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.
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: “a transport unit”, “a reading unit”, and “a control unit” in claim 1.
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.
“The transport unit in claim 1 read as item 20 in Fig.4 (paragraph 44)”, “the reading unit in claim 1 read as item 30 in Fig.4 (paragraph 50)”, and “the control unit in claim 1 read as item 60 in Fig.4 (paragraph 67)”.
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.
Double Patenting
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrinegrounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the US Patent 10,091,375 because:
The limitations of the instant claim 1 are substantially identically in claim 1 of the US Patent 10,091,375. Claim 1 of the US Patent 10,091,375 only further defines more functions of the image reading apparatus but invention scope of the instant claim 1 and claim1 of the US Patent 10,091,375 are the same.
Claims 2-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the US Patent 10,091,375 and further in view of Kanaya’460 (US 2014/0079460).
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, Claim 1 of the US Patent 10,091,375 does not teach the transport unit includes a roller and a motor that rotates the roller, In the second reading mode, the motor is driven at a rotation speed of the roller slower than the rotation speed of the roller in the first reading mode.
Kanaya’460 teaches the transport unit includes a roller and a motor that rotates the roller (paragraph 88),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the US Patent 10,091,375 according to the teaching of Kanaya’460 to include a motor for driving the roller to feeding the document for scanning because this will allow the document to be transported for scanning more effectively.
The combination of Claim 1 of the US Patent 10,091,375 and Kanaya’460 does not teach in the second reading mode, the motor is driven at a rotation speed of the roller slower than the rotation speed of the roller in the first reading mode.
Sine Claim 1 of the US Patent 10,091,375 has suggested that conveying speed for a document to be scanned depended on the thickness of the said document (claim 1) and Kanaya’460 teaches using a motor for driving the roller to feeding the document for scanning, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to instruct the motor to drive the rotation speed of the roller slower in the mode which requires the slow conveying speed (the second reading mode) than the rotation speed of the roller in the mode which requires the high conveying speed (the first reading mode) because this will allow the document to be feed and scanned more effectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Claim 1 of the US Patent 10,091,375 and Kanaya’460 to instruct the motor to drive the rotation speed of the roller slower in the mode which requires the slow conveying speed (the second reading mode) than the rotation speed of the roller in the mode which requires the high conveying speed (the first reading mode) because this will allow the document to be feed and scanned more effectively.
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 2, claim 2 of the US Patent 10,091,375 teaches a sonic wave sensor which outputs a sonic wave to a document which is transported by the transport unit, and detects an attenuation rate of the sonic wave, wherein the control unit determines that the document which is transported by the transport unit is thin when an attenuation rate of a sonic wave which is detected by the sonic wave sensor under a circumstance in which the document is transported by the transport unit is less than a determining attenuation rate, and executes the second reading mode (claim 2).
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 3, claim 3 of the US Patent 10,091,375 teaches wherein the sonic wave sensor is a sensor which detects whether or not a plurality of documents are transported by being overlapped, wherein a multi-feeding detecting attenuation rate which is larger than the determining attenuation rate is provided as a threshold value for determining whether or not a plurality of documents are transported by being overlapped, and wherein the control unit executes the first reading mode when an attenuation rate of a sonic wave which is detected by the sonic wave sensor under a circumstance in which a document is transported by the transport unit is the determining attenuation rate or more, and less than the multi-feeding detecting attenuation rate, and stops transporting of a document using the transport unit and reading of an image using the reading unit, when an attenuation rate of a sonic wave which is detected by the sonic wave sensor under a circumstance in which a document is transported by the transport unit is the multi-feeding detecting attenuation rate or more (claim 3).
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 4, claim 4 of the US Patent 10,091,375 teaches wherein the transport unit includes a pair of transport rollers which is located on the upstream side in a transport direction of a document compared to the reading unit, and a feeding roller which is arranged on the upstream side in the transport direction of a document compared to the pair of transport rollers, and feeds the document toward the pair of transport rollers, and wherein the sonic wave sensor is arranged between the feeding roller and the pair of transport rollers in the transport direction of the document (claim 4).
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the US Patent 12,231,606 because:
The limitations of the instant claim 1 are substantially identically in claim 1 of the US Patent 12,231,606. Claim 1 of the US Patent 12,231,606 only further defines more functions of the image reading apparatus but invention scope of the instant claim 1 and claim1 of the US Patent 12,231,606 are the same.
Claims 2-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the US Patent 12,231,606 and further in view of Kanaya’460 (US 2014/0079460).
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, Claim 1 of the US Patent 12,231,606 does not teach the transport unit includes a roller and a motor that rotates the roller, In the second reading mode, the motor is driven at a rotation speed of the roller slower than the rotation speed of the roller in the first reading mode.
Kanaya’460 teaches the transport unit includes a roller and a motor that rotates the roller (paragraph 88),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the US Patent 12,231,606 according to the teaching of Kanaya’460 to include a motor for driving the roller to feeding the document for scanning because this will allow the document to be transported for scanning more effectively.
The combination of Claim 1 of the US Patent 12,231,606 and Kanaya’460 does not teach in the second reading mode, the motor is driven at a rotation speed of the roller slower than the rotation speed of the roller in the first reading mode.
Sine Claim 1 of the US Patent 12,231,606 has suggested that conveying speed for a document to be scanned depended on the thickness of the said document (claim 1) and Kanaya’460 teaches using a motor for driving the roller to feeding the document for scanning, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to instruct the motor to drive the rotation speed of the roller slower in the mode which requires the slow conveying speed (the second reading mode) than the rotation speed of the roller in the mode which requires the high conveying speed (the first reading mode) because this will allow the document to be feed and scanned more effectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Claim 1 of the US Patent 12,231,606 and Kanaya’460 to instruct the motor to drive the rotation speed of the roller slower in the mode which requires the slow conveying speed (the second reading mode) than the rotation speed of the roller in the mode which requires the high conveying speed (the first reading mode) because this will allow the document to be feed and scanned more effectively.
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 2, claim 1of the US Patent 12,231,606 teaches a sonic wave sensor which outputs a sonic wave to a document which is transported by the transport unit, and detects an attenuation rate of the sonic wave, wherein the control unit determines that the document which is transported by the transport unit is thin when an attenuation rate of a sonic wave which is detected by the sonic wave sensor under a circumstance in which the document is transported by the transport unit is less than a determining attenuation rate, and executes the second reading mode (claim 2).
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 3, claim 6 of the US Patent 12,231,606 teaches wherein the sonic wave sensor is a sensor which detects whether or not a plurality of documents are transported by being overlapped, wherein a multi-feeding detecting attenuation rate which is larger than the determining attenuation rate is provided as a threshold value for determining whether or not a plurality of documents are transported by being overlapped, and wherein the control unit executes the first reading mode when an attenuation rate of a sonic wave which is detected by the sonic wave sensor under a circumstance in which a document is transported by the transport unit is the determining attenuation rate or more, and less than the multi-feeding detecting attenuation rate, and stops transporting of a document using the transport unit and reading of an image using the reading unit, when an attenuation rate of a sonic wave which is detected by the sonic wave sensor under a circumstance in which a document is transported by the transport unit is the multi-feeding detecting attenuation rate or more (claim 6).
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 4, claim 7 of the US Patent 12,231,606 teaches wherein the transport unit includes a pair of transport rollers which is located on the upstream side in a transport direction of a document compared to the reading unit, and a feeding roller which is arranged on the upstream side in the transport direction of a document compared to the pair of transport rollers, and feeds the document toward the pair of transport rollers, and wherein the sonic wave sensor is arranged between the feeding roller and the pair of transport rollers in the transport direction of the document (claim 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osakabe’136 (US 2013/0003136), and further in view of Chen’488 (US 2007/0171488).
With respect to claim 1, Osakabe’136 teaches an image reading apparatus (Fig.1, item 1) comprising:
a transport unit [regarding to the document feeder 40 shown in Fig.1] which transports a document (paragraph 30);
a reading unit (Fig.8, item 15) which reads an image of the document which is transported by the transport unit (paragraph 30); and
a control unit (Fig.8, item 80) which generates image data as data of the image which is read by the reading unit (Fig.11, step S9).
Osakabe’136 does not teach wherein, as operation modes for performing reading in the reading unit, there are a first reading mode for reading a document having a first thickness being conveyed by the conveying unit and a second reading mode in which a document having a second thickness that is thinner than the document having the first thickness and being conveyed by the conveying unit is read; in the first reading mode, the control unit causes the reading unit to read an image from a document conveyed by the conveying unit at a speed corresponding to a required resolution, and generates image data of the image read by the reading unit, in the second reading mode, the control unit transports the document so that becomes a slower than in the first reading mode, and read the document, and generates image data of an image having the same resolution as in the first reading mode is generated.
Chen’488 teaches wherein, as operation modes for performing reading in the reading unit, there are a first reading mode for reading a document having a first thickness being conveyed by the conveying unit and a second reading mode in which a document having a second thickness that is thinner than the document having the first thickness and being conveyed by the conveying unit is read (Fig.6);
in the first reading mode, the control unit causes the reading unit to read an image from a document conveyed by the conveying unit at a speed corresponding to a required resolution, and generates image data of the image read by the reading unit [when a low-resolution image is required to be generated, a high scanning speed may be used because the data quantity of the image is relative small and when a high-resolution image is required to be generated, a low scanning speed is used because the data quantity of the image is relative large (paragraph 4) and the scanning speeding is being configured according the thickness of the document (Fig.6). Examiner views that scanning speeding and the conveying speed for conveying the document for scanning is proportional to each other since the scanning speeding and the conveying speed for conveying the document are need to be matched with each other in order to provide high quality of scanned image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to configure the conveying speed for conveying a document for scanning according to its thickness information and the required scanning resolution because this will all the document to be scanning more effectively.],
in the second reading mode, the control unit transports the document so that becomes a slower than in the first reading mode, and read the document, and generates image data of an image having the same resolution as in the first reading mode is generated [the scanning speed is inversely proportional to the thickness of the original (claim 1). As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize when scanning resolution is be defined, the scanning speed for scanning the thick original (second reading mode) would be slower than the scanning speed for scanning the thin original (first reading
dome)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of
Osakabe’136 according to the teaching of Chen’488 to have the scanning speed for
scanning the thick original (second reading mode) to be slower than the scanning
speed for scanning the thin original (first reading dome) when the scanning
resolution is being kept the same for the thick original and thin original because
this will enhance the resolution for the scanned image data.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osakabe’136 (US 2013/0003136), Chen’488 (US 2007/0171488) and further in view of Kanaya’460 (US 2014/0079460).
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Osakabe’136 and Chen’488 does not teach the transport unit includes a roller and a motor that rotates the roller, In the second reading mode, the motor is driven at a rotation speed of the roller slower than the rotation speed of the roller in the first reading mode.
Kanaya’460 teaches the transport unit includes a roller and a motor that rotates the roller (paragraph 88),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osakabe’136 and Chen’488 according to the teaching of Kanaya’460 to include a motor for driving the roller to feeding the document for scanning because this will allow the document to be transported for scanning more effectively.
The combination of Osakabe’136, Chen’488 and Kanaya’460 does not teach in the second reading mode, the motor is driven at a rotation speed of the roller slower than the rotation speed of the roller in the first reading mode.
Since Osakabe’136 has suggested that conveying speed for a document to be scanned depended on the size of the said document (Fig.8) and Kanaya’460 teaches using a motor for driving the roller to feeding the document for scanning, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to instruct the motor to drive the rotation speed of the roller slower in the mode which requires the slow conveying speed (the second reading mode) than the rotation speed of the roller in the mode which requires the high conveying speed (the first reading mode) because this will allow the document to be feed and scanned more effectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osakabe’136, Chen’488 and Kanaya’460 to instruct the motor to drive the rotation speed of the roller slower in the mode which requires the slow conveying speed (the second reading mode) than the rotation speed of the roller in the mode which requires the high conveying speed (the first reading mode) because this will allow the document to be feed and scanned more effectively.
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 2, the combination of Osakabe’136 and Kanaya’460 does not teach a sonic wave sensor which outputs a sonic wave to a document which is transported by the transport unit, and detects an attenuation rate of the sonic wave, wherein the control unit determines that the document which is transported by the transport unit is thin when an attenuation rate of a sonic wave which is detected by the sonic wave sensor under a circumstance in which the document is transported by the transport unit is less than a determining attenuation rate, and executes the second reading mode.
Chen’488 teaches a sonic wave sensor which outputs a sonic wave to a document which is transported by the transport unit, and detects an attenuation rate of the sonic wave (paragraph 8),
wherein the control unit determines that the document which is transported by the transport unit is thin when an attenuation rate of a sonic wave which is detected by the sonic wave sensor under a circumstance in which the document is transported by the transport unit is less (paragraph 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osakabe’136 and Kanaya’460 according to the teaching of Chen’488 to have the scanning speed for scanning the thick original (second reading mode) to be slower than the scanning speed for scanning the thin original (first reading dome) when the scanning resolution is being kept the same for the thick original and thin original because this will enhance the resolution for the scanned image data.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osakabe’136 (US 2013/0003136), Chen’488 (US 2007/0171488), Kanaya’460 (US 2014/0079460) and further in view of Yamagishi’786 (US 2011/0278786).
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 3, the combination of Osakabe’136, Chen’488 and Kanaya’460 does not teach wherein the sonic wave sensor is a sensor which detects whether or not a plurality of documents are transported by being overlapped, wherein a multi-feeding detecting attenuation rate which is larger than the determining attenuation rate is provided as a threshold value for determining whether or not a plurality of documents are transported by being overlapped, and wherein the control unit executes the first reading mode when an attenuation rate of a sonic wave which is detected by the sonic wave sensor under a circumstance in which a document is transported by the transport unit is the determining attenuation rate or more, and less than the multi-feeding detecting attenuation rate, and stops transporting of a document using the transport unit and reading of an image using the reading unit, when an attenuation rate of a sonic wave which is detected by the sonic wave sensor under a circumstance in which a document is transported by the transport unit is the multi-feeding detecting attenuation rate or more.
Yamagishi’786 teaches wherein the sonic wave sensor is a sensor which detects whether or not a plurality of documents are transported by being overlapped (abstract),
wherein a multi-feeding detecting attenuation rate which is larger than the determining attenuation rate is provided as a threshold value for determining whether or not a plurality of documents are transported by being overlapped (Fig.4A-Fig.4C), and
wherein the control unit executes the first reading mode when an attenuation rate of a sonic wave which is detected by the sonic wave sensor under a circumstance in which a document is transported by the transport unit is the determining attenuation rate or more, and less than the multi-feeding detecting attenuation rate (Fig.8, steps SA7-SA11), and stops transporting of a document using the transport unit and reading of an image using the reading unit, when an attenuation rate of a sonic wave which is detected by the sonic wave sensor under a circumstance in which a document is transported by the transport unit is the multi-feeding detecting attenuation rate or more (Fig.8, step SA12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osakabe’136, Chen’488 and Kanaya’460 according to the teaching of Yamagishi’786 to detect the overlapped feeding of the original because this will allow the scanning
processing more effectively.
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 4, the combination of Osakabe’136, Chen’488 and Yamagishi’786 does not teach wherein the transport unit includes a pair of transport rollers which is located on the upstream side in a transport direction of a document compared to the reading unit, and a feeding roller which is arranged on the upstream side in the transport direction of a document compared to the pair of transport rollers, and feeds the document toward the pair of transport rollers, and wherein the sonic wave sensor is arranged between the feeding roller and the pair of transport rollers in the transport direction of the document.
Kanaya’460 teaches wherein the transport unit includes a pair of transport rollers (Fig.3, items 116 and 117) which is located on the upstream side in a transport direction of a document compared to the reading unit (Fig.3, items 130a and 130b), and a feeding roller (Fig.3, items 142 and 143) which is arranged on the upstream side in the transport direction of a document compared to the pair of transport rollers (Fig.3, items 116 and 117), and feeds the document toward the pair of transport rollers (Fig.3, items 116 and 117), and
wherein the sonic wave sensor (Fig.3, item 115 a) is arranged between the feeding roller (Fig.3, items 142 and 143) and the pair of transport rollers (Fig.3,
items 116 and 117) in the transport direction of the document.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination
of Osakabe’136, Chen’488 and Yamagishi’786 according to the teaching of
Kanaya’460 to using a pair of feeding rollers and a pair of transport rollers to
convey the original to be scanned because this will allow original to be fed more
effectively for scanning.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights