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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(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.
Claims 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Araaki JP 2007-106506 A (hereinafter “Araaki”).
Regarding claims 1 and 10 (image forming apparatus FIG. 1), Araaki discloses a sheet conveyance apparatus comprising:
a housing (1, shown in Fig. 1);
an opening/closing unit (64) configured to be openably and closably provided with respect to the housing, and movable between a closed position at which the opening/closing unit is closed with respect to the housing and an opened position at which the opening/closing unit is opened with respect to the housing, the opened position being a feeding position in which a sheet is fed, and include a support part (62) that supports the sheet at the opened position;
a feed unit (31) configured to feed the sheet supported by the support part; and
a damping unit (72, refer to FIG. 8) that is included inside of the opening/closing unit and configured to damp a movement of the opening/closing unit when the opening/closing unit is moved from the closed position to the opened position,
wherein the damping unit includes a fixed part (broadest reasonable interpretation is an end of 72, adjacent 60b, that is stationary relative to an opposite end of 72) and a moving part (the opposite end, adjacent 62b, that moves relative to the stationary end) movable relative to the fixed part, and the damping unit is configured to generate a resistance force by a resistance of fluid generated when the moving part is moved.
Regarding claim 11, wherein when the opening/closing unit is in the closed position, the opening/closing unit is not subjected to the resistance force of applying a load to the movement of the opening/closing unit by the damping unit.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the opening/closing unit has a space inside, and the damping unit is arranged inside.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araaki in view of Iwami US 2023/0219776 (hereinafter “Iwami”).
Araaki teaches the claimed invention except wherein the opening/closing unit includes an air blowing part configured to blow air onto the sheet supported by the support part.
Iwami teaches it’s well known to incorporate an air blow unit ([0090]) in a manual tray to aid in separating sheets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Araaki’s opening/closing unit with an air blowing part as taught by Iwami in order to aid in separating sheets on a manual feed tray.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7 and 8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1have 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.
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 LUIS A GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3094. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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 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.
/LUIS A GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653