DETAILED ACTION
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Japan Application No. 2023-170078 was received on 16 April 2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 August 2024 and 29 January 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06 August 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 contains a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 17 and 21 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.
RE: Claim 17: The term “opening angle is larger than a height of an operator in the vertical direction when the operator with an upper limit height stands on a workbench having a predetermined height for an operator” in claim 17 contains a multitude of relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heights” of the operator, workbench, and cover opening is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although, the specification provides examples of various measurements of each, the claim is indefinite as attempting to compare “an image forming apparatus” to a separate entity unrelated to the claims.
RE: Claim 21: This claim limitation attempts to relate features of the image forming apparatus to external elements. The term “reachable by a hand of an operator with a lower limit height is undefined and renders the claim indefinite.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further, what an operator can or cannot do is separate from the image forming apparatus itself.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (US PGPub 2023/0114709 A1), in view of Yamashita (JP 2023086428 A), using a machine translation.
With regard to Claim 1, Fujii discloses an image forming apparatus (Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising:
a recording portion configured to eject ink onto a sheet to form an image (¶0032; Fig. 1);
a conveyance portion facing the recording portion in a vertical direction and configured to convey the sheet in a first direction orthogonal to the vertical direction (Fig. 1; ¶0033-0039);
a body frame configured to support the recording portion and the conveyance portion (¶0030-0031, main body 2); and
an exterior cover (Fig. 1; ¶0042, cover 4) disposed on a front side of the recording portion in a front-rear direction orthogonal to the vertical direction and the first direction and attached to the body frame so as to form a front exterior (Fig. 1; ¶0042-0043),
wherein the exterior cover includes a transparent cover formed of a transparent material (¶0043), and
the exterior cover is configured to rotate around a rotation axis on an upper end side of the exterior cover to be opened and closed (Figs. 1, and 4-10; ¶0042).
Fujii does not explicitly disclose the exterior cover includes a cover frame disposed on at least a part of a periphery of the transparent cover.
The secondary reference of Yamashita discloses a cover frame disposed on at least a part of a periphery of the transparent cover (¶0013, cover 30 with frame body 40A; Fig. 1; ¶0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cover frame of Yamashita, with the cover of Fujii, in order to increase durability and strength of the cover and to maintain the shape of the cover, as taught by Yamashita (¶0032).
With regard to Claim 2, Fujii further discloses wherein the body frame includes a first support column and a second support column disposed respectively on both sides of t the body frame in the first direction (Fig. 1; stand 3), each of the first support column and the second support column extending in the vertical direction (Fig. 1; stand 3), the recording portion is disposed between the first support column and the second support column in the first direction (Fig. 1; image forming unit 10), the cover frame includes a first cover frame portion facing the first support column of the body frame (housing unit 5 on each side as well as main body 2; Fig. 1; ¶0030-0031) and a second cover frame portion facing the second support column of the body frame (housing unit 5 on each side as well as main body 2; Fig. 1; ¶0030-0031), and the transparent cover spans from the first cover frame portion to the second cover frame portion (Fig. 1; cover 4 between housing unit 5 on each side).
With regard to Claim 5, Fujii further discloses wherein at least a part of the recording portion is visually recognized through the transparent cover in a state in which the exterior cover is closed (Fig. 1; ¶0004).
With regard to Claim 6, Fujii further discloses wherein the body frame includes a third support column connecting an upper end of the first support column and an upper end of the second support column and extending in the first direction (Fig. 1; third support column extends length and widthwise as shown behind the cover 4 and between the columns 5), the recording portion is disposed below the third support column (Fig. 1), and the exterior cover is disposed to span at least from the third support column of the body frame to the conveyance portion in the vertical direction (Fig. 1).
With regard to Claim 7, Fujii further discloses wherein the body frame includes a fourth support column connecting the first support column and the second support column and extending in the first direction (Fig. 1; fourth support column extends length and widthwise as shown below the cover 4 and between the columns 5), and the recording portion is disposed above the fourth support column (Fig. 1).
Fujii discloses a body frame of the printing apparatus and the stand and appears to disclose the body frame has a bottom portion, however this is not explicitly defined and shown.
The secondary reference of Yamashita discloses a fourth support column connecting the first and second support column and extending in the first direction (See Fig. 4, for example, the bottom portion).
With regard to Claim 8, Yamashita further discloses wherein a thickness of the cover frame (Figs. 5-6; 40A) in the front-rear direction is larger than a thickness of the transparent cover (48) in the front-rear direction (Figs. 1, 5-6), the transparent cover (48) is provided on a front side of the cover frame in the front-rear direction (Fig. 4; cover 48), the fourth support column includes a protruding portion protruding forward in the front-rear direction, and at least a part of the protruding portion is disposed at the same position as the cover frame in the front-rear direction in a state in which the exterior cover is closed (See Fig. 4, bottom of frame 20 is same position front-rear direction as the cover frame, as shown).
With regard to Claim 9, Yamashita further discloses wherein the recording portion (70) is attached to the protruding portion of the fourth support column and supported by the body frame (¶0012).
With regard to Claim 10, Yamashita further discloses wherein at least a part of the recording portion and at least a part of the fourth support column are visually recognized through the transparent cover in a state in which the exterior cover is closed (Figs. 1, 4, though not explicitly disclosed, the drawings reflect that the bottom of the housing and recording portion can be visually seen through the transparent window 48).
With regard to Claim 11, Yamashita further discloses wherein a thickness of the cover frame in the front-rear direction (Figs. 5-6; 40A) is larger than a thickness of the transparent cover (Figs. 5-6; 40A; transparent cover 48) in the front-rear direction (Figs. 5-6; 40A; transparent cover 48), and the transparent cover is provided on a front side of the cover frame in the front-rear direction (Figs. 1, 4; cover 48).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii, in view of Yamashita, and further in view of Winkler et al. (US Patent 5,875,714), hereinafter Winkler.
With regard to Claim 16, Fujii-Yamashita do not explicitly disclose a gas spring configured to assist with rotation of the exterior cover.
The tertiary reference of Winkler discloses a gas spring configured to assist with rotation of the exterior cover (Abstract; Fig. 6; Col. 4, gas pressure spring 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the gas spring of Winkler, with the combination of Fujii-Yamashita, in order so that the cover can be easily, smoothly, and safely opened or closed, as taught by Winkler (Col. 4).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii, in view of Yamashita, and further in view of Chen (US PGPub 2006/0244802A1).
With regard to Claim 18, Fujii-Yamashita does not explicitly disclose wherein a maximum opening angle of the exterior cover falls within a range of 90 degrees to 110 degrees.
The tertiary reference of Chen discloses wherein a maximum opening angle of the exterior cover falls within a range of 90 degrees to 110 degrees (¶0030, maximum angle for cover is greater than 90 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the opening angle of Chen, with the combination of Fujii-Yamashita, in order to have sufficient opening space for access of the interior, as taught by Chen (¶0030).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii, in view of Yamashita, and further in view of Li et al. (US PGPub 20240003177 A1), hereinafter Li.
With regard to Claim 19, Fujii-Yamashita does not explicitly disclose a hanging strap attached to an inner side of the exterior cover and configured to be gripped by an operator when closing the exterior cover, wherein the hanging strap is attached at a position more adjacent to a free end of the exterior cover than to a central portion between an upper end serving as a rotation fulcrum of the exterior cover and the free end.
The tertiary reference of Li discloses a hanging strap attached to an inner side of the exterior cover and configured to be gripped by an operator when closing the exterior cover (Abstract; Figs. 1-4; ¶0043; 0047), wherein the hanging strap is attached at a position more adjacent to a free end of the exterior cover than to a central portion between an upper end serving as a rotation fulcrum of the exterior cover and the free end (Abstract; Figs. 1-4; ¶0043; 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hanging strap of Li, with the combination of Fujii-Yamashita, in order to more easily close the cover, as taught by Li (¶0047).
With regard to Claim 20, Li further discloses wherein a total length of the hanging strap is smaller than a length from an attachment position of the hanging strap on the exterior cover to the free end of the exterior cover (Fig. 3, as shown).
With regard to Claim 21, Li further discloses wherein a height from an installation surface of the image forming apparatus to a lower end of the hanging strap in a state in which the exterior cover is opened at a maximum opening angle is equal to or smaller than a set value that is reachable by a hand of an operator with a lower limit height (Fig. 3).
Examiner reminds applicant that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, the hanging strap and exterior cover being opened is disclosed. What an operator can or cannot do is separate from the image forming apparatus itself.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii, in view of Yamashita, and further in view of Mitsunaga et al. (US PGPub 2005/0140704 A1), hereinafter Mitsunaga.
With regard to Claim 22, Fujii further discloses wherein the conveyance portion includes a conveyance belt (¶0148) configured to convey the sheet (¶0148), however Fuji-Yamashita does not explicitly disclose a belt configured to suck the sheet and the conveyance belt has a color with a high contrast ratio to the sheet.
The tertiary reference of Mitsunaga discloses a belt configured to suck the sheet and the conveyance belt has a color with a high contrast ratio to the sheet (¶0028-0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sheet suction of Mitsunaga, with the combination of Fujii-Yamashita, in order to prevent the medium from being moved or shifted from the belt, as taught by Mitsunaga (¶0028).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii, in view of Yamashita, and further in view of Tsutada et al. (US PGPub 2003/0156850 A1), hereinafter Tsutada.
With regard to Claim 23, Fujii-Yamashita does not explicitly disclose wherein the image forming apparatus comprises a first module including the recording portion and the conveyance portion, and the image forming apparatus further comprises a second module connected adjacent to the first module in the first direction.
The tertiary reference of Tsutada discloses wherein the image forming apparatus comprises a first module including the recording portion and the conveyance portion (Fig. 23; module 300; ¶0243-0245), and the image forming apparatus further comprises a second module connected adjacent to the first module in the first direction (Fig. 23. Module 200 adjacent in conveying direction; ¶0244-0246).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modules of Tsutada, with the combination of Fujii-Yamashita, in order to have a discharge path for the image forming apparatus, as taught by Tsutada (¶0266).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 3 is that applicants claimed invention includes an image forming apparatus wherein a maintenance portion configured to perform maintenance of the recording portion; and a reading portion configured to read the image on the sheet, wherein the maintenance portion is supported by the body frame and is disposed between the recording portion and the first support column in the first direction, and the reading portion is supported by the body frame and is disposed between the recording portion and the second support column in the first direction. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 4 is allowable because it depends from Claim 3.
Claim 12 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 12 is that applicants claimed invention includes an image forming apparatus wherein the recording portion is configured to be movable in the front-rear direction with respect to the body frame, the recording portion includes a handle provided at a front end of the recording portion in the front-rear direction, and at least a part of the handle of the recording portion is disposed at the same position as the cover frame in the front-rear direction in a state in which the exterior cover is closed. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 13 is allowable because it depends from Claim 12.
Claim 14 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 14 is that applicants claimed invention includes an image forming apparatus wherein a reading portion configured to read the image on the sheet, wherein the reading portion is configured to be movable with respect to the body frame, the reading portion includes a handle provided at a front end of the reading portion in the front-rear direction and configured to move the reading portion, and at least a part of the handle of the reading portion is disposed at the same position as the cover frame in the front-rear direction in a state in which the exterior cover is closed. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 15 is allowable because it depends from Claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853