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 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Publication No. 2012-101900 (hereinafter “JP’900”).
Regarding claim 16, Figs. 1-3, 4(b) and 6 show a sheet feeding apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a sheet stacking tray (4) on which a sheet is placed;
conveyance rollers (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 111) configured to perform skew detection for a sheet which is conveyed by the conveyance rollers (5 and 8), the skew detection unit (including 101, 102 and 111) including a first sensor (101) configured to detect the sheet conveyed by the conveyance rollers (5 and 8) at a first position and a second sensor (102) configured to detect the sheet conveyed by the conveyance rollers (5 and 8) at a second position that is different from the first position in a width direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction (left in Fig. 1); and
an operation panel (105) configured to set a mixed mode (numbered paragraph [0051] of the machine translation) in which sheets having different widths are placed on the sheet stacking tray (4),
wherein the skew detection unit (including 101, 102 and 111) does not perform the skew detection regardless of information from the first sensor (101) and the second sensor (102) in a case in which the mixed mode has been set by the operation panel (105). With regard to performing skew detection, the examiner takes the position detection of a sheet by both sensors 101 and 102 is required for skew detection to be performed. In other words, detection of a sheet by only sensor 101 or only sensor 102 does not allow skew detection unit (including 101, 102 and 111) to perform skew detection. Numbered paragraphs [0049] – [0060] of the machine translation explain that a timer 666 is set to Y2 when the mixed mode is set. Y2 is a time allotted for sheets to be detected by both sensors 101 and 102. If both sensors 101 and 102 do not detect the sheet within time Y2, the apparatus ends sheet conveyance and stops. Thus, skew detection unit (including 101, 102 and 111) does not perform skew detection if time Y2 passes without having both sensors 101 and 102 detect a sheet with the operation panel 105 set to the mixed mode. This occurs regardless of the information from the first and second sensors (101 and 102). As such, all of the limitations of claim 16 are met by JP’900.
Regarding claim 17, Figs. 1-3, 4(b) and 6 show a controller (666) configured to cause the conveyance rollers (5 and 8) to stop conveying the sheet in a case in which the skew detection unit (including 101, 102 and 111) detects the skew of the sheet.
Regarding claim 18, Figs. 1-3, 4(b) and 6 show that the skew detection unit (including 101, 102 and 111) performs the skew detection in a case in which the mixed mode (numbered paragraph [0051]) has not been set by the operation panel (105). As long as time X2 does not expire before first and second sensors (101 and 102) detect the sheet with no mixed mode set, skew detection is performed, as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 2 shows that the first position (see 101 in Fig. 2) and the second position (see 102 in Fig. 2) 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. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’900 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Japanese Publication No. 61-16447 (hereinafter “JP’447”) (a reference of record). With regard to claim 20, JP’900 shows that the conveyance rollers (5 and 8) include a feeding roller (5) for sending out a sheet placed on the sheet stacking tray (4) 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 (left in Fig. 1). JP’900 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.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of the response, filed 4/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the rejections of claims 16-20 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, several new grounds of rejection are made of claims 16-20.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 21-24 are allowed. Claim 25 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.
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
7. 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 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights