DETAILED ACTION
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 .
2. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on application JP 2022-079423 filed on 05/13/2022 under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d).
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in priorApplication No. 18/303,713 filed on 04/20/2023, and name an inventor or inventors named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78.
Drawings
4. The drawing has been filed on 11/07/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement filed on 11/07/2024, 09/26/2025 & 06/05/2026 is in compliance with the provision of the 37 CFR 1.97 and therefore has been considered.
Double Patenting
6. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
7. Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent 12,177,403 B2.
It is clear that all the elements of an instant application independent claims 1, 9 are to be found in patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,177,403 B2) claims 1, 10 as the instant application independent claims 1, 9 fully encompasses the patent claim 1, 10. The difference between the instant application independent claims 1, 9 and the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,177,403 B2) claims 1, 10 lies in the fact that the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,177,403 B2) claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus, the invention of claims 1, 10 of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,177,403 B2) is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application independent claims 1, 9. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the instant application independent claims 1, 9 are anticipated by claims 1, 10 of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,177,403 B2), it is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 10 of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,177,403 B2).
The dependent claims 2-8 of the instant application obviously claim the same subject matter as found in the claims 2-9, 11-12 of the parent patent’ 403 and therefore would be rejected based on the claims 2-9, 11-12 of the parent patent’ 403.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-9 are allowed.
9. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Ikeno et al. (US Pub 2007/0223060) at least teaches in Figs. 1-5 & paras., 0037-0050 that a scanner 1 where the original cover 4 is opened with respect to a platen glass 20. The area where the platen glass 20 is exposed from the top surface of the original table 2 is a stationary original reading area 22 and a moving original reading area 23 and the stationary original reading area 22 is an area where the original is placed and read by the scanner 1. A scanning unit 24 is disposed within a lower frame 25 of the casing of the original table 2. The upper cover 26 where an opening for exposing the platen glass 20 is formed is joined to the lower frame 25 to thereby constitute the casing of the original table 2. The lower frame 25 and the upper cover 26 are both made of a synthetic resin. The lower frame 25 has a partition plate for partitioning into a part where the image reading unit 24 is disposed and a part where the board of the operation panel 5 and the like are disposed, supporting ribs for supporting the platen glass 20, bosses for screwing various members, since they are designed as appropriate according to the embodiment of the original table 2.
The scanning unit 24 comprises a CIS 27 (line sensor), a carriage 28, a guide shaft 29, and a belt driving mechanism 30.
The claim 1 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “a driving unit configured to drive the carriage, the driving unit including a motor, a drive pulley provided on the motor, a first pulley disposed closer to a rear side than a range where the carriage moves in the front-rear direction, a second pulley disposed closer to a front side than the range, and a belt stretched between the drive pulley, the first pulley, and the second pulley, wherein the carriage is fixed to the belt between the first pulley and the second pulley in the front-rear direction, and wherein the motor is disposed between the first pulley and the second pulley in the front-rear direction and on a position where the motor does not overlap the document placing surface in a left-right direction orthogonal to the front-rear direction”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The claim 9 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “a driving unit configured to drive the carriage, the driving unit including a motor, a drive pulley provided on the motor, a first pulley disposed closer to a rear side than a range where the carriage moves in the front-rear direction, a second pulley disposed closer to a front side than the range, and a belt stretched between the drive pulley, the first pulley, and the second pulley, wherein the carriage is fixed to the belt between the first pulley and the second pulley, and wherein the motor is disposed between the first pulley and the second pulley in the front-rear direction and on a position where the motor does not overlap the document placing surface in a left-right direction orthogonal to the front-rear direction”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARIS SABAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday/Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Benny Tieu, can be reached on (571)272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The Examiner’s personal fax number is (571)270-4917.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HARIS SABAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights