Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/055,760

DOCUMENT CONVEYANCE APPARATUS AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Feb 18, 2025
Examiner
THERRIEN, CARLA J
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 7m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
544 granted / 630 resolved
+18.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 7m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
653
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
§102
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 630 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . 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. 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: first contact portion in claims 1-3, second contact portion in claims 1-3, cover side abutment portion in claim 7, driven-roller-holding-member-side abutment portion in claim 7, and restrictor in claim 7. 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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tezuka et al. (US 2022/0411215; “Tezuka”). Regarding claim 7, Tezuka discloses a document conveyance apparatus 20 (Fig. 1 [0048]) including an opening-and-closing cover 34 which is openable and closable with respect to an apparatus housing 22 (Figs. 1-2 [0071, 0085]), the document conveyance apparatus comprising: document conveyance rollers including a driving roller 52, and a driven roller 54 provided to be contactable with and separable from the driving roller 52 (Figs. 12-13 [0080-0081]); a driven roller holding member 102 which rotatably holds the driven roller 54, and causes the driven roller 54 to be in contact with or separated from the driving roller 52 in conjunction with opening and closing of the opening-and-closing cover 34 (Figs. 12-14 [0081, 0087]); and a biasing member 125 which applies, to the driven roller holding member 102, a biasing force in a direction of bringing the driven roller 54 into pressure contact with the driving roller 52 (Fig. 12 [0164]), wherein: the opening-and-closing cover 34 is provided with a cover side abutment portion 66 which contacts the driven roller holding member 102 when the opening-and-closing cover is opened (Figs. 13-14 [0099]); the driven roller holding member 102 is provided with a driven-roller-holding-member-side abutment portion 134 which contacts the cover side abutment portion 66 when the opening-and-closing cover is opened (Fig. 13 [0125]); the apparatus housing is provided with a restrictor 104 which restricts opening of the opening-and-closing cover 34 beyond a predetermined position (see Fig. 13 [0019, 0125]; note that Fig. 13 shows a state when the opening-and-closing cover/cover unit 34 is open, and the presence of restrictor 104 including the supporting structure of driven roller holding member 102 that rotates about axis 81 act to restrict opening of the opening-and-closing cover 34 beyond some predetermined position, as cover side abutment portion 66 of the opening-and-closing cover 34 is surely not designed to break through restrictor 104); and in a state in which the opening-and-closing cover is opened, the driven-roller-holding-member-side abutment portion 134 biases, by the biasing force of the biasing member 125, the cover side abutment portion 66 in a direction (generally upward and to the left) in which the opening-and-closing cover opens (generally upward) (see Fig. 13). Regarding claim 8, Tezuka discloses the document conveyance apparatus according to claim 7, wherein: the restrictor 104 is in a shape of a hook (Fig. 12), and when the opening-and-closing cover 34 is opened to the predetermined position, the hook engages with a side wall 62 of the opening-and-closing cover (via cover side abutment portion 66) (Fig. 13 [0097]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-6 and 9 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claimed “in a state in which the opening-and-closing cover is opened, the first contact portion comes into contact with the first surface and the second contact portion comes into contact with the second surface, the first surface biases, by the biasing force of the biasing member, the first contact portion in a direction in which the opening-and-closing cover closes, and the second surface biases, by the biasing force of the biasing member, the second contact portion in a direction in which the opening-and-closing cover opens” in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 1-6 and 9. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Akiyama et al. (US 2008/0246208) is cited for teaching a similar document conveyance apparatus having a driven roller holding member provided with a driven-roller-holding-member-side abutment portion which contacts the cover side abutment portion when the opening-and-closing cover is opened, similar to that which is claimed in claim 7. Akiyama, however, fails to teach the opening-and-closing cover provided with first and second contact portions that contact the driven roller holding member and apply forces in the directions claimed in claim 1. The remaining documents cited on form PTO-892 and not relied upon are cited as related art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLA J THERRIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am - 4 pm EST. 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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. /CARLA J THERRIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 18, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601998
IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD OF CONTROLLING IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596321
IDENTIFICATION OF GAS CONVEYANCE MALFUNCTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596320
CORRECTING DENSITY UNEVENNESS IN IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585220
IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585211
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+4.4%)
1y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 630 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month