CTNF 18/786,284 CTNF 87833 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: Image reading portion -image sensor, see Specification, paragraph [0014] in claims 1-10. Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover t he corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see noted structure above – the image sensor). If applicant does not intend to have this limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2-6 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. Specifically, claim 2 recites “the first transport region is located in a central portion in the intersecting direction”. It is unclear how a region can be located in the central portion of a direction. Claim 3 recites similar language regarding the second transport region. As such, claims 2 and 3 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). In the interest of compact prosecution, an attempt will be made to interpret the claims in their current form for the purposes of prior art rejection. Claim 4 recites “the first transport guide is configured such that an end portion on a downstream side in the first transport region is closer to the reading position than an end portion on a downstream side in the second transport region”. However, it is unclear what “an end portion” refers to— the first transport guide, the first transport region, or something else. Claim 5 recites similar language regarding the “second transport guide” and the “second transport region”. As such, claims 4-6 (claim 6 by virtue of dependency) fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Further, claim 6 recites “comb-like manner”. “Comb-like” is relative terminology and, while relative terminology is not per se indefinite, MPEP 2173.05 lays out the standard for assessing the definiteness of relative terminology: “When a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” MPEP 2173.05(b)(I) citing Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1367, 94 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Enzo Biochem, Inc., v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332, 94 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The instant specification provides no such standard for assessing whether something is “comb-like” or in what way the overlap is intended to be like a comb. As such, claim 6 contains an additional defect regarding failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Prior art rejection of claims 4-6 will be deferred until the scope of claims 4-6 is definite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Kawamura (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0098472) . Regarding claim 1, Kawamura (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0098472) discloses: An image reading apparatus, comprising: a document transport portion including a transport mechanism configured to transport a document (Figure 2, introducing path 80 transports the document downstream); a first transport guide which is provided in the document transport portion and which is configured to guide a document transported in a transport direction by the transport mechanism (Figure 2, element 33, resist rollers are providing within introducing path 80 and transport the original downstream in a transport direction); a second transport guide which is at least partially arranged on a downstream side of the first transport guide in the transport direction and which is configured to guide a document transported in the transport direction (Figure 2, element 38, paragraph [0076], rollers 38, 40 guide the document and are downstream of rollers 33); and an image reading portion which includes a reading unit provided with the second transport guide and configured to read, at a reading position, an image of a document having passed through a transport path formed by the first transport guide and the second transport guide (Figure 2, paragraph [0073], the document traveling through the double surface path passes through the first transport guide 33 and is scanned at the scanning position 90), wherein the transport path includes a first transport region and a second transport region that differs from the first transport region in an intersecting direction that intersects with the transport direction (Figure 2, paragraph [0072], the first and second transport regions intersect at the branching portion 91), and a document is guided from the first transport guide to the reading position in the first transport region (Figure 2, elements 33 and 90, paragraph [0073], for the single surface path, the sheet travels from resist roller 33 to scanning section 90) and guided in an order of the first transport guide, the second transport guide, and the reading position in the second transport region (Figure 2, element 33, element 38, and element 90, paragraph [0076], for the double sided path, the sheet travels in order from resist roller 33, to transportation roller 38, and scanning position 90 in that order) Regarding claim 2, Kawamura additionally discloses: wherein the first transport region is located in a central portion in the intersecting direction (Figure 2, paragraph [0072], the first and second transport regions intersect at the branching portion 91 in a central portion with the single surface and the double surface path) Regarding claim 3, Kawamura additionally discloses wherein the second transport region is located in a central portion in the intersecting direction (Figure 2, paragraph [0072], the first and second transport regions intersect at the branching portion 91 in a central portion with the single surface and the double surface path) Regarding claim 7, Kawamura additionally discloses: wherein the image reading portion is equipped with a flat plate member having one surface on which the document is arranged during reading and another surface on which the reading unit is arranged, and the reading unit is configured to read the document via the flat plate member (Figure 2, paragraph [0067], the document is read off of the contact glass with the scanner unit) Regarding claim 10, Kawamura additionally discloses: wherein the second transport guide includes a fixing portion which extends toward a downstream side in the transport direction from the reading position (Figure 2, paragraph [0075], the row of three rollers transports the document towards the reading position) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0098472) in view of Klausbruckner (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2012/0188617) . Regarding claim 8, Kawamura discloses the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1). Kawamura does not explicitly disclose: wherein the document transport portion is configured to be openable and closeable with respect to the image reading portion, and the transport mechanism is configured to transport the document and the reading unit is configured to read an image of the document at the reading position when the document transport portion is in a closed state Klausbruckner (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2012/0188617) discloses: wherein the document transport portion is configured to be openable and closeable with respect to the image reading portion (Figures 4, 5, paragraph [0031], the ADF is openable and closeable with respect to the rest of the apparatus including the reading portion), and the transport mechanism is configured to transport the document and the reading unit is configured to read an image of the document at the reading position when the document transport portion is in a closed state (paragraphs [0026]-[0031], the document is transported to the scanner for scanning) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Klausbruckner with the system of Kawamura such that the document transport portion would be configured to be openable and closeable with respect to the image reading portion, and the transport mechanism would be configured to transport the document and the reading unit would be configured to read an image of the document at the reading position when the document transport portion is in a closed state as described in Klausbruckner. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a “multifunction printer having a smaller overall length along the scanning direction…[and] that does not require loading documents in an input tray in a different orientation that when loading documents directly on the transparent platen” (paragraph [0014] of the Klausbruckner reference). Regarding claim 9, Kawamura discloses the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1). Kawamura additionally discloses: the second transport guide includes, outside the transport path, an engaging shape which engages with the image reading portion in the intersecting direction (Figure 2, paragraph [0073], the document traveling through the double surface path passes through the first transport guide 33 and is scanned at the scanning position 90), Kawamura does not explicitly disclose: wherein the second transport guide is configured to be attachable and detachable with respect to the image reading portion Klausbruckner discloses: wherein the second transport guide is configured to be attachable and detachable with respect to the image reading portion (Figures 4, 5, paragraph [0031], the ADF is openable and closeable with respect to the rest of the apparatus including the reading portion)and the second transport guide includes, outside the transport path, an engaging shape which engages with the image reading portion in the intersecting direction (paragraph [0034], the documents engage are transported through ADF transporter to contact with the support surface of the transparent platen such they can be scanned by the scanning assembly) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Klausbruckner with the system of Kawamura such that the document transport portion would be configured such that the second transport guide was configured to be attachable and detachable with respect to the image reading portion as described in Klausbruckner. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a “multifunction printer having a smaller overall length along the scanning direction…[and] that does not require loading documents in an input tray in a different orientation that when loading documents directly on the transparent platen” (paragraph [0014] of the Klausbruckner reference). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM. 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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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. /JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/786,284 Page 2 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/786,284 Page 3 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/786,284 Page 4 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/786,284 Page 5 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/786,284 Page 6 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/786,284 Page 7 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/786,284 Page 8 Art Unit: 2682
Prosecution Insights