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.
Claim 1, 3-8, 10-14 are 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 the applicant’s claims, the applicant’s amendment recites that “a size of the document has changed” in relation to the applicant’s size sensors. The antecedent basis for “the document” relates to the document placed on the tray and it’s not clear how a placed document changes size. It is note believed that applicant is requiring the size of the document placed to change in size since there’s no support for such a function but merely be able to determine that the controller is determining a change has occurred relating to the size sensor. For the purpose of the action, it is presumed that the applicant’s claimed change in size of the document placed is equated to a change in the state of detection of the size sensor.
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, and 5-7 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, 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 determines 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 size sensor is:
a guide width detection sensor (30) provided on the document feed tray that is configured to guide the document from the document feed tray to the transport path, and configured to determine that a distance between a pair of guide members movable based on a size of the document is changed by a predetermined amount or more, or
a document length sensor that determines a length of the document in a traveling direction of the document on the document feed tray,
in a state where the document on the document feed tray contacts, after being raised by the lifter, the document feed roller,
the one or more controllers control the lifter to lower the document feed tray in a case the size sensor detects that the guide width detection sensor determines that the distance between the pair of guide members has been changed by the predetermined amount or more, or in a case that the document length sensor determines that the length of the document has been changed (S41 of figure 11), and
the one or more controllers raise the document feed tray, when receiving a command signal for starting a print job from an operation acceptor in response to a user's operation on the operation acceptor, such that the document comes into contact with the document feed roller (S45 of figure 11 which routes back to Fig 10, prior to elevating the document tray).
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 to complete transport of the document for which the transport performed by the plurality of transport rollers has already started in a case that the guide width detection sensor determines that the distance between the pair of guide members has been changed by the predetermined amount or more, or in a case that the length sensor determines that the length of the document has been 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 to stop further supply of the document on the document feed tray to the transport path in a case that the guide width detection sensor determines a distance between the guide members has been changed by the predetermined amount or more, or in the case that the document length sensor determines that the length of the document has been changed (e.g. via lowering the document tray).
Regarding claim 7, Fujii discloses an operation acceptor (shown in figure 3) transmits, to the one or more controllers, the command signal capable of specifying a job, including starting the print job, based on a user’s operation, the one or more controllers stop execution of the job specified by the command signal received from the operation acceptor, in a case that the guide width detection sensor determines that the distance between the pair of guide members has been changed by the predetermined amount or more, or in the case that the document length sensor determines that the length of the document has been 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, and 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 1, 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 determines 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 size sensor is:
a guide width detection sensor (30) provided on the document feed tray that is configured to guide the document from the document feed tray to the transport path, and configured to determine that a distance between a pair of guide members movable based on a size of the document is changed by a predetermined amount or more, or
a document length sensor that determines a length of the document in a traveling direction of the document on the document feed tray,
in a state where the document on the document feed tray contacts, after being raised by the lifter, the document feed roller,
the one or more controllers control the lifter to lower the document feed tray in a case the size sensor detects that the guide width detection sensor determines that the distance between the pair of guide members has been changed by the predetermined amount or more, or in a case that the document length sensor determines that the length of the document has been changed (S41 of figure 11), and
the one or more controllers raise the document feed tray, when receiving a command signal for starting a print job from an operation acceptor in response to a user's operation on the operation acceptor, such that the document comes into contact with the document feed roller (S45 of figure 11 which routes back to Fig 10, prior to elevating the document tray).
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 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 to complete transport of the document for which the transport performed by the plurality of transport rollers has already started in a case that the guide width detection sensor determines that the distance between the pair of guide members has been changed by the predetermined amount or more, or in a case that the length sensor determines that the length of the document has been 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 to stop further supply of the document on the document feed tray to the transport path in a case that the guide width detection sensor determines a distance between the guide members has been changed by the predetermined amount or more, or in the case that the document length sensor determines that the length of the document has been changed (e.g. via lowering the document tray).
Regarding claim 14, Fujii discloses an operation acceptor (shown in figure 3) transmits, to the one or more controllers, the command signal capable of specifying a job, including starting the print job, based on a user’s operation, the one or more controllers stop execution of the job specified by the command signal received from the operation acceptor, in a case that the guide width detection sensor determines that the distance between the pair of guide members has been changed by the predetermined amount or more, or in the case that the document length sensor determines that the length of the document has been changed (see flowchart of figure 11).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 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 3 and 4, 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 10 and 11, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s argument correctly states that the tray of Fujii is lifted to the feed position prior to the start signal. However, Fujii also discloses that in the event that the sensors are manipulated, the tray is lowered until either 1) a predetermined time has elapsed (S44) or 2) a start signal is inputted (S45), after S45, the process moves back to the feeding aspect to raise the tray to be fed from.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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