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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 11-12, 14, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In the second-to-last line of claim 1, “act” should be corrected to --acts--.
In the 9th line of claim 3, “stop” should be corrected to --stops--.
In the second-to-last line of claim 11, “act” should be corrected to --acts--.
In the second-to-last line of claim 12, “act” should be corrected to --acts--.
In the 9th line of claim 14, “stop” should be corrected to --stops--.
In the second-to-last line of claim 21, “act” should be corrected to --acts--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: processing unit in claims 1-5, 9-11; braking mechanism in claims 1-3, 11-14, 21; damper mechanism in claims 1, 9, 11, 12, 20, 21; first engagement portion in claims 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 19; second engagement portion in claims 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 19; urging portion in claims 6, 7, 17, 18; cylindrical member in claims 8, 19; one-direction rotation transmission portion in claims 9, 20; conveyance portion in claim 10; sheet processing apparatus in claim 11; accommodation unit in claims 12-16, 20, 21; sheet accommodating apparatus in claims 12-21;.
Note: Functional language for sheet accommodating apparatus is “the accommodation unit is accommodated in the sheet accommodating apparatus”, i.e., the sheet accommodating apparatus is configured to accommodate the accommodation unit.
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 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, 12-13, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rabin (US 5,201,512).
Regarding claim 1, Rabin discloses a sheet processing apparatus (shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
a processing unit 10 movable to a drawn-out position and an accommodated position and configured to perform a predetermined process on a sheet (supply a sheet to be fed to the apparatus), the drawn-out position being a position where the processing unit is drawn out from the sheet processing apparatus, the accommodated position being a position where the processing unit is accommodated in the sheet processing apparatus (Col. 2 lines 25-43);
a braking mechanism (i.e., restrictor element labeled as 44a in the specification, but assumed to be element 46 in Fig. 2) configured to act to brake the processing unit in a case where the processing unit is inserted in a direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position at a speed equal to or higher than a predetermined speed (i.e., “when the supply drawer 10 is moved relatively rapidly”) (Col. 3 lines 24-53); and
a damper mechanism 32/38 configured to absorb an impact on the braking mechanism in a case where the braking mechanism act, by applying a load to the processing unit moving in the direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position (Col. 3 lines 24-53).
Regarding claim 2, Rabin discloses the sheet processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in the case where the processing unit is inserted in the direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position at the speed equal to or higher than the predetermined speed, the braking mechanism continues an acting state until the processing unit is positioned at the accommodated position (Col. 3 lines 24-53).
Regarding claim 12, Rabin discloses a sheet accommodating apparatus (shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
an accommodation unit 10 movable to a drawn-out position and an accommodated position and configured to accommodate a sheet, the drawn-out position being a position where the accommodation unit is drawn out from the sheet accommodating apparatus, the accommodated position being a position where the accommodation unit is accommodated in the sheet accommodating apparatus (Col. 2 lines 25-43);
a braking mechanism (i.e., restrictor element labeled as 44a in the specification, but assumed to be element 46 in Fig. 2) configured to act to brake the accommodation unit in a case where the accommodation unit is inserted in a direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position at a speed equal to or higher than a predetermined speed (i.e., “when the supply drawer 10 is moved relatively rapidly”) (Col. 3 lines 24-53); and
a damper mechanism 32/38 configured to absorb an impact on the braking mechanism in a case where the braking mechanism act, by applying a load to the accommodation unit moving in the direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position (Col. 3 lines 24-53).
Regarding claim 13, Rabin discloses the sheet accommodating apparatus according to claim 12, wherein, in the case where the accommodation unit is inserted in the direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position at the speed equal to or higher than the predetermined speed, the braking mechanism continues an acting state until the accommodation unit is positioned at the accommodated position (Col. 3 lines 24-53).
Regarding claim 21, Rabin discloses an image forming system comprising:
a sheet accommodating apparatus (shown in Fig. 1) configured to accommodate a sheet (Col. 2 lines 25-43); and
an image forming unit including an image forming portion (inherent in a reproduction apparatus such as a copier; Col. 1 lines 13-25) configured to form an image on the sheet fed from the sheet accommodating apparatus,
wherein the sheet accommodating apparatus includes
an accommodation unit 10 movable to a drawn-out position and an accommodated position and configured to accommodate the sheet, the drawn-out position being a position where the accommodation unit is drawn out from the sheet accommodating apparatus, the accommodated position being a position where the accommodation unit is accommodated in the sheet accommodating apparatus (Col. 2 lines 25-43);
a braking mechanism (i.e., restrictor element labeled as 44a in the specification, but assumed to be element 46 in Fig. 2) configured to act to brake the accommodation unit in a case where the accommodation unit is inserted in a direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position at a speed equal to or higher than a predetermined speed (i.e., “when the supply drawer 10 is moved relatively rapidly”) (Col. 3 lines 24-53); and
a damper mechanism 32/38 configured to absorb an impact on the braking mechanism in a case where the braking mechanism act, by applying a load to the accommodation unit moving in the direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position (Col. 3 lines 24-53).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabin (US 5,201,512) in view of Toda et al. (US 2009/0051098; “Toda”).
Regarding claim 10, Rabin discloses the sheet processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the processing unit includes a conveyance portion configured to convey a sheet bundle subjected to a half-folding process or the sheet bundle subjected to a saddle binding process and the half-folding process such that a spine of the sheet bundle is positioned downstream of a fore edge of the sheet bundle in a conveyance direction in which the conveyance portion conveys the sheet bundle, and a square back processing portion including a pair of nipping units and a pressing roller and configured to press, by the pressing roller, the spine of the sheet bundle nipped by the pair of nipping units such that the spine of the sheet bundle projects downstream with respect to the pair of nipping units in the conveyance direction, the pair of nipping units being configured to nip the sheet bundle and release the nipping of the sheet bundle by relatively moving with respect to the sheet bundle conveyed by the conveyance portion, the pressing roller being configured to press the spine of the sheet bundle nipped by the pair of nipping units toward the pair of nipping units, and wherein the predetermined process includes the square back process.
Toda teaches an image forming system (Fig. 1) having a processing unit 200-3c including a conveyance portion (rollers visible in Fig. 4) configured to convey a sheet bundle subjected to a half-folding process or the sheet bundle subjected to a saddle binding process and the half-folding process such that a spine of the sheet bundle is positioned downstream of a fore edge of the sheet bundle in a conveyance direction in which the conveyance portion conveys the sheet bundle (Fig. 4 [0096, 0105]), and a square back processing portion including a pair of nipping units 2103 and a pressing roller 2104 and configured to press, by the pressing roller, the spine of the sheet bundle nipped by the pair of nipping units such that the spine of the sheet bundle projects downstream with respect to the pair of nipping units in the conveyance direction (Figs. 5A-5C [0101-0106]), the pair of nipping units 2103 being configured to nip the sheet bundle and release the nipping of the sheet bundle by relatively moving with respect to the sheet bundle conveyed by the conveyance portion ([0104]), the pressing roller 2104 being configured to press the spine of the sheet bundle nipped by the pair of nipping units toward the pair of nipping units (Fig. 5B [0105]), and wherein a predetermined process includes the square back process ([0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the image forming system of Rabin to include a processing unit and square back processing portion as taught by Toda, and to also configure the processing unit to be drawn out of and pushed into the image forming system with the braking and damper mechanisms of Rabin. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a system having bookbinding capabilities while allowing a user or technician access into the processing unit when maintenance is necessary.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabin (US 5,201,512) in view of Isobe (US 2020/0122940).
Regarding claim 11, Rabin discloses an image forming system comprising: an image forming unit including an image forming portion configured to form an image on a sheet (inherent in a reproduction apparatus such as a copier; Col. 1 lines 13-25); and
a sheet processing apparatus (shown in Fig. 1) configured to perform a predetermined process (supply a sheet to be fed to the apparatus) on the sheet
wherein the sheet processing apparatus includes
a processing unit 10 movable to a drawn-out position and an accommodated position and configured to perform the predetermined process on the sheet, the drawn-out position being a position where the processing unit is drawn out from the sheet processing apparatus, the accommodated position being a position where the processing unit is accommodated in the sheet processing apparatus (Col. 2 lines 25-43);
a braking mechanism (i.e., restrictor element labeled as 44a in the specification, but assumed to be element 46 in Fig. 2) configured to act to brake the processing unit in a case where the processing unit is inserted in a direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position at a speed equal to or higher than a predetermined speed (i.e., “when the supply drawer 10 is moved relatively rapidly”) (Col. 3 lines 24-53); and
a damper mechanism 32/38 configured to absorb an impact on the braking mechanism in a case where the braking mechanism act, by applying a load to the processing unit moving in the direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position (Col. 3 lines 24-53).
Rabin fails to disclose the sheet processing apparatus configured to perform the predetermined process on the sheet on which the image has been formed by the image forming portion.
Isobe teaches a similar image forming system 1 having a sheet processing apparatus 80 configured to perform a predetermined process on a sheet on which an image has been formed by an image forming portion 30 (Fig. 1 [0079]). Further, the sheet processing apparatus includes a processing unit that is able to be drawn-out from the sheet processing apparatus (Figs. 2-3 [0080]).
Utilizing the teachings of Isobe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the image forming system of Rabin to include a sheet processing apparatus configured to perform a predetermined process on the sheet on which the image has been formed by the image forming portion, and to configure the sheet processing apparatus with the same braking and damper mechanisms of Rabin. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this instance, the predictable results would be the ability to perform post-processing on a sheet with a device that could be easily withdrawn from and reinserted into the apparatus without damage to the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 14-20 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:
Prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the braking mechanism allows rotation of the second gear in a case where the processing unit is inserted in the direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position at a speed lower than the predetermined speed, and stop the rotation of the second gear in the case where the processing unit is inserted in the direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position at the speed equal to or higher than the predetermined speed, and wherein, in a case where the rotation of the second gear is stopped, the damper mechanism reduces a movement speed of the processing unit by applying a load to the first gear” in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 3-9.
Prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the braking mechanism allows rotation of the second gear in a case where the accommodation unit is inserted in the direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position at a speed lower than the predetermined speed, and stop the rotation of the second gear in the case where the accommodation unit is inserted in the direction from the drawn-out position toward the accommodated position at the speed equal to or higher than the predetermined speed, and wherein, in a case where the rotation of the second gear is stopped, the damper mechanism reduces a movement speed of the accommodation unit by applying a load to the first gear” in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 14-20.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakashima et al. (US 2006/0192331; “Nakashima”) is cited for teaching a braking and centrifugal damper mechanism including gears that cushions a force on a processing unit according to the speed of the processing unit. Nakashima, however, fails to teach stoppage of either gear in the case where the processing unit is inserted, as required by claims 3 and 14.
Remaining documents cited on PTO-892 are cited as related art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLA J THERRIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/CARLA J THERRIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights