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.
Claims 3 and 4 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.
The applicant’s claim 3 recites “the second transmission light emitting element, and the second reflective light emitting element are sequentially irradiated with light from a light having a long wavelength”, the phrase “a long wavelength” is a relative term and not defined in the applicant’s specification as requiring any bounds, as such the applicant’s phrase of “a long wavelength” is indefinite. What is the criteria for an infringement to occur on “a long wavelength”?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the conveyance member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 2, 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al (US Pat No 11,880,153) in view of Dokiya et al (US Pat No 11,906,919).
Regarding claim 1, Kamiya discloses a sheet discriminating apparatus comprising:
a hardware processor (100) that discriminates characteristics of a sheet by receiving light emitted from a light emitting element to the sheet conveyed along a predetermined conveyor (inside roller of 132, shown in figure 2A) by a light receiving element (243),
wherein,
the light emitting element includes a reflective light emitting element (242) that causes the light receiving element to receive light reflected off the sheet and a transmission light emitting element (e.g. either of 232 or 233) that causes the light receiving element provided at an opposing position to receive the light transmitted through the sheet,
the sheet discriminating apparatus further includes a reflector (251) that is provided at a position facing the reflective light emitting element and that reflects the light emitted by the reflective light emitting element when the sheet is not conveyed by the conveyor so that the reflected light enters the light receiving element provided so as to face the reflector,
the reflective light emitting element includes a first reflective light emitting element (242) that emits light with a first wavelength,
the transmission light emitting element includes a first transmission light emitting element that is provided at a position facing the reflective light emitting element and that emits the light with a third wavelength, and
the reflector is provided in a position that a reflectance of the light emitted by the reflective light emitting element is higher than the reflectance of the light emitted by the transmission light emitting element and transmitted through the sheet (e.g. a disclosed “reflective” light source reference plate being reflective while a typical sheet is not considered to be reflective).
Note: claim terms relating to the material worked upon by the apparatus are not given patentable weight, further the type of material being transmitted doesn’t have to be the same material as explicitly disclosed but merely be capable of being fed (see MPEP sections 2114 and 2115).
It is noted that Kamiya fails to disclose the second reflective light emitting element. However, Dokiya discloses multiple reflective light emitting elements (211, 212) that emits light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Kamiya with the teachings of Dokiya to achieve the predictable result of more accurately making a determination of the property of the sheet material fed (see summary of Dokiya). Further, the combination discloses the second light has a second wavelength.
Regarding claim 2, Dokiya discloses the first and second wavelength being capable of being within a range of 750 to 1100 nm (see column 9, lines 46-67).
Regarding claim 7, Kamiya discloses the reflector is provided outside the conveyor (shown in figure 2A).
Regarding claim 8, Kamiya discloses the reflective member is provided above the reflective light emitting element and the conveyor in an up- down direction (shown in figure 2B).
Regarding claim 11, Kamiya discloses the sheet discriminating apparatus according to claim 1; and an image former that forms an image on the sheet (shown in figure 1).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al in view of Dokiya et al, further in view of Machii et al (US Pat No 11,634,292).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that Kamiya is silent to the reflectance of the reflective member. However, Machii discloses a similar sensor arrangement wherein a reflective member (44) is provided with “high reflectance” by being a mirror, and thereby the reflector (44) is provided in a position that the reflectance of the light emitted from the transmission light emitting element to the sheet and scattered is 20% or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Kamiya with the teachings of Machii to achieve the predictable result of ensuring reflection of the light source towards the receiver even during adverse conditions.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al in view of Dokiya et al, further in view of EP0432289.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Kamiya discloses the conveyance member includes an opening (223, 224) in a range including a portion facing the light emitting element and the light receiving element. It is noted that Kamiya fails to disclose a translucent cover over the opening. However, EP0432289 disclsoes a similar device including a translucent cover (S1, S2) over an opening through which a light emitter passes light through. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Kamiya with the teachings of EP0432289 to achieve the predictable result of having a protective function for the sensor structure while allowing the light to pass through.
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses the transparent protective material is provided in a manner that covers the opening on the light receiving element side and the reflector side (e.g. as noted in EP0432289 the glass pane is provided on both sides of the guide, as noted in Kamiya the openings are also provided, thus the combination would provide glass panes for both openings).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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 discloses or suggests each and every feature claimed. Specifically, none of the prior art discloses the claimed reflectance meeting the claimed formula.
Claims 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 discloses or suggests each and every feature claimed. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose the claimed features of the specific sequence in which the light is emitted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art generally discloses features related to that of the claimed invention and are believed to be relevant to the applicant’s claimed invention.
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