DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimmachi et al in view of Osakabe et al (US Pat No 8,210,517).
Regarding claim 1, Shimmachi discloses a document feeding device comprising:
a document conveyance path (12) that conveys a document to a document reading position (30) where an image is read, the document conveyance path including a curved conveyance path;
a sheet feeding roller (5) that feeds the document to the curved conveyance path; and
a large-diameter conveying roller (7) disposed on an inner side of the curved conveyance path, the large-diameter conveying roller having a diameter larger than a diameter of the sheet feeding roller, and
a single driven roller that is in pressure contact with the large-diameter conveying roller, and that is driven to rotate, wherein;
the document reading position is disposed downstream of the large-diameter conveying roller
a document conveyance speed (as noted in [0034]) of the large-diameter conveying roller is higher than a document conveyance speed of the sheet feeding roller,
the single driven roller is disposed:
between the sheet feeding roller disposed upstream of the large-diameter conveying roller and the document reading position in the document conveyance path, and
the driven roller being disposed closer to the document reading position than to the sheet feeding roller (as shown in figure 3),
in the document conveying path, no conveying roller other than the large-diameter conveying roller is disposed between the sheet feeding roller and the single driven roller (see figure 3).
It is noted that Shimmachi fails to disclose the uppermost portion of the large diameter conveying roller is positioned higher than the lowermost portion of the sheet feeding roller. However, Osakabe discloses a similar document feeding device wherein the arrangement of the sheet feeding roller is provided such that the uppermost portion of the large diameter conveying roller is positioned higher than the lowermost portion of the sheet feeding roller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Shimmachi with the teachings of Osakabe to achieve the predictable result of providing a device in an overall smaller format (e.g. since the applicant’s disclosure provides no disclosure of any criticality to this feature, a simple rearrangement of parts to the configuration as taught by Osakabe would merely require routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 3, Shimmachi discloses a sheet discharge roller (9) disposed downstream of the large-diameter conveying roller, the sheet discharge roller discharging the document read at the document reading position to an outside, wherein the sheet feeding roller, the large-diameter conveying roller, and the sheet discharge roller are rotationally driven by a same motor (M, see [0030] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Shimmachi discloses each of the sheet feeding roller, the large-diameter conveying roller, and the sheet discharge roller is coupled to the motor via a transmission mechanism including a gear (see [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Shimmachi discloses the single driven roller is disposed below a horizontal plane including a rotation axis of the large-diameter conveying roller (see figure 3). It is noted that Shimmachi fails to disclose the single driven rollers rotational axis line being positioned below the lowermost portion for the large-diameter conveying roller. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shimmachi with a slight modification of the single driven roller position since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts requires only routine skill in the art and further the applicant’s disclosure is silent to any point of criticality for this feature.
Regarding claim 8, Shimmachi is capable of not stopping when an error occurs.
Regarding claim 9, Shimmachi discloses a sheet discharge roller disposed downstream of the large-diameter conveying roller, the sheet discharge roller discharging the document read at the document reading position to an outside (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Shimmachi discloses an image forming device (see figure 1, [0004]).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimmachi et al in view of Osakabe et al, further in view of Andoh et al (US Pat No 10,118,781).
Regarding claim 7, Shimmachi discloses a sheet discharge roller disposed downstream of the large-diameter conveying roller, the sheet discharge roller discharging the document read at the document reading position to an outside.
It is noted that Shimmachi fails to disclose the use of a second reading position downstream of the first reading position, and closer the discharge roller than the first reading position. However, Andoh discloses a similar sheet feeding device including a first (154) and second (95) image reading device wherein the second reading device is disposed closer the discharge roller than the first reading position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Shimmachi with the teachings of Andoh to achieve the predictable result of scanning the opposing side of the sheet the first time the sheet is fed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the features of claim 1 aren’t taught, as noted above Osakabe discloses the features.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the features of claim 6 aren’t taught; Shimmachi is silent as to the position of the single driven roller being explicitly in the exact disclosed spot. However, the applicant’s disclosure is also silent to this effect, and thus it’s considered an obvious variant of Shimmachi since the only modification necessary would be to move the position of the single driven roller.
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 Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights