Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0113487 (Murakami) (hereinafter “Murakami”).
Regarding claim 21, Figs. 1-5 show a sheet feeding apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a sheet stacking tray (4) on which a sheet is placed;
conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) configured to convey the sheet placed on the sheet stacking tray (4) in a conveyance direction (left in Fig. 1);
a skew detection unit (including 101-102) configured to perform skew detection for a sheet which is conveyed by the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8), the skew detection unit (including 101-102) including a first sensor (101) configured to detect the sheet conveyed by the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) at a first position (at 101) and a second sensor (102) configured to detect the sheet conveyed by the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) at a second position (at 102) that differs from the first position (at 101) in a width direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction;
a controller (110) configured to cause the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) to stop conveying the sheet in a case in which the skew detection unit (including 101-102) detects the skew of the sheet. Controller (110) causes the conveyance roller (including 5 and 8) to stop conveying the sheet in a case in which the skew detection unit (including 101 and 102) detects the skew of the sheet to be greater than a threshold amount alpha = Y.
Also, there is an operation panel (105) configured to set a mixed mode in which sheets having different widths are placed on the sheet stacking tray (4),
wherein the controller (110) does not cause the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) to stop conveying the sheet based on a detected result by the skew detection unit (including 101-102) in a case in which the mixed mode has been set by the operation panel (105). In particular, controller (110) does not cause the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) to stop conveying the sheet if the detected skew amount is less than a threshold amount alpha = Y.
Regarding claim 22, Figs. 1-5 show that the controller (110) causes the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) to stop conveying the sheet based on the detected result by the skew detection unit (including 101-102) in a case in which the mixed mode has not been set by the operation panel (105). This can occur in step S129 when the skew amount is greater than alpha = x in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 23, Figs. 1-5 show that the first position (at 101) and the second position (at 102) are arranged in the width direction.
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.
3. Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Japanese Publication No. 2000-295439 (hereinafter “JP’439”).
Regarding claim 16, Figs. 1-5 of Murakami show a sheet feeding apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a sheet stacking tray (4) on which a sheet is placed;
conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) configured to convey the sheet placed on the sheet stacking tray (4) in a conveyance direction (left in Fig. 1);
a skew detection unit (including 101-102 and 110) configured to perform skew detection for a sheet which is conveyed by the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8), the skew detection unit (including 101-102 and 110) including a first sensor (101) configured to detect the sheet conveyed by the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) at a first position and a second sensor (102) configured to detect the sheet conveyed by the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) at a second position that differs from the first position in a width direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction (left); and
an operation panel (105) configured to set a mixed stacking mode in which sheets having different widths are placed on the sheet stacking tray (4). Murakami teaches all of the limitations of this claim, except for the skew detection unit (including 101-102 and 110) not performing the skew detection in a case where the mixed stacking mode has been set by the operation panel (105), as claimed.
JP’439 teaches that it is well-known in the art to provide a sheet feeding apparatus (Fig. 1) with an input device (23 in Fig. 2) configured to set a mixed stacking mode (single feed mode / manual feed mode) in which sheets having different widths (i.e., transport documents folded in half to fit a readable size and/or documents that may be damaged by feed roller 2) are placed on a sheet stacking tray (5), such that a skew detection unit (56) does not perform skew detection in a case where the mixed stacking mode (single feed mode / manual feed mode) has been set by the input device (23), for the purpose of preventing stopping of conveyance of sheets due to skew detection, thereby preventing a decrease in work efficiency. See numbered paragraphs [0022] – [0026 and [0048] – [0050] of the machine translation of JP’439. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to operate the Murakami apparatus, such that the skew detection unit does not perform skew detection in a case in which the mixed mode has been set, for the purpose of preventing stopping of conveyance of sheets due to skew detection, thereby preventing a decrease in work efficiency, as taught by JP’439.
Regarding claim 17, Figs. 1-5 of Murakami show a controller (666) configured to cause the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) to stop conveying the document in a case where the skew detection unit (including 101-102 and 110) detects the skew of the sheet. See, e.g., step S129 in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 18, Figs. 1-5 of Murakami show that the skew detection unit (including 101-102 and 110) performs the skew detection in a case where the mixed stacking mode has not been set by the operation portion (105). See, e.g., Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 19, Figs. 1-5 of Murakami show that the first position (see 101 in Fig. 2) and the second position (see 102 in Fig. 2) are arranged in the width direction.
4. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of JP’439 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Japanese Publication No. 61-16447 (hereinafter “JP’447”). With regard to claim 20, Murakami shows that the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) include a feeding roller (5) for sending out a sheet placed on the sheet stacking tray (4) tray and a separation roller (8) for separating sheets into individual sheets, and wherein the first position (at 101) and the second position (at 102) are aligned downstream of the separation roller (8) in the conveyance direction. Murakami shows a separation roller (8) and a separation pad (6), rather than showing a separation roller pair, as claimed.
JP’447 teaches that a separation roller (3) and a separation roller pad (including 4) in Fig. 2 is an art known equivalent of a separation roller pair (3 and 9) in Fig. 1. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace the separation roller and separation pad with a separation roller pair, because JP’447 explicitly shows that a separation roller pair is an art known equivalent of a separation roller and a separation roller pad for separating sheets from one another.
5. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of JP’447. With regard to claim 24, Murakami shows that the conveyance rollers (including 5 and 8) include a feeding roller (5) for sending out a sheet placed on the sheet stacking tray (4) tray and a separation roller (8) for separating sheets into individual sheets, and wherein the first position (at 101) and the second position (at 102) are aligned downstream of the separation roller (8) in the conveyance direction. Murakami shows a separation roller (8) and a separation pad (6), rather than showing a separation roller pair, as claimed.
JP’447 teaches that a separation roller (3) and a separation roller pad (including 4) in Fig. 2 is an art known equivalent of a separation roller pair (3 and 9) in Fig. 1. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace the separation roller and separation pad with a separation roller pair, because JP’447 explicitly shows that a separation roller pair is an art known equivalent of a separation roller and a separation roller pad for separating sheets from one another.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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, Mike McCullough can be reached on 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653