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 .
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.
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.
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: “a restricting portion configured to transit to a restricted state” and “a display portion…configured to display” in claim 1, “an engaging portion configured to engage”, “an operation portion…movable to a locked position”, and “a restricting member configured to move to a restricted position” in claim 6, and “an urging portion configured to urge” in claim 7.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,383. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1-19 are broader and thus fully met by claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,383.
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 1-10 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. US 20210286308 in view of Wilsher et al. US 9561920.
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa et al. discloses:
An image forming apparatus configured to form an image on a sheet, the image forming apparatus comprising:
an apparatus body (FIG. 2A);
a drawer unit (92) (FIG. 2B) configured to be pulled out from the apparatus body;
a cover (91) (FIG. 2B) provided to be openable and closable on the apparatus body, the cover being movable to a closed position (FIG. 2A) where the cover covers the drawer unit attached to the apparatus body and an open position (FIG. 2B) where the drawer unit is exposed so as to be pulled out from the apparatus body;
a restricting portion (80) (FIG. 4A) configured to transit to a restricted state (FIG. 4B) in which the drawer unit is restricted from being pulled out from the apparatus body and an allowable state (FIG. 4A) in which the drawer unit is allowed to be pulled out from the apparatus body [0031].
Ishikawa et al. does not explicitly disclose a display portion provided in the drawer unit and configured to display the restricted state or the allowable state of the restricting portion, wherein the display portion is exposed outside of the image forming apparatus when the cover is in the open position, and the display portion is covered by the cover when the cover is in the closed position.
Wilsher et al. discloses a drawer unit (230) (FIG. 1), a restricting portion (108) (FIG. 1), and a display portion (112/114/116/118) (FIG. 1) provided in the drawer unit configured to display the restricted state or the allowable state of the restricting portion (Col. 4 lines 13-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Ishikawa et al. to include the display portion as disclosed by Wilsher et al. in order to inform a user the state of the drawer unit (Col. 4 lines 13-30) (Wilsher et al.).
When making such a modification, the display portion (provided in the drawer unit) would be exposed outside of the image forming apparatus when the cover is in the open position, and the display portion would be covered by the cover when the cover is in the closed position.
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa et al. discloses:
wherein the cover is openable and closable with respect to the apparatus body regardless of whether the restricting portion is in the restricted state or the allowable state [0047] (FIG. 10B) (the state of the restricting portion does not affect the movement of the cover).
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa et al. discloses:
wherein the restricting portion is in the restricted state in a case where the sheet is stopped in a state of straddling the apparatus body and the drawer unit [0040] (FIGs. 4B and 7).
Regarding claim 4, Ishikawa et al. discloses:
a sensor (S4/S5) (FIG. 7) configured to detect a position of the sheet.
Regarding claim 5, Ishikawa et al. discloses:
a control unit (151) (FIG. 5) configured to control the restricting portion to be in the restricted state when determining that the sheet is stopped in a state of straddling the apparatus body and the drawer unit based on a detection result of the sensor [0040].
Regarding claim 6, Ishikawa et al. discloses:
wherein the drawer unit includes an engaging portion (95) (FIG. 3A) configured to engage with an engaged portion (99) (FIG. 3A) of the apparatus body so as to restrict the drawer unit from being pulled out from the apparatus body, and an operation portion (93) (FIG. 3A) connected to the engaging portion,
the operation portion is movable to a locked position (FIG. 3A) where the drawer unit is restricted from being pulled out from the apparatus body by an engagement of the engaging portion and the engaged portion, and an unlocked position (FIG. 3C) where the drawer unit is allowed to be pulled out from the apparatus body by the engaging portion being retracted from the engaged portion,
the restricting portion includes a restricting member (96) (FIG. 4A) configured to move to a restricted position (FIG. 4B) where the operation portion is restricted from moving from the locked position to the unlocked position and an allowable position (FIG. 4A) where the operation portion is allowed to move from the locked position to the unlocked position, and an actuator (solenoid) [0031] configured to move the restricting member from the allowable position to the restricted position, and
the control unit drives the actuator such that the restricting member is located at the restricted position when determining that the sheet is stopped in a state of straddling the apparatus body and the drawer unit based on the detection result of the sensor [0040].
Regarding claim 7, Ishikawa et al. discloses:
wherein the actuator is a solenoid configured to be energized to move the restricting member from the allowable position to the restricted position [0031], but does not explicitly disclose wherein the restricting portion includes an urging portion configured to urge the restricting member to the allowable position, wherein the solenoid moves the restricting member against an urging force of the urging portion. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the apparatus as taught by Ishikawa et al. in view of Wilsher et al. to include wherein the restricting portion includes an urging portion configured to urge the restricting member to the allowable position in order to ensure the restricting member does not move to the restricted position unintentionally.
Regarding claim 8, Ishikawa et al. in view of Wilsher et al. teaches:
wherein the display portion and the operation portion are provided on a downstream side of the drawer unit in a pull-out direction (FIGs. 2B and 3A) (Ishikawa et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa et al. in view of Wilsher et al. teaches:
a light source (Col. 3 lines 24-27) (Wilsher et al.) configured to illuminate the display portion.
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa et al. in view of Wilsher et al. teaches:
a light source (Col. 3 lines 24-27) (Wilsher et al.) configured to illuminate the display portion,
wherein the control unit turns on the light source when determining that the sheet is stopped in a state of straddling the apparatus body and the drawer unit based on the detection result of the sensor (the light is illuminated when the restricting portion is in the restricted state) [0040] (Ishikawa et al.).
Regarding claim 13, Ishikawa et al. discloses:
wherein the drawer unit includes a conveyance rotary member (fixing roller of fixing unit 40) (FIG. 8) [0041] configured to convey the sheet, and a conveyance operation portion (knob) [0041] configured to rotate the conveyance rotary member, and
the conveyance operation portion is operable in a state in which the cover is opened with respect to the apparatus body [0041].
Regarding claim 14, Ishikawa et al. discloses:
wherein the cover constitutes an exterior member of the apparatus body (FIG. 2A).
Regarding claim 15, Ishikawa et al. discloses:
wherein the restricting portion is provided in the apparatus body (FIGs. 2A and 4A).
Regarding claim 16, Ishikawa et al. discloses:
wherein the drawer unit includes a fixing unit (40) (FIG. 8) configured to fix, to the sheet, a toner image transferred to the sheet.
Regarding claim 17, Ishikawa et al. discloses:
wherein the operation portion is configured to rotate around a rotational axis (94) (FIGs. 3A and 3C), and
a direction of the rotational axis is parallel to a pull-out direction in which the drawer unit is pulled out from the apparatus body (FIGs. 2B and 3A).
Regarding claim 18, Ishikawa et al. in view of Wilsher et al. teaches:
wherein the display portion is in a first state in a case the restricting portion is in the restricted state, and is in a second state which is different from the first state in a case where the restricting portion is in the allowable state (Col. 4 lines 13-30) (Wilsher et al.), the display portion in the first state being exposed outside of the image forming apparatus when the cover is in the open position, the display portion in the second state being covered by the cover when the cover is in the closed position (when modifying to include the display portion in the drawer unit).
Regarding claim 19, Ishikawa et al. in view of Wilsher et al. teaches:
a light source (Col. 3 lines 24-27) (Wilsher et al.) configured to illuminate the display portion, wherein the light source is turned on when the display portion is in the first state, and is turned off when the display portion is in the second state (Col. 4 lines 13-30) (Wilsher et al.).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. US 20210286308 in view of Wilsher et al. US 9561920 and further in view of Kakitani US 20180009625.
Regarding claim 11, Ishikawa et al. in view of Wilsher et al. teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as set forth above. Furthermore, Ishikawa et al. in view of Wilsher et al. teaches wherein the drawer unit includes the light source, but does not explicitly teach a light condensing portion configured to condense light emitted from the light source on the display portion.
Kakitani discloses a display portion (94/95/200) (FIGs. 1A and 3A) comprising a light source (200) (FIG. 1A) and a light condensing portion (95) (FIG. 1A) configured to condense light emitted from the light source on the display portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the apparatus as taught by Ishikawa et al. in view of Wilsher et al. to include the light source and light condensing portion as disclosed by Kakitani in order to provide a more detailed/illuminated display portion.
Regarding claim 12, Ishikawa et al. in view of Wilsher et al. teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the display portion has a mark to be illuminated by the light source and is configured to transmit light emitted from the light source.
Kakitani discloses a display portion (94/95/200) (FIGs. 1A and 3A) having a mark (94) (FIG. 1A) to be illuminated by the light source (200) (FIG. 1A) and is configured to transmit light emitted from the light source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the apparatus as taught by Ishikawa et al. in view of Wilsher et al. to include the mark as disclosed by Kakitani in order to provide a more detailed display portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS S GIAMPAOLO II whose telephone number is (571)272-6619. The examiner can normally be reached T-Th 9-5.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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 S GIAMPAOLO II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852