DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the applicant’s claim recites that the controller(s) “control the lifter to lower the tray, in a case where the size sensor detects that a size of the document is about to be changed”, it is unclear as to what is required to allow one or more controllers the ability to determine things that, at the time have not happened but are going to happen. The applicant’s determination that a change in size of the document occurs is a direct change in the state of the sensors (e.g. the guides change or the length value detected changes). There’s no determination of whether something is “about to be changed” as required by the applicant’s claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujii et al (US Pat No 7,043,191).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Fujii discloses a document transport device comprising:
a document feed roller (R1) that supplies a document to a transport path;
a document feed tray (22) on which the document is allowed to be placed;
a size sensor (S0) that detects a size of the document on the document feed tray;
a lifter (33) that causes the document on the document feed tray to come into contact with the document feed roller by raising the document feed tray; and
one or more controllers (41) that control the lifter, based on a detection signal from the size sensor, wherein
the one or more controllers control the lifter in such a way as to lower the document feed tray, in a case where the size sensor detects that a size of the document is about to be changed in a state where the document on the document feed tray is made contact with the document feed roller by the lifter (shown by the flowchart in figure 11).
Regarding claim 2, Fujii discloses the document feed tray is configured in such a way as to guide the document from the document feed tray to the transport path, and includes a pair of guide members (30) movable in accordance with a size of the document, the size sensor is a guide width detection sensor that detects that a distance between the pair of guide members is changed by a predetermined amount or more, and the one or more controllers control the lifter in such a way as to lower the document feed tray, in a case where the guide width detection sensor detects that a distance between the pair of guide members is changed by a predetermined amount or more in a state where the document on the document feed tray is made contact with the document feed roller by the lifter (as shown in the flowchart of fig. 11).
Regarding claim 5, Fujii discloses a plurality of transport rollers (R1-R11) that transport the document along the transport path, wherein the one or more controllers control the plurality of transport rollers in such a way as to complete transport of the document for which transport by the plurality of transport rollers has already started, in a case where the size sensor detects that a size of the document is about to be changed (e.g. in a case where document is sent, see S21+).
Regarding claim 6, Fujii discloses the one or more controllers control the document feed roller in such a way as to stop further supply of the document on the document feed tray to the transport path by the document feed roller, in a case where the size sensor detects that a size of the document is about to be changed (e.g. via lowering the document tray).
Regarding claim 7, Fujii discloses an operation acceptor (shown in figure 3) that transmits, to the one or more controllers, a command signal capable of specifying a job, based on a user’s operation, wherein the one or more controllers stop execution of the job specified by the command signal received from the operation acceptor, in a case where the size sensor detects that a size of the document is about to be changed (see flowchart of figure 11).
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) 8, 9, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al, further in view of Mitamura (US Pub No 2020/0385225).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Fujii discloses a document transport device comprising:
a document feed roller (R1) that supplies a document to a transport path;
a document feed tray (22) on which the document is allowed to be placed;
a size sensor (S0) that detects a size of the document on the document feed tray;
a lifter (33) that causes the document on the document feed tray to come into contact with the document feed roller by raising the document feed tray; and
one or more controllers (41) that control the lifter, based on a detection signal from the size sensor, wherein
the one or more controllers control the lifter in such a way as to lower the document feed tray, in a case where the size sensor detects that a size of the document is about to be changed in a state where the document on the document feed tray is made contact with the document feed roller by the lifter (shown by the flowchart in figure 11).
It is noted that Fujii doesn’t disclose the lifter to be used for lifting the feed roller and the controller to control the lifting of the feed roller in the event of a change of detected document size. However, Mitamura discloses a similar feeding device wherein, in addition to the tray moving, the feed roller (41) is lifted/lowered in order to feed a sheet by a lifter (M2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Fujii with the teachings of Mitamura since it would have been obvious to use the actuation either the tray or the feed roller, or the combination thereof as taught by Mitamura in order to feed the sheet. Wherein the combination would be capable of using the same control with the same end result taught by Fujii.
Regarding claim 9, Fujii discloses the document feed tray is configured in such a way as to guide the document from the document feed tray to the transport path, and includes a pair of guide members (30) movable in accordance with a size of the document, the size sensor is a guide width detection sensor that detects that a distance between the pair of guide members is changed by a predetermined amount or more, and the one or more controllers control the lifter in such a way as to lower the document feed tray, in a case where the guide width detection sensor detects that a distance between the pair of guide members is changed by a predetermined amount or more in a state where the document on the document feed tray is made contact with the document feed roller by the lifter (as shown in the flowchart of fig. 11).
Regarding claim 12, Fujii discloses a plurality of transport rollers (R1-R11) that transport the document along the transport path, wherein the one or more controllers control the plurality of transport rollers in such a way as to complete transport of the document for which transport by the plurality of transport rollers has already started, in a case where the size sensor detects that a size of the document is about to be changed (e.g. in a case where document is sent, see S21+).
Regarding claim 13, Fujii discloses the one or more controllers control the document feed roller in such a way as to stop further supply of the document on the document feed tray to the transport path by the document feed roller, in a case where the size sensor detects that a size of the document is about to be changed (e.g. via lowering the document tray).
Regarding claim 14, Fujii discloses an operation acceptor (shown in figure 3) that transmits, to the one or more controllers, a command signal capable of specifying a job, based on a user’s operation, wherein the one or more controllers stop execution of the job specified by the command signal received from the operation acceptor, in a case where the size sensor detects that a size of the document is about to be changed (see flowchart of figure 11).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al, further in view of Mizubata et al (US Pat No 7,547,017).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, it is noted that Fujii fails to disclose the use of length sensors to determine a change in size of the document placed on the tray. However, Mizubata discloses a similar sheet feeding device including a plurality of sensors (101-103) placed on the tray in the document travel direction which are used to determine the length of the sheet placed thereon. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fujii with the teachings of Mizubata to achieve the predictable result of determining the length of the sheet placed thereon with sensors placed in the document tray. With such a configuration, it further would have been obvious to apply the same principle used for the interrupt disclosed for the document size sensor taught by Fujii with the combination of the applied length sensors. Such a combination would render the change to a shorter or longer length sheet to cause the same interrupt disclosed as that of figure 11 of Fujii.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al, in view of Mitamura, further in view of Mizubata et al (US Pat No 7,547,017).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, it is noted that Fujii and Mitamura fail to disclose the use of length sensors to determine a change in size of the document placed on the tray. However, Mizubata discloses a similar sheet feeding device including a plurality of sensors (101-103) placed on the tray in the document travel direction which are used to determine the length of the sheet placed thereon. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fujii with the teachings of Mizubata to achieve the predictable result of determining the length of the sheet placed thereon with sensors placed in the document tray. With such a configuration, it further would have been obvious to apply the same principle used for the interrupt disclosed for the document size sensor taught by Fujii with the combination of the applied length sensors. Such a combination would render the change to a shorter or longer length sheet to cause the same interrupt disclosed as that of figure 11 of Fujii.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art generally disclose features believed to be pertinent to the applicant’s claimed invention.
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