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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inui (US Pat No 11,905,137) in view of EP0095647 (hereafter ‘647).
Regarding claim 1, Inui discloses a sheet state detection device comprising:
a first conveyor (5) that conveys a sheet;
a second conveyor (6) that is arranged on a downstream side in a conveyance direction of the sheet relative to the first conveyor and conveys the sheet; and
a detector (SN1-4) that is arranged between the first conveyor and the second conveyor and detects a sheet state of the sheet, wherein
a contact width that is at least one of a first contact width and a second contact width has a length equal to or greater than a width of a detection range of the detector, the firsts contact width being a contact width when the first conveyor contacts a sheet surface of the sheet, and the second contact width being a contact width when the second conveyor contacts the sheet surface of the sheet (shown in figure 2), and
the detector is arranged such that the detection range is within the contact width which has the length equal to or greater than the width of the detection range in a width direction of the sheet (shown in figure 4).
It is noted that Inui is silent as to detecting the change in reflectance of light. However, ‘647 discloses a similar detector (photosensor 9) which uses reflectance to determine the presence or absence of a sheet on a feed table. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Inui with the teachings of ‘647 to achieve the predictable result of using the reflectance to determine the presence or absence of the sheet.
Regarding claim 2, Inui discloses the first conveyor includes a first roller pair including a pair of first rollers that nip and convey the sheet, and the first contact width is the contact width of at least one first roller of the pair of first rollers (shown in figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 3, Inui discloses the second conveyor includes a second roller pair including a pair of second rollers that nip and convey the sheet, and the second contact width is the contact width of at least one second roller of the pair of second rollers (shown in figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, Inui discloses the first contact width is a contact width of all the first rollers forming the first roller pair.
Regarding claim 5, Inui discloses the second contact width is a contact width of all the second rollers forming the second roller pair.
Regarding claim 6, the conveyor of Inui is capable of being a higher conveyance speed of the sheet than a conveyance speed of the first conveyor.
Regarding claim 7, Inui discloses the detector detects a physical property of the sheet (e.g. length).
Regarding claim 8, Inui discloses the detector detects the sheet state of the sheet that is being conveyed (e.g. speed).
Regarding claim 9, Inui discloses an image forming apparatus (100c).
Regarding claim 10, Inui discloses when the detector detects the sheet state of the sheet, the sheet is nipped by both the first conveyor and the second conveyor (see figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
The applicant’s argument is moot in view of ‘647 which is newly relied upon.
Conclusion
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