DETAILED ACTION
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: “a feed 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.
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 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (US Patent No. 5,478,066).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshida et al. discloses
a loading unit (213, “The sheet supply apparatus of the present invention is mounted on the deck 213”) configured to be loaded with a sheet stack including sheets;
a feed unit (comprising 12, 14-18) configured to come into contact with a surface of the uppermost sheet of the sheet stack and feed the sheet in a feed direction (i.e. right to left in Fig. 10); and
at least one first separation mechanism (comprising 19-21) configured to jet out air to a plurality of sheets including the uppermost sheet of the sheet stack to separate the plurality of sheets in a height direction (i.e. up/down direction in Fig. 10),
wherein the first separation mechanism has
a first jetting unit (20) configured to jet out air to a first region (i.e. in the vicinity of the output end of 20, across the positions shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 13) including a downstream end in the feed direction of the uppermost sheet of the sheet stack (see Fig. 10), and
a second jetting unit (19) configured to jet out air to a second region (i.e. in the vicinity of the output end of 19, below that of 20) of the sheet stack, the second region being below the first region in the height direction (Fig. 10),
wherein the first jetting unit jets out air such that a first jetting direction directed to the first region varies (i.e. see Fig. 10 vs Fig. 13), and
wherein the second jetting unit jets out air in a second jetting direction directed to the second region and set independently of the first jetting direction (i.e. does not change direction while the first jetting unit does, Fig. 10, Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoshida et al. discloses
the second jetting unit fixes the second jetting direction to a constant direction and jets out air (i.e. 19 is fixed, across Fig. 10 and Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoshida et al. discloses
a plurality of first separation mechanisms (i.e. shown as the two innermost nozzles 20 in Fig. 11) are arranged at a plurality of positions along a width direction orthogonal to the feed direction of the sheets fed by the feed unit.
Regarding Claim 5, Yoshida et al. discloses
a pair of the first separation mechanisms (i.e. shown as the two innermost nozzles 20 in Fig. 11) are arranged at positions symmetrical with respect to the center position in the width direction of the sheet stack.
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshida et al. discloses
a second separation mechanism (i.e. shown as the two outermost nozzles 20 in Fig. 11) configured to jet out air to the plurality of sheets including the uppermost sheet of the sheet stack to separate the plurality of sheets in the height direction,
wherein the second separation mechanism is arranged at a more distant position from the center position than the first separation mechanism (see Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshida et al. discloses
the first separation mechanism has
an air supply path (i.e. between 21 and 22) supplied with air,
a partition plate (22) that partitions air supplied from the air supply path into the first jetting unit and the second jetting unit at a predetermined position (i.e. at position ‘a’ or ‘b’) in the height direction, and
a deflection plate (25) that causes a flowing direction of air guided to the first jetting unit to vary in the height direction (lines 55-57 of Column 12, Fig. 10, Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoshida et al. discloses
the feed unit has
a driving roller (18, lines 5-7 of Column 8),
a driven roller (15-17, lines 5-7 of Column 8),
a feed belt (14) stretched around the driving roller and the driven roller, suction holes (14A) being formed in the feed belt, and
a suction unit (12) configured to suck air through the suction holes formed in the feed belt passing by a position facing the sheet stack (lines 28-31 of Column 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Yoshida et al. discloses
when the sheets are viewed in planar view, the first jetting unit jets out air in a direction (i.e. left to right in Fig. 10) to an edge arranged at a downstream end in the feed direction of the sheets (i.e. to the left edge of the sheet in Fig. 10), the direction being opposite to the feed direction.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US Patent No. 5,478,066) in view of Naito (JP 59-149250).
Regarding Claim 10, Yoshida et al. does not disclose jetting out air in a direction as claimed.
Naito discloses when the sheets are viewed in planar view, the first jetting unit (5) jets out air in a direction to an edge arranged parallel to the feed direction of the sheets (i.e. the left and right nozzles 5 jet out air in the widthwise direction, across 2, see Fig. 6), the direction intersecting the feed direction (i.e. from 2 to 3), for the purpose of assisting in separation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Yoshida et al. by including the direction as disclosed by Naito, for the purpose of assisting in separation.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US Patent No. 5,478,066).
Regarding Claim 11, Yoshida et al. discloses
a loading unit (213, “The sheet supply apparatus of the present invention is mounted on the deck 213”) configured to be loaded with a sheet stack including sheets,
a feed unit (comprising 12, 14-18) configured to come into contact with a surface of the uppermost sheet of the sheet stack and feed the sheet in a feed direction (i.e. right to left in Fig. 10), and
at least one first separation mechanism (comprising 19-21) configured to jet out air to a plurality of sheets including the uppermost sheet of the sheet stack to separate the plurality of sheets in a height direction (i.e. up/down direction in Fig. 10), and
wherein the first separation mechanism has
a first jetting unit (20) configured to jet out air to a first region (i.e. in the vicinity of the output end of 20, across the positions shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 13) including a downstream end in the feed direction of the uppermost sheet of the sheet stack (see Fig. 10), and
a second jetting unit (19) configured to jet out air to a second region (i.e. in the vicinity of the output end of 19, below that of 20) of the sheet stack, the second region being below the first region in the height direction (Fig. 10),
the sheet feed method comprising:
a first jetting step of jetting out air such that a first jetting direction directed from the first jetting unit to the first region varies (i.e. see Fig. 10 vs Fig. 13);
a second jetting step of jetting out air in a second jetting direction directed from the second jetting unit to the second region and set independently of the first jetting direction (i.e. does not change direction while the first jetting unit does, Fig. 10, Fig. 13); and
It is noted that neither the claims nor the specification or drawings disclose an order/sequence to the steps recited (see MPEP 2111.01 II).
Yoshida et al. discloses feeding (via 12, 14-18) in the Fig. 10/13 embodiment but does not explicitly disclose feeding in a state where air is jetted in both steps to both regions.
Yoshida et al. discloses a twentieth embodiment having a feeding step of feeding the sheet in the feed direction by the feed unit in a state where air is jetted to the first region in the first jetting step and air is jetted to the second region in the second jetting step (i.e. in Fig. 34, it can be seen that nozzle 19 blows at Q1 while belt 14 is driven and after valve 22 is moved to position ‘b’, which also allows air to flow from 20), for the purpose of separating and feeding sheets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Yoshida et al. (Fig. 10/13 embodiment) by including
the feeding step as disclosed by Yoshida et al. (twentieth embodiment), for the purpose
of separating and feeding sheets.
Regarding Claim 12, Yoshida et al. discloses
the second jetting step includes fixing the second jetting direction to a constant direction and jetting out air (i.e. 19 is fixed, across Fig. 10 and Fig. 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 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: None of the prior art of record shows a second jetting unit that jets out air whose jetting direction oscillates in the height direction, in combination with the remaining elements (Claims 3 and 13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am - 5:30pm.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 February 13, 2026