DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 07/12/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 8 and 9 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.
9. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the support pillar" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
10. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the support pillar" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “the support pillar” to be one of the plurality of support pillars.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
14. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakazawa et al. (US 2023/0018534), hereinafter ‘Nakazawa’.
Regarding Claim 1:
Nakazawa discloses a recording device (Nakazawa: Fig. 13 ‘Multifunction device 5 (inkjet recording device)’; ¶[0162]) comprising:
a device main body having a placement tray on which a medium recorded by a recording section is placed;
Nakazawa: Housing 14 of printer 10 constitutes the device main body. The printer 10 records images on sheets 12 using an inkjet recording system (¶[0025]). The top wall 143 includes a sloped wall 148 onto which sheets 12 are discharged through opening 150 by the third conveyor roller pair 56 (i.e., the sloped wall 148 is a placement tray on which a recorded medium is placed). (FIGS. 1-2, and 13; ¶¶[0025-0028; 0067]).
a reading section that is provided upward from the device main body and that is configured to read a document;
Nakazawa: Scanner unit 11 is provided on top of the housing 14, i.e., upward from the device main body. The scanner unit 11 "may be a conventional scanner unit such as a flat-bed type scanner unit" and is configured to read documents. (FIG. 13; ¶[0162]).
and
a support section that is provided between the device main body and the reading section in a height direction of the device main body and that is configured to support the reading section,
Nakazawa: Columnar bodies 154 are provided between the housing 14 (device main body) and the scanner unit 11 (reading section) in the up-down direction 7. "The scanner unit 11 is seated on the printer 10 through columnar bodies 154," i.e., the columnar bodies support the scanner unit. (FIG. 13; ¶[0162]).
wherein the support section includes
a plurality of support pillars provided on an outer side of one end of the placement tray in the width direction of the device main body
Nakazawa: FIG. 13 shows four columnar bodies 154 positioned at the four corners of the housing 14. Two columnar bodies 154 are provided on the outer side of one end (e.g., the right end) of the sloped wall 148 in the left-right direction 9 (width direction). The columnar bodies are on the outer side of the sloped wall 148 because they are positioned at the side walls 149, which extend upward from the left-right ends of the sloped wall 148. (FIG. 13; ¶¶[0028; 0162]).
and
a plurality of support pillars provided on an outer side of an other end of the placement tray in the width direction.
Nakazawa: Two columnar bodies 154 are provided on the outer side of the other end (e.g., the left end) of the sloped wall 148 in the left-right direction 9. One of the four columnar bodies is obscured in FIG. 13 due to the field of view, but four total columnar bodies are present, two per width-direction side. (FIG. 13; ¶[0162]).
Accordingly, Claim 1 is unpatentable over Nakazawa.
Regarding Claim 6:
Nakazawa further discloses the recording device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of support pillars provided on the outer side of the one end of the placement tray are constituted by two support pillars and the plurality of support pillars provided on the outer side of the other end of the placement tray are constituted by two support pillars.
Nakazawa discloses four columnar bodies 154 arranged at the four corners of the housing 14, as shown in FIG. 13; ¶[0162]. Two columnar bodies 154 are on each width-direction side of the housing 14 (one front-corner column and one rear-corner column per side). Thus, the plurality of support pillars on the outer side of one end of the placement tray (sloped wall 148) is constituted by two columnar bodies, and the plurality on the outer side of the other end is also constituted by two columnar bodies. FIG. 13; ¶[0162].
Accordingly, Claim 6 is unpatentable over Nakazawa.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
18. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
19. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of CN 210480342, hereinafter CN ‘342.
An English translation of CN 210480342 is attached to this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 2.
Nakazawa discloses the recording device according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the medium on which recording has been performed is placed on the placement tray by being transported from the front surface side of the device main body toward the placement tray, an outer side surface on the front surface side of the support pillar positioned closest to the front surface side among the plurality of support pillars provided outside the one end of the placement tray has a rounded outer shape as viewed from the direction along the height direction, and an outer side surface on the front surface side of the support pillar positioned closest to the front surface side among the plurality of support pillars provided outside the other end of the placement tray has a rounded outer shape as viewed from the direction along the height direction.
CN ‘342 discloses wherein the medium on which recording has been performed is placed on the placement tray by being transported from the front surface side of the device main body toward the placement tray, an outer side surface on the front surface side of the support pillar positioned closest to the front surface side among the plurality of support pillars provided outside the one end of the placement tray has a rounded outer shape as viewed from the direction along the height direction, and an outer side surface on the front surface side of the support pillar positioned closest to the front surface side among the plurality of support pillars provided outside the other end of the placement tray has a rounded outer shape as viewed from the direction along the height direction.
Nakazawa discloses four columnar bodies 154 at the corners of the housing 14 as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. See FIG. 13; para. [0162]. However, Nakazawa's columnar bodies 154 as depicted in FIG. 13 do not clearly show a rounded outer shape as viewed from the height direction.
CN '342 teaches a printing device fixing device for a printing machine. (CN '342: Page 2, lines 1-2); " The utility model relates to the technical field of printing device, specifically a printer print fixing device "). CN '342 discloses a base 1 on which a printing machine main body 2 is fixedly mounted. (CN '342: page 5, lines 7-8).
CN ’342 expressly discloses that the base 1 has a plurality of upright support pillars on opposite width-direction sides and that the upright post 3 is provided with a support pillar element having a circular (rounded) cross-sectional shape: “the base 1 of the top front side of the left and right two ends are fixedly installed with an upright post 3, upright post 3 the inner side of the top end of the bearing is provided with a first round column 4, , and outside of the inner ring, bearing the first circular pillar 4 the outer side extending out of the post 3” (CN ’342: page 5, lines 8-12).
Nakazawa in view of CN ‘342 are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor (printer devices with vertical support/pillar structures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ‘columnar bodies 154’ of Nakazawa such that at least the outer side surface on the front surface side has a rounded outer shape as viewed from the height direction, as taught by CN '342.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is CN '342 expressly teaches that support pillar elements in printer devices can have a circular (rounded) cross-sectional profile. This establishes that rounded pillar shapes were known and used in the printer art before the priority date. Nakazawa's multifunction device 5 discloses that users reach between the columnar bodies 154 from the front side to retrieve discharged media from the sloped wall 148.
A rounded outer surface on the front-facing side of the columnar bodies reduces the risk when the user's hand jabs/contacts the support pillar during media retrieval. The modification amounts to changing the cross-sectional profile of the front-facing outer surface of Nakazawa's columnar bodies 154 from an angular shape to a rounded shape, which is a predictable design modification that does not affect the primary structural support function of the columnar bodies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nakazawa with CN ‘342 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
20. Claims 3-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa.
Regarding Claim 3:
Nakazawa discloses the recording device according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the support pillars of the support section have the same thickness.
Nakazawa discloses four columnar bodies 154 at the four corners of the housing 14. See FIG. 13 wherein the columnar bodies 154 appear to have different sizes, with the rear columnar bodies being larger than the front columnar bodies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the columnar bodies 154 of Nakazawa such that all four columnar bodies have the same thickness. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to make the same structural elements uniform or identical, reduce manufacturing costs and would yield a predictable result while still providing adequate structural support for the scanner unit 11, which is a well-known design technique recognized as within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) (making elements uniform is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art).
Accordingly, Claim 3 is unpatentable over Nakazawa.
Regarding Claim 4:
Nakazawa discloses the recording device according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein among the support pillars included in the support section, a support pillar close to the centroid of the reading section is thicker than the support pillar remote from the centroid than the support pillar close to the centroid.
Nakazawa discloses four columnar bodies 154 of non-uniform size, with the rear columnar bodies being larger (thicker) than the front columnar bodies. See FIG. 13; para. . This demonstrates that Nakazawa already teaches the concept of variable-thickness columnar supports.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the thicker columnar bodies of Nakazawa on the width-direction side closer to the centroid of the scanner unit 11, because Nakazawa already teaches that the columnar bodies 154 need not be uniform in size, as demonstrated by the different-sized columns in FIG. 13. In a multifunction device, the scanner unit 11 typically includes components such as an automatic document feeder (ADF) positioned on one side of the scanner, which shifts the center of mass of the scanner unit in the width direction toward that side, and positioning thicker (and thus structurally stronger) support pillars on the side of the device where the center of mass of the scanner unit is concentrated is a predictable application of basic structural engineering principles. Thicker supports at the location of greater load concentration provide more effective support and prevent tilting or uneven stress distribution. This modification yields the predictable result of optimizing the structural support for the scanner unit by matching the support pillar thickness to the load distribution.
Accordingly, Claim 4 is unpatentable over Nakazawa.
Regarding Claim 5:
Nakazawa discloses the recording device according to claim 4, but does not expressly disclose wherein the reading section includes a document transport section configured to transport the document and the support pillar close to the document transport section is thicker than the support pillar remote from the document transport section than the support pillar close to the document transport section.
Nakazawa discloses the multifunction device 5 with scanner unit 11, which may be a conventional scanner unit such as a flat-bed type scanner unit. Conventional flat-bed scanner units are well known to include automatic document feeders (document transport sections). Nakazawa further discloses that the columnar bodies 154 are of non-uniform size. See FIG. 13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the thicker columnar bodies of Nakazawa on the width-direction side closer to the document transport section, for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above. Specifically, the document transport section (ADF) contributes additional mass on the side of the scanner unit where it is located. Positioning the thicker support pillars on that side provides more effective structural support at the location of concentrated load, yielding the predictable result of a more stable and balanced multifunction device.
Accordingly, Claim 5 is unpatentable over Nakazawa.
Regarding Claim 8:
Nakazawa discloses the recording device according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the support pillar is provided with a light emitting section for performing notification by emitting light.
Nakazawa discloses the multifunction device 5 with columnar bodies 154 as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. See FIG. 13; para. . Nakazawa further discloses that the printer 10 includes an operation panel 17 on the front wall 141 of the housing 14 for displaying information and enabling user inputs. (¶[0091]). Nakazawa discloses that when both opening/closing covers 151 and 152 are at the open position, the controller 130 outputs an alarm signal to the operation panel 17 prompting closure. (¶[0092]).
Nakazawa expressly discloses: “The above alarming may not be performed through the operation panel 17. For example, the alarming may be performed through lighting of an LED provided in the printer 10. In this case, the LED serves as another example of the alarm part of the disclosure.” (¶[0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the LED of Nakazawa on one of the columnar bodies 154, because Nakazawa expressly teaches that the alarm notification can be performed by “lighting of an LED provided in the printer 10” as an alternative to display on the operation panel 17. This teaches relocating the notification function from the operation panel to an LED located elsewhere on the device. Selecting the columnar body as the LED location is the application of a known notification technique (LED lighting) to a known device component (columnar body) to yield the predictable result of multi-directional user notification. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Accordingly, Claim 8 is unpatentable over Nakazawa.
21. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of Kuroki (US 2016/0200541).
Regarding Claim 7:
Nakazawa discloses the recording device according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the support pillars are white, and the placement tray is black.
Kuroki discloses wherein the support pillars are white, and the placement tray is black.
Kuroki teaches an image forming apparatus (‘multifunction printer 1’) that includes an apparatus body 2 with a discharge tray 7 provided at an upper part of the apparatus body, between the apparatus body and image reading apparatus 1A. (Fig. 1; ¶¶[0017-0022; 0026]).
Kuroki expressly discloses “An entire upper surface of the discharge tray 7 is colored in black, i.e., in dark color. That is, the discharge tray 7 is colored in color whose brightness is low as compared to an ordinary white sheet S (plain sheet).” (¶[0044]).
Kuroki further discloses “The four exterior parts 2a through 2d are colored respectively in white, i.e., a bright color, except the lower parts where the sheet feed cassette 3 is attached.” (¶[0047]), and “the discharge tray 7 is colored in black and the apparatus body 2 (the bright-color part 30) is colored in white in the multi-function printer 1” (¶[0058]).
Nakazawa in view of Kuroki are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing (inkjet/image forming devices with discharge trays). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the columnar bodies (support pillars) of Nakazawa white and the tray black as taught by Kuroki. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to allow the user to easily know that sheets have been discharged onto the tray as disclosed by Kuroki at ¶[0053]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nakazawa with Kuroki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
22. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of Arikawa et al. (US 9,944,489), hereinafter ‘Arikawa’.
Regarding Claim 9:
Nakazawa discloses the recording device according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the support pillar is provided with an illumination section configured to illuminate the medium placed on the placement tray.
Arikawa discloses wherein the support pillar is provided with an illumination section configured to illuminate the medium placed on the placement tray.
Arikawa expressly discloses: "a light source that is disposed in a part of the internal stacker and that emits a light beam toward a predetermined position on the internal stacker, the light beam notifying a user of a state in which the recording medium is or is not stacked on the internal stacker." (Arikawa: Claim 1; Abstract).
Arikawa further discloses "a reflection member that is disposed in a part of the internal stacker and that reflects the light beam from the light source laterally" to direct illumination toward the stacked media. (Arikawa, claim 1; Abstract).
Arikawa: FIG. 6 is a partial perspective view schematically illustrating how the internal stacker of the image forming apparatus according to the first exemplary embodiment is illuminated.
Nakazawa in view of Arikawa are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing; recording medium processing/printing apparatuses with internal trays/stackers housed in partially enclosed spaces within the device housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a light source that emits a light beam toward the stacker position to illuminate the media and notify the user of media presence/absence as taught by Arikawa. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to enable the user to visually confirm whether recorded media has been discharged onto the placement tray.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nakazawa with Arikawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Conclusion
23. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukutome et al. (US 2023/0192433 A1) discloses a document feeder includes a document placing tray on which a document is placed; a document discharging tray on which a document discharged from a document discharging port in a discharging direction is stacked; and a light source that radiates light to the document discharging tray. The document discharging tray is disposed below the document placing tray. The document discharging tray has a protruding portion protruding upward from the surrounding area. The light source is disposed within a region having a width that is the same as a document having a maximum size in the width direction.
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights