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 .
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1,5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. USP 10,654,240 in view of Wang USP 8,495,821.
Takahashi discloses, regarding claim 1, A media processing apparatus comprising:
a slit (35) insertable a sheet bundle of multiple sheets;
a liquid applier (86) to apply liquid to the sheet bundle;
a press binder (82,130) to press and bind the sheet bundle inserted into the slit to perform press-binding process; and
circuitry configured to:
detect the thickness of a sheet bundle (C9/L39-45);
determine whether to cause the liquid applier to apply liquid to the sheet bundle based on the thickness of the sheet bundle, cause the liquid applier to apply the liquid to the sheet bundle when it is determined that the thickness of the sheet bundle is equal or larger than a prescribed thickness, and cause the press binder to press and bind the sheet bundle inserted into the slit (see at least C20/L33-43).
Takahashi does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations of the claim.
Wang teaches the use of a sheet-bundle holder (24) to: hold the sheet bundle; and detect a thickness of the sheet bundle in a thickness direction; and circuitry configured to: cause the sheet-bundle holder to hold the sheet bundle and detect the thickness of the sheet bundle in the thickness direction (see at least C2/L48-50,61-63; C4/L60-61).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a sheet-bundle holder to: hold the sheet bundle; and detect a thickness of the sheet bundle in a thickness direction; and circuitry configured to: cause the sheet-bundle holder to hold the sheet bundle and detect the thickness of the sheet bundle in the thickness direction, as taught by Wang, in the device of Takahashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of controlling the apparatus such that damage of the binding device is prevented (C1/L12-26).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi, as modified above, discloses the sheet bundle-holder including a holding portion (see element 24 of Wang) to hold the sheet bundle in a binding process, but does not expressly disclose the holding portion having water resistance; however, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to providing the holding portion having water resistance since the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi, as modified above, does not expressly disclose multiple sheet-bundle holders; however, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide multiple sheet-bundle holders since it has been held that duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Takahashi further discloses, regarding claim 7, An image forming apparatus (A) (fig.1) comprising:
a housing (1);
the media processing apparatus (B) according to claim 1, detachably attachable to the housing (see fig.1); and
an image forming device (3) in the housing to form an image on the multiple sheets,
wherein the media processing apparatus presses and binds the sheet bundle of the multiple sheets on which the image has been formed by the image forming apparatus (see at least C1/L17-22).
Regarding claim 8, An image forming system (fig.1) comprising:
the media processing apparatus (B) according to claim 1; and
an image forming apparatus (A) to form an image on each of the multiple sheets,
wherein the media processing apparatus presses and binds the sheet bundle of the multiple sheets on which the image has been formed by the image forming apparatus (see at least C1/L17-22).
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. USP 10,654,240 in view of Wang USP 8,495,821 further in view of Kitta et al. USP 7,920,820.
Takahashi discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶4 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
Kitta teaches a pressing time for pressing the sheet bundle by the sheet-bundle holder based on the thickness of the sheet bundle (C15/L20-33, C18/L1-6).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide circuitry that changes a pressing time for pressing the sheet bundle by the sheet-bundle holder based on the thickness of the sheet bundle, as taught by Kitta, in the device of Takahashi, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing sufficient time for sheet bundle binding processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2,3 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
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawakami (USP 11,383,951) discloses a media processing device wherein press-binding is performed with or without liquid applied depending upon the number of sheets in the sheet stack (see at least C16/L10-35).
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE A. NICHOLSON III whose telephone number is (571)272-5487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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 C 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.
/LESLIE A NICHOLSON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights