Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
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.
2. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) is/are: 1) “inertia absorption mechanism” in claim 1; and 2) “friction transport device” in claims 4 and 8-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these 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/them 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/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
3. Claims 3, 7, 9-12 and 14-15 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.
The term “narrow paper sheet” and the term “small width dimension” in claim 3 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “narrow paper sheet” and the term “small width direction” are 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. As such, claim 3 is indefinite.
The term “wide paper sheet” and the term “large width dimension” in claim 3 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “wide paper sheet” and the term “large width direction” are 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. As such, claim 3 is indefinite. Claims 9, 12 and 14 depend from claim 3, and therefore have the same indefiniteness issue as outlined above with regard to claim 3.
The term “narrow paper sheet” and the term “small width dimension” in claim 7 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “narrow paper sheet” and the term “small width direction” are 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. As such, claim 7 is indefinite.
The term “wide paper sheet” and the term “large width dimension” in claim 7 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “wide paper sheet” and the term “large width direction” are 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. As such, claim 7 is indefinite. Claims 10 and 15 depend from claim 7, and therefore have the same indefiniteness issue as outlined above with regard to claim 7.
The term “narrow paper sheet” and the term “wide paper sheet” in claim 11 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “narrow paper sheet” and the term “small width direction” are 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. As such, claim 11 is indefinite.
The term “narrow paper sheet” and the term “wide paper sheet” in claim 12 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “narrow paper sheet” and the term “small width direction” are 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. As such, claim 12 is indefinite.
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.
4. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,073,925 (Sato) (hereinafter “Sato”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,976,017 (Shiohara) (hereinafter “Shiohara”) and U.S. Patent No. 3,443,449 (Kotarski) (hereinafter “Kotarski”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-10 of Sato show a transport guide drive mechanism (Fig. 6) comprising:
a transport surface (upper surface of element 14) that guides one surface of a paper sheet;
transport guides (23 and 23) that are arranged along both side edges of the transport surface (upper surface of element 14) in a width direction to oppose each other and that respectively guide both side edges of the paper sheet to be transported;
an advancing/retreating mechanism (including 33, 30 and 26) that causes the transport guides (23 and 23) to synchronously advance and retreat in a predetermined direction (left or right in Fig. 6); and
a DC motor (31) that drives the advancing/retreating mechanism (including 33, 30 and 26),
wherein the advancing/retreating mechanism (including 33, 30, 26 and 28) includes a gear mechanism (including 26 and 28) that is driven by the DC motor (31) to cause each of the transport guides (23 and 23) to advance and retreat between first and second positions (at 39a and 39e). Sato also shows that the DC motor (31) stops at a timing the transport guides are stopped at each of the first and second positions (at 39a and 39e). Sato teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the advancing/retreating mechanism (including 33, 30, 26 and 28) with the gear mechanism (including 26 and 28) and the transport guides (23 and 23), but does not show that the transport guides (23 and 23) advance and retreat, as claimed. Also, Sato does not show stoppers, as claimed. In addition, Sato does not show an inertia absorption mechanism, as claimed.
Shiohara shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a transport guide drive mechanism (Figs. 11-14) with stoppers (140 and 140) each of which defines a protruded position (Fig. 14) where transport guides (including 34 and 60 on each side) are most protruded from a transport surface (upper surface of 102) and a retracted position (Fig. 12) retracted from the protruded position toward the transport surface (upper surface of 102) respectively. See, e.g., elements 60 and 60 that pivot up and down to protruded and retracted positions via stoppers 140. Lines 30-35 in column 1 explain that this arrangement provides a sheet-supply apparatus having a simple structure which can accommodate cut sheets with different sizes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the Sato apparatus with stoppers that activate pivoting transport guides, for the purpose of accommodating cut sheets with different sizes, as taught by Shiohara.
Kotarski solves a similar problem to that of Sato by providing an advancing/retreating mechanism (Fig. 4) with a gear mechanism (including 20 and 16) similar to the gear mechanism (including 26 and 28) of Sato, and an inertia absorption mechanism (including 26, 30, 32, 22, 34 and 36 of Kotarski) that absorbs and reduces inertia moment of drive means (column 2, line 53) transmitted from an output shaft (12) of the drive means (column 2, line 53) to the gear mechanism (including 20 and 16 of Kotarski) when the drive means (column 2, line 53) stops at different positions. Lines 26-31 in column 1 or Kotarski teach that this arrangement can orient a pinion or gear while it is in motion, so that its teeth will be in the correct relationship to a rack or other gear to be engaged to insure that they will mesh smoothly when brought together. The examiner takes the position that the structure of the inertia absorption mechanism in Kotarski with springs and slots in gears is substantially similar to the inertia absorption mechanism of the instant application, such that it inherently absorbs inertia. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the apparatus of Sato in view of Shiohara with an inertia absorption mechanism and gear mechanism, in a manner as taught by Kotarski, for the purpose of having gear teeth and rack teeth in a correct relationship such that they mesh smoothly, as taught by Kotarski.
Regarding claim 3, Figs. 12-14 of Shiohara show that the transport guides (including 34 and 60 on each side) include narrow paper sheet guide parts (60 and 60) that advance and retreat in a direction orthogonal (up and down) to a transport surface (upper surface of 102) and that are arranged to oppose each other at a distance appropriate to guide both side edges of a narrow paper sheet with a small width dimension, and wide paper sheet guide parts (upper portions of elements 34 and 34) that are adjacently arranged above (above in height when viewed in a left or right horizontal direction in Fig. 14) or below the narrow paper sheet guide parts (60 and 60) and that are arranged to oppose each other at a distance appropriate to guide both side edges of a wide paper sheet with a large width dimension.
5. Claims 4, 6, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Shiohara and Kotarski as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Chinese Publication No. 209682307 (hereinafter “CN’307”). With regard to claims 4 and 9, Sato shows a friction transport device (13) in the form of a belt, but does not show that friction transport device (13) operates as claimed.
CN’307 show that it is well-known in the art to provide a transport guide drive mechanism (Fig. 1) with a friction transport device (belt in abstract and elements 271, 26 and 24 in Fig. 2) that, when a paper sheet is subject to a reaction force (friction) in a direction different from a normal transport direction (left) in a course of transporting the paper sheet along a transport surface, transports the paper sheet while reducing a transport grip (i.e., can reduce pressure of element 271) during a period in which the paper sheet is subject to the reaction force; and a control unit (including 21). Page 5 of the attached machine translation states “rotating the cylinder 21 to adjust the pressing force of 271 the paper of the paper pressing ring”. Because both CN’307 and Sato teach belt arrangements for conveying sheets over and into transport surfaces, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the belt and pressing roller arrangement of CN’307 for the belt arrangement of Sato to achieve the predictable result of conveying sheets over and into transport surfaces.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Sato shows a paper sheet handling device comprising the paper sheet transport device according to claims 4 and 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2, 5, 8 and 13 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.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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, Mike 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653