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 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:
“movement mechanism” in claims 1 and 11;
“holder” in claims 1 and 11;
“biasing unit” in claims 1 and 11;
“pressing body” in claims 5 and 12;
“biasing member” in claims 5 and 12; and
“supporting portion” in claims 5 and 12.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 of the claim, “to image forming unit” should be “to the image forming unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doyo (JP 2011-126626 A).
Regarding claim 1, Doyo discloses an image forming device, comprising: a housing 2; an image forming unit 16 in the housing and configured to form an image on a sheet; a conveyance path 8 configured to convey the sheet to the image forming unit for an image to be formed thereon; and a manual feed device 4 mounted to the housing and configured to provide the sheet to the conveyance path for conveyance of the sheet to the image forming unit, the manual feed device including: a tray 41 on which sheets can be stacked; a pickup roller 62 configured to convey sheets from the tray to the conveyance path; a movement mechanism 42 configured to move the tray between a raised position at which sheets on the tray come into contact with the pickup roller and a lowered position that is lower than the raised position; a holder 84 configured to hold the pickup roller such that the pickup roller displaces upward when pushed up by sheets on the tray; a biasing unit 85 configured to apply a biasing force to the holder in a direction pushing the pickup roller downward towards the tray; and a detecting mechanism configured to detect when the pickup roller is displaced upward by the sheets on the tray and including: a detection unit (see Fig. 3, below) that moves between a reference position and a detection position according to displacement of the holder upwards or downwards; and a sensor 86 configured to detect the detection unit at the detection position.
PNG
media_image1.png
288
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Doyo discloses the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the biasing unit 85 applies the biasing force to the holder at a position of overlapping the pickup roller 62 when viewed from the direction in which the biasing force is applied. See Figs. 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 3, Doyo discloses the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit comprises: an actuator that switches by displacement of the holder between the reference position and the detection position. See Fig. 3, above.
Regarding claim 8, Doyo discloses the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the movement mechanism 42 comprises a driving motor 29.
Regarding claim 10, Doyo discloses the image forming device according to claim 1, wherein the tray 41 rotates to face against the housing 2.
Regarding claim 11, Doyo discloses an image forming device, comprising: an image forming unit 16 configured to form an image on a sheet; a conveyance path 8 configured to convey the sheet to image forming unit; and a manual feed device 4 configured to provide the sheet to the conveyance path for conveyance of the sheet to the image forming unit, the manual feed device including: a tray 41 on which sheets can be stacked; a pickup roller 62 configured to convey sheets from the tray to the conveyance path; a movement mechanism 42 configured to move the tray between a raised position at which sheets on the tray come into contact with the pickup roller and a lowered position that is lower than the raised position; a holder 84 configured to hold the pickup roller such that the pickup roller displaces upward when pushed up by sheets on the tray; a biasing unit 85 configured to apply a biasing force to the holder in a direction pushing the pickup roller downward towards the tray; and a detecting mechanism configured to detect when the pickup roller is displaced upward by the sheets on the tray and including: a detection unit (see Fig. 3, above) that moves between a reference position and a detection position according to displacement of the holder upwards or downwards; and a sensor 86 configured to detect the detection unit at the detection position.
Regarding claim 15, Doyo discloses the image forming device according to claim 11, wherein the movement mechanism 42 comprises a driving motor 29.
Regarding claim 16, Doyo discloses the image forming device according to claim 11, wherein the biasing unit 85 applies the biasing force to the holder at a position of overlapping the pickup roller 62 when viewed from the direction in which the biasing force is applied. See Figs. 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 17, Doyo discloses the image forming device according to claim 11, wherein the detection unit comprises: an actuator that switches by displacement of the holder between the reference position and the detection position. See Fig. 3, above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyo in view of Tsai (US 8,809,825).
Regarding claim 7, Doyo discloses the image forming device according to claim 1. Doyo lacks the explicit disclosure of the sensor being a light sensor. Tsai teaches the use of a light sensor, in order to sense the movement of a switch. Tsai, col. 4, lines 19-29. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use a light sensor as the sensor of Doyo, as taught by Tsai, in order to sense the movement of the switch.
Regarding claim 14, Doyo discloses the image forming device according to claim 11. Doyo lacks the explicit disclosure of the sensor being a light sensor. Tsai teaches the use of a light sensor, in order to sense the movement of a switch. Tsai, col. 4, lines 19-29. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use a light sensor as the sensor of Doyo, as taught by Tsai, in order to sense the movement of the switch.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyo in view of Ono (JP 2020-172379 A).
Regarding claim 9, Doyo discloses the image forming device according to claim 1. Doyo lacks the disclosure of the biasing unit being detachably attached to an outer surface of the housing. Ono teaches the use of a spring detachably attached to an outer surface of a housing, in order to make the roller unit replaceable. See Ono, par. 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have the biasing unit detachably attached to the outer surface of the housing, in the device of Doyo, as taught by Ono, in order to make the roller unit replaceable.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyo in view of Okamoto (JP 2021-104881 A).
Regarding claim 19, Doyo discloses the image forming device according to claim 11. Doyo lacks the disclosure of the detection mechanism including an operation unit protruding from the holder. Okamoto teaches the use of an operation unit (right end of holder 16) protruding from a holder 16, in order to displace actuator 54 of sensor 53. See Okamoto, par. 37-38. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use an operation unit protruding from the holder, in the device of Doyo, as taught by Okamoto, in order to activate a sensor.
Regarding claim 20, the device of Doyo as modified by Okamoto comprises the image forming device according to claim 19, wherein movement of the operation accompanying the displacement of the holder (Okamoto, 16) causes an actuator (Okamoto, 54) of the detection unit (Okamoto, 53) to switch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 12, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the nearest prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. For example, Doyo lacks the disclosure of a device “wherein the actuator comprises a shaft portion that is pivotable around an axis, and the detection unit protrudes from an outer peripheral surface of the shaft portion”, in combination with the rest of the claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kushida (US 9,592,973) discloses a sheet feeding device having a stacking portion and a feeding portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeremy R. Severson, whose telephone number is (571)272-2209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes, can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/JEREMY R SEVERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights