine translation. The English abstract with this JP reference explains that this arrangement is effective in separating recording sheets attached to each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the apparatus of JP’108 with feed and separation rollers that operate such that the moving speed of the outer circumferential surface of the feed roller is higher than the moving speed of the outer circumferential surface of the separation roller, for the purpose of effectively separating sheets attached to each other, as taught by JP’330.
Regarding claim 10, connecting the feeding and separation rollers together, in a manner as taught by JP’330, results in a moving speed of the outer circumferential surface of the separation roller always being lower than the moving speed of the outer circumferential surface of the feed roller. As such, the moving speed of the outer circumferential surface of the separation roller in conveying the medium toward the table will likewise be lower than the moving speed of the outer circumferential surface of the feed roller in feeding the medium, as claimed.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 and 5-6 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2, 4, 8-9 and 11 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.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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, Mike 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653