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.
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: “an image pickup portion”, “a count processing portion”, and “a determination processing portion” in claim 1, “a stop processing portion” in claim 5, and “an image forming portion” in claim 6.
The specification describes an image pickup portion 61, a count processing portion 63, a determination processing portion 64, a stop processing portion 71, and an image forming portion 3 as being controlled by control portion 7 which includes a CPU and memory. As such, the specification provides sufficient structure to avoid a 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to software per se. Claim 1 does not provide adequate structure or hardware that performs the processing described in the claim. Claim 1 also does not provide any tangible output or transformation. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to provide some kind of output or utilization of the processing in the claim, such as that set forth in claim 5. Claim 7 contains similar issues to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adachi (US 2013/0307213) in view of Arimori (US 2018/0220021), cited in the IDS dated 1/21/25.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Adachi discloses a determination method and A sheet conveying device, comprising:
a sheet conveying portion which conveys a sheet (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paras 31-32, conveying unit 20 conveys a sheet);
an image pickup portion which includes a plurality of image pickup devices that are arranged so as to be aligned in a width direction orthogonal to a conveying direction of the sheet at a pass-through position through which the sheet conveyed by the sheet conveying portion passes, and outputs image pickup data indicating an image pickup result obtained by the plurality of image pickup devices at a predetermined image pickup cycle (see Figs. 2 and 4 and paras 32, 36, 38, 46-49, and 55-57, line sensor 25 is arranged in a width direction orthogonal to the conveying direction detects a sheet edge via reflected light); and
a count processing portion which counts, every time the image pickup data is output by the image pickup portion, a number of sheet pixels indicating the sheet, that are included in the image pickup data (see paras 32, 40, 46-47 and 49, line sensor 25 reads pixels of a sheet edge, counter 311 is operated by the clock signal CLK output from the line sensor control unit 302, the counter 311 counts the time when the binarization signal is at a high level and outputs the counted value to the CPU 301, according to the clock signal CLK, the CPU 301 specifies the side edge position of the sheet P based on the counted value).
Adachi does not disclose expressly a determination processing portion which determines whether or not the sheet has an anomalous shape based on a transition of a count value obtained by the count processing portion.
Arimori discloses a determination processing portion which determines whether or not the sheet has an anomalous shape based on a transition of a count value obtained by the count processing portion (see Fig. 7 and paras 96-97, 100, 102-105, 107-108, and 112-115, sheet edge detection determines an anomalous shape, such as a part of the sheet being crushed and will stop conveying a sheet when such a determination is made).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the anomalous shape detection, as described by Arimori, with the system of Adachi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to prevent damage formation to a document and reduce cost of an apparatus (para 7 of Arimori).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Arimori with Adachi to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1 and 7.
Regarding claim 2, Adachi further discloses wherein the determination processing portion determines that the sheet has the anomalous shape when a change time of the count value exceeds a predetermined first time (see paras 46, 49, 55-57, and 62, the counter 311 counts the time when the binarization signal is at a high level and outputs the counted value to the CPU 301, according to the clock signal CLK, the CPU 301 specifies the side edge position of the sheet P based on the counted value, a threshold value is utilized).
Regarding claim 3, Adachi further discloses wherein the determination processing portion determines that the sheet has the anomalous shape when a change speed of the count value changes during a change of the count value (see paras 47-50, CPU 301 calculates the difference (displacement amount in the lateral position) of the side edge position with respect to the target position and the displaced direction, the CPU 301 converts the displacement amount in the lateral position into the number of pulses of the shift motor 306 and outputs the number of pulses and data in a driving direction in which the shift motor 306 is driven to the motor control unit 304, the motor control unit 304 drives the shift motor 306 according to the driving direction and the number of pulses).
Regarding claim 4, Adachi further discloses wherein the determination processing portion determines whether or not the sheet has the anomalous shape based on the transition of the count value up to a time when a second time corresponding to a size of the sheet elapses since a time of detection of a tip end portion of the sheet in the conveying direction, that is based on the image pickup data (see paras 32, 36-40, 43, and 55-57, line sensor 25 detects sheet edge skew based on the known size of the sheet as it passes through feed rollers, lead and trailing edges are used to determine sheet conveyance).
Regarding claim 5, Arimori further discloses a stop processing portion which stops the conveyance of the sheet by the sheet conveying portion when it is determined by the determination processing portion that the sheet has the anomalous shape (see Fig. 7 and paras 96-97, 100, 102-105, 107-108, and 112-115, sheet edge detection determines an anomalous shape, such as a part of the sheet being crushed and will stop conveying a sheet when such a determination is made).
Regarding claim 6, Adachi further discloses n image forming apparatus, comprising: the sheet conveying device according to claim 1; and an image forming portion which forms an image on the sheet conveyed by the sheet conveying portion (see Fig. 1 and paras 30 and 34, image forming apparatus 100 contains a printer engine and fixing unit 40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R MILIA whose telephone number is (571) 272-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571-270-3438. The fax 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.
/MARK R MILIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights