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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 2/11/2025 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyu (US-2005/0196209).
As to Claim 1, Lyu teaches ‘An image reading device comprising: a document table on which a document is placed [Fig 2 (3), par 0046 – image reading apparatus includes a document platen]; a reading unit which is disposed below the document table and scans the placed document in a main-scanning direction to read an image [Fig 2 (4, B), par 0046 – scan unit positioned therein a body case includes an image sensor/CCD module sensing an image of the document]; a reading unit moving part which moves the reading unit in a sub-scanning direction crossing the main- scanning direction and in an opposite direction to the reading direction [Fig 2 (4, B), par 0046 – feed module includes a guide bar B guiding the CCD module in an auxiliary scanning direction (i.e., sub-scanning direction) of the document and a driving unit driving the CCD module]; a cursor to which a reading start side edge of the document placed on the document table in the sub- scanning direction is abutted; and a cursor moving part which moves the cursor along the sub-scanning direction in a reciprocating manner, wherein the cursor moving part moves the cursor from a reference position of the reading unit in the opposite direction in conjunction with a movement of the reading unit from the home position in the opposite direction, so that an image readable range in the sub-scanning direction can be increased [Figs 2, 3 (5), 4B-C, par 0047-0052, 0054-0058 – scanning determination unit (i.e., cursor) includes a guide rail positioned directly below a traveling path of the scan unit, and a movable body coupled to the guide rail that guides the movable body so that it can be moved in a sliding mode along an auxiliary direction, where the movable body includes a positioning body positioned on an upper side of the document platen protruding from a portion of the body case, and the positioning body of the scanning determination unit is moved corresponding to an actual scanning range of the document, and a point to end scanning in an auxiliary scanning direction of the document is determined from a point to start scanning of a home position rib]’.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyu in view of Hasegawa et al. (US-5,153,645).
As to Claim 5, Lyu teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Lyu does not disclose expressly ‘An image forming apparatus comprising: the image reading device according to claim 1, and an image forming part which forms an image on a sheet based on image date of the document read by the image reading device’.
Hasegawa in the proposed combination teaches ‘An image forming apparatus comprising: the image reading device according to claim 1, and an image forming part which forms an image on a sheet based on image date of the document read by the image reading device [Fig 1 (5), col, lines 21-30 – copying machine equipped with an image reader unit and a printer unit to be copied onto a copy paper]’.
Lyu and Hasegawa are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image reading systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a copying machine, as taught by Hasegawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to having a document scanning device installed in an image processing unit such as a copying machine for use in editing an image of a document. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hasegawa with Lyu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 (and claims 3-4 based on dependency) 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: Lyu in view of Hasegawa and further in view of the prior art searched and/or cited does not teach nor render obvious the combination of limitations including “wherein the reading unit includes: an image reading sensor; a holder which holds the image reading sensor; and a reading unit side rack gear which is provided in the holder in the sub-scanning direction, the cursor moving part includes: a driving gear which is engageable with the reading unit side rack gear; a one-way clutch which is provided coaxially with the driving gear; a cursor side rack gear which is provided in the cursor along the sub-scanning direction; a pulley which is engageable with the cursor side rack gear; and a timing belt which connects the pulley to the one- way clutch, when the reading unit passes through a predetermined position away from the home position in the opposite direction, the reading unit side rack gear is engaged with the driving gear to rotate the driving gear, a rotation of the driving gear is transmitted from the one-way clutch to the pulley via the timing belt, and the pulley rotates to move the cursor in the opposite direction together with the cursor side rack gear” as recited in dependent claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2005/0196209
b. US Patent No. 5,153,645
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
c. US Patent No. 5,084,760
d.US Patent No. 4,384,272
e. US Publication No. 2005/0002067
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights