DETAILED ACTION
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) 1, 3-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al (US Pub No 2016/0236489) in view of Valenzuela-Rivas (WO 2021/096486).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano discloses a silent one-way clutch assembly, comprising:
a first shaft (30), gear (79) mounted on a first end of the shaft, and a ratchet (28).
It is noted that Nakano fails to disclose the assembly using multiple shafts to operate. However, Valenzuela-Rivas discloses a similar device wherein the ratchet is placed between two shafts (first shaft 202 and second shaft 204). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified device of Nakano with the teachings of Valenzuela-Rivas to achieve the predictable result of providing the one-way clutch in an alternative mechanism.
Such combination would teach the ratchet couples the first shaft to the second shaft in a unidirectional driving manner, so that the gear drives the second shaft to rotate through the first shaft and the ratchet, and stops power coming from a second end of the second shaft from driving the first shaft and the gear to rotate, wherein the second end of the first shaft and the first end of the second shaft are disposed on an axis between the first end of the first shaft and the second end of the second shaft, wherein when the first shaft is driven by the gear to rotate in a direction, the first shaft drives the second shaft to rotate in the direction through the ratchet (shown in figure 12); and when the second shaft is driven, by a feeding roller driven by a document, to rotate in the direction, the second shaft drives the ratchet to continuously rotate in the direction but the rotating ratchet is decoupled from the first shaft (shown in figure 13).
Regarding claim 4, Valenzuela-Rivas discloses a first flange bearing and a second flange bearing mounted on a body of a document scanner, wherein the first shaft passes through the first flange bearing, the second shaft passes through the second flange bearing, and the first flange bearing and the second flange bearing restrict axial movements of the first shaft and the second shaft. It I noted that these are not separate pieces but one singular piece, however the applicant’s specification fails to point to a critical aspect of making the first and second flange bearings separate (or at least not integral). One having ordinary skill would be able to understand advantages of making the piece integral or separable based on desired design needs and thus renders the applicant’s claim obvious.
PNG
media_image1.png
316
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Valenzuela-Rivas discloses the first end of the second shaft is fit with and rotatable relatively to the second end of the first shaft.
Regarding claim 6, Valenzuela-Rivas discloses a first ratchet part of the ratchet is rotatably fit with a second ratchet part of the first shaft to couple the first shaft to the second shaft in the unidirectional driving manner (see figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 7, Valenzuela-Rivas disclsoes a first claw of the ratchet is rotatably fit with a second claw of the second shaft to provide a buffer interval for the second shaft to rotate the ratchet (see figures 2-4).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, in view of Valenzuela-Rivas, further in view of Park (DE 44 20 648).
Regarding claim 2, It is noted that Valenzuela-Rivas and Young-Eek fail to disclose the features of mounting the gear. However, Park discloses a bushing (18), wherein a small-diameter part of the gear (15a) passes through the bushing, so that the bushing rotatably mounts the gear to a body of a document scanner (e.g. facsimile machine).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination with the teachings of Park to achieve the predictable result of allowing rotation without transmitting frictional force (e.g. the intended purpose of a bushing, see Park description)
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano, in view of Valenzuela-Rivas, further in view of Young-Eek.
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that Nakano and Valenzuela-Rivas fail to disclose the claimed buckle. However, Young-Eek discloses a buckle (shown in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination taught by Nakano in view of Valenzuela-Rivas with the teachings of Young-Eek to achieve the predictable result of maintaining the position of pieces on a shaft.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al, in view of Valenzuela-Rivas, further in view of Uohashi (US Pat No 9,938,098).
Regarding claim 8, It is noted that the combination of Valenzuela-Rivas and Young-Eek fail to disclose the relationship between the two shafts. However, Uohashi discloses a similar conveying transmission device wherein one shaft is fitted within the shaft of another (see figure 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of at least Valenzuela-Rivas such that the second shaft fits within a small section of the first shaft such that the relative motion of the two shaft and balance of the two shafts remains contestant and stable.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al, in view of Valenzuela-Rivas, further in view of Kozaki (US Pat No 10,375,260).
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that Nakano and Valenzuela-Rivas fail to disclose the features of the claimed invention including the driving gear set, the body, and explicit scanning module. However, Kozaki discloses a sheet feeding device including a body (10), feeding roller (32), driving gear set (best shown in figure 6), and scanning module (16) disposed between a first (34) and second roller (38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination with the teachings of Kozaki to achieve the predictable result of feeding and scanning a sheet that has been fed to a scanner.
Regarding claim 10, the combination is capable of performing the function of when the document is transported by the feeding roller but does not touch the first roller, the ratchet is coupled to the first shaft, and a first tangential velocity of the first roller and the second roller is greater than a second tangential velocity of the feeding roller; and when the document touches the first roller, the ratchet is decoupled from the first shaft, and the first tangential velocity of the first roller and the second roller is equal to the second tangential velocity of the feeding roller, so that a sheet-separation gap between the document and another adjacent document is formed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the teachings used by Valenzuela-Rivas, this reference is being used to teach the use of multiple shafts rather the claimed function of the ratchet system as amended. The ratchet system of Valenzuela-Rivas is effectively a reverse of the applicant’s calimed invention and the teachings of Nakano disclose the use of that reverse ratchet, albeit on a single shaft.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights