DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima US2019/0158679 in view of Matsuto et al. JP2021097390A hereinafter referred to as Matsuto.
As per Claim 1, Nakajima teaches the image reading device comprising:
a motor to reciprocate a
a reference position detector to detect passage and non-passage of the
circuitry configured to, in a case where an abnormality of a stop position of the
Nakajima does not explicitly teach a carriage.
Matsuto teaches a carriage (Matsuto, Paragraph [0021], [0023] “a reading unit 16 having a carriage (traveling body) 6” and “ In addition, the carriage (traveling body) 6 is equipped with a detection unit 5 that is detected by the origin position sensor 4. The origin position sensor 4 outputs a detection signal to the motor signal generation unit (see Figure 4) when the detection unit 5 provided on the carriage (traveling body) 6 is located within the detection range of the origin position sensor 4”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Matsuto into Nakajima because by utilizing a carriage along with the traveling body of Nakajima will assist in holding the body that is travelling in the image reading device.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the two references to obtain the invention in Claim 1.
As per Claim 2, Nakajima in view of Matsuto teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein, based on the detection result indicating that the abnormality of the stop position of the carriage has been detected, the circuitry is configured to: stop the carriage, move the carriage by a predetermined movement distance toward one position in a sub-scanning direction, and move the carriage by the predetermined movement distance toward another position opposite to the one position in the sub-scanning direction. (Nakajima, Figure 7, Paragraph[0097], “If it is determined that no driving abnormality occurs (Step S108: No), the CPU(A) 251 determines whether the movement of the back surface glass unit 125 is completed or not based on the count value for the position control (Step S109). In a case where the count value does not match the pulse number C1 which corresponds to the moving amount Lb, the CPU(A) 251 determines that the movement of the back surface glass unit 125 to the back surface shading position is not completed (Step S109: No) and shifts to the processing of the step S108 to perform the detection of the driving abnormality again. In a case where the count value matches the pulse number C1, the CPU(A) 251 determines that the movement of the back surface glass unit 125 to the back surface shading position is completed (Step S109: Yes) and stops driving the glass motor 122 (Step S110). The CPU(A) 251 updates the current position stored in the predetermined area of the RAM(A) 253 to the back surface shading position (Step S111) and finishes the processing”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 3, Nakajima in view of Matsuto teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to, while specifying the location at which the carriage has abnormally stopped: hold a pulse count value in a case where the passage of the carriage through the reference position has been detected, and provide a notification indicating that the location at which the carriage has abnormally stopped is not specified in a case where the passage of the carriage through the reference position is not detected. (Nakajima, Figure 7, “[0097] If it is determined that no driving abnormality occurs (Step S108: No), the CPU(A) 251 determines whether the movement of the back surface glass unit 125 is completed or not based on the count value for the position control (Step S109). In a case where the count value does not match the pulse number C1 which corresponds to the moving amount Lb, the CPU(A) 251 determines that the movement of the back surface glass unit 125 to the back surface shading position is not completed (Step S109: No) and shifts to the processing of the step S108 to perform the detection of the driving abnormality again. In a case where the count value matches the pulse number C1, the CPU(A) 251 determines that the movement of the back surface glass unit 125 to the back surface shading position is completed (Step S109: Yes) and stops driving the glass motor 122 (Step S110). The CPU(A) 251 updates the current position stored in the predetermined area of the RAM(A) 253 to the back surface shading position (Step S111) and finishes the processing”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 4, Nakajima in view of Matsuto teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to specify the location at which the carriage has abnormally stopped in response to a movement failure of the carriage that occurs during an operation of adjusting the reference position of the carriage that is executed after power of the image reading device is on. (Matsuto, Paragraph [0042], [0045])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 5, Nakajima in view of Matsuto teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to specify the location at which the carriage has abnormally stopped in response to a movement failure of the carriage that occurs during an initial optical adjustment operation that is executed after an operation of adjusting the reference position of the carriage. (Matsuto, Paragraph [0042], [0045], [0071]-[0072])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 6, Nakajima in view of Matsuto teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to specify the location at which the carriage has abnormally stopped in response to a movement failure of the carriage that occurs during reading of a flatbed document. (Nakajima, Figure 1, Paragraph [0097], “If it is determined that no driving abnormality occurs (Step S108: No), the CPU(A) 251 determines whether the movement of the back surface glass unit 125 is completed or not based on the count value for the position control (Step S109). In a case where the count value does not match the pulse number C1 which corresponds to the moving amount Lb, the CPU(A) 251 determines that the movement of the back surface glass unit 125 to the back surface shading position is not completed (Step S109: No) and shifts to the processing of the step S108 to perform the detection of the driving abnormality again. In a case where the count value matches the pulse number C1, the CPU(A) 251 determines that the movement of the back surface glass unit 125 to the back surface shading position is completed (Step S109: Yes) and stops driving the glass motor 122 (Step S110). The CPU(A) 251 updates the current position stored in the predetermined area of the RAM(A) 253 to the back surface shading position (Step S111) and finishes the processing” Detecting involves the pulse count to detect if the unit reached the desired position )
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 7, Nakajima in view of Matsuto teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to specify the location at which the carriage has abnormally stopped in response to a movement failure of the carriage that occurs during acquisition of white data that is executed before a document-feeder document is read. (Matsuto, Paragraph[0071], “More specifically, as shown in Figure 8, when the travel distance comparison unit 236 detects an abnormality in the image level when reading the reference plate 13, it detects an abnormality in the reading position of the reference plate 13 and detects whether there is an abnormality in the drive of the carriage (traveling body) 6 by making a determination based on the pulse count value (travel distance) of the carriage (traveling body) 6 acquired by the counter value calculation unit 235”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 9, Nakajima in view of Matsuto teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to execute at least one of a copying process, a printing process, a scanning process, or a facsimile process. (Nakajima, Paragraph [0032]-[0033])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 10, Claim 10 claims a method of reading an image utilizing the image reading device as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1.
As per Claim 11, Claim 11 claims a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, (Matsuto, Paragraph [0032]) cause the one or more processors to perform a method as claimed in Claim 10. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 10.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima US2019/0158679 in view of Matsuto et al. JP2021097390A hereinafter referred to as Matsuto as applied to Claim 1 in view of Uezu US2023/0305503.
As per Claim 8, Nakajima in view of Matsuto teaches the image reading device according to claim 1, notify the location at which the carriage has abnormally stopped.(Nakajima, Paragraph [0069])
Nakajima in view of Matsuto does not explicitly teach further comprising: a network interface connected with a remote diagnosis and maintenance service that manages a state of the image reading device via a wired or wireless network, wherein the circuitry is configured to notify the remote diagnosis and maintenance service.
Uezu teaches further comprising: a network interface connected with a remote diagnosis and maintenance service that manages a state of the image reading device via a wired or wireless network, wherein the circuitry is configured to notify the remote diagnosis and maintenance service. (Uezu, Paragraph [0035], “the image forming device 12 includes a communication line interface (I/F) unit 36 that is connected to the communication line 23 and transmits and receives communication data to and from other external apparatuses such as the device management server 14, the maintenance management server 16”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Uezu into Nakajima in view of Matsuto because by utilizing an external device such as a maintenance server will provide additional support for the image reading device of Nakajima to ensure optimal performance.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING HON whose telephone number is (571)270-5245. 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, Emily Terrell can be reached on 571-270-3717. 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.
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights