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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0228640) in view of Miike et al. (US Patent 5,787,414).
For claim 1: Ikeda teaches a device comprising: a flag 52D, 61; a transfer device 53 to transfer rotational motion of the flag to linear motion of a moveable indicator 52B, 52C; and a scanner device 54, 55 to capture an image of a current location of the moveable indicator 52B, 52C on a scanner device 130 comprising a flatbed scanner having a platen glass 120 (see paragraph 42, image reading portion 130 having a platen glass 120 acting as a document table). Ikeda does not teach providing the scanner device with the movable indicator. However, Miike et al. teaches providing a mechanism detecting paper thickness on the scanner to obtain paper information (see column 64, lines 45-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Ikeda in the scanner portion Ikeda for the purpose of detecting paper thickness or quantity in the scanner.
For claim 3: The combination of Ikeda and Miike et al. teaches the device of claim 1 and Ikeda further teaches that the flag 61, 52D includes a first side that is a convex shape (see Fig. 8, exterior surface of element 52D, 61) and a second side that is a concave shape (see Fig. 8, interior of elbow from 52D, 61) and wherein the first side (see Fig. 8, particularly bottom surface of 61) is arranged to interact with print media Sa to move the flag in a direction of the second side (see Fig. 8, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, the element 61 shifting upward).
For claim 4: The combination of Ikeda and Miike et al. teaches the device of claim 3 and Ikeda further teaches that the first side 61 includes a raised point (see Fig. 8, raised at the joint near 52D) that is tapered to lower points toward the edges of the flag 61 in a plurality of directions from the raised point (see Fig. 8, the remainder of portion 61 is lower than the bowed point near 52D).
For claim 5: The combination of Ikeda and Miike et al. teaches the device of claim 1 and Ikeda further teaches that the flag 61, 52D Includes an increasing size from a tip of the flag (see Fig. 6, end portion of 61 is the thinnest) toward a connection point with the transfer device (see Fig. 6, the joint between 52D, 61 is thicker than the tip of 61 and the portion 52D is thicker yet).
For claim 6: The combination of Ikeda and Miike et al. teaches the device of claim 5 and Ikeda further teaches that the increasing size includes an increasing distance between edges of the flag (see Fig. 6, the increasing distance between the first lower side and the second upper side)
For claim 7: The combination of Ikeda and Miike et al. teaches the device of claim 1 and Ikeda further teaches that the moveable indicator 52B, 52C is a scannable device arranged to move along the scanner surface of the scanner device 54, 55 in response to movement of the flag (see Fig. 6, see paragraph 14, the element moves along the scanning surface of the scanner device 54, 55 which is a sensor).
For claim 8. Ikeda teaches a printing device (see Fig. 1), comprising: a media tray (see Fig. 1, see Fig. 6, which depicts a tray below element 21) to receive print media Sa; a media width adjustor positioned on a first edge of the media tray; a media flag 52D, 61 positioned on a second edge of the media tray, wherein the media flag 52D, 61 includes a first side (see Fig. 6, bottom side, which is an exterior of an elbow and thus convex) that is a convex shape to interact with print media Sa positioned within the media tray (see Fig. 6, bottom side of 61 contacting sheets Sa, more clearly seen in Figs. 8 and 9) and a second side (see Figs. 6 and 8, interior elbow) that is a concave shape (see Fig. 6, the interior elbow being concave in shape); and scanner device 54, 55 to capture an image of a current location of the moveable indicator 52B, 52C on a scanner device 130 comprising a flatbed scanner having a platen glass 120 (see paragraph 42, image reading portion 130 having a platen glass 120 acting as a document table). Ikeda does not teach providing the scanner device with the movable indicator. However, Miike et al. teaches providing a mechanism detecting paper thickness on the scanner to obtain paper information (see column 64, lines 45-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Ikeda in the scanner portion Ikeda for the purpose of detecting paper thickness or quantity in the scanner
For claim 9: The combination of Ikeda and Miike et al. teaches the device of claim 8 and Ikeda further teaches that the first side of the media flag 61 is arranged to receive a force from print media Sa while the print media is moved from the first edge of the media tray to the second edge of the media tray (see Fig. 9, if the substrate is loaded, a media surface moves from the bottom of the tray towards the top of the tray).
For claim 10: The combination of Ikeda and Miike et al. teaches the device of claim 9 and Ikeda further teaches the print media moves the media flag in a direction of the second side of the media flag (see Fig. 9, moving the surface 61 vertically).
For claim 11: The combination of Ikeda and Miike et al. teaches the device of claim 8 and Ikeda further teaches the media flag includes a first width at a first portion of the media flag (see Fig. 8, first width at portion 61) and a second width at a second portion of the media flag (see Fig.8, second width at portion 52D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 8, 2026 have been fully considered. The newly added limitations are addressed by Miike et al. for providing the detecting structure on a scanner and the recitation to paragraph 42 of Ikeda teaching an image reading portion reading on a platen glass acting as a document table of the scanning device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous rejection of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 DAVID H BANH whose telephone number is (571)270-3851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571)272-2149. 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.
/DAVID H BANH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights