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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an access portion at least one of left and right side surface portions of the exterior” should be “an access portion on at least one of left and right side surface portions of the exterior”, or similar. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 5,996,995 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a medium conveyance device having an exterior, the medium conveyance device comprising: a conveyance unit 32 configured to convey a medium in a conveyance direction from a front surface side of the exterior; a straight path (defined by rollers 32-38) through which the medium is conveyed toward a back surface of the exterior; a U-turn path branched from the straight path and through which the medium is conveyed in a reversed manner; and a discharge port through which the medium is discharged from the straight path and disposed at a back surface side of the exterior, wherein the discharge port is positioned at a front surface side relative to a position of a back surface of the exterior corresponding to a region where the U-turn path is disposed. See Fig. 1, below.
PNG
media_image1.png
419
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the medium conveyance device according to claim 1, wherein with respect to a depth dimension between the front surface and the back surface in side view of the exterior corresponding to the region where the U-turn path is disposed, a depth dimension between the front surface and the discharge port in side view of the exterior corresponding to a region where the straight path is disposed is short. See Fig. 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the medium conveyance device according to claim 1, wherein a discharge region where the medium is discharged from the discharge port is present below the U-turn path. See Fig. 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the medium conveyance device according to claim 3, further comprising a guide unit in a discharge direction of the discharge port, wherein the medium discharged from the discharge port is guided by the guide unit and discharged downward from the discharge port. See Fig. 1, below.
PNG
media_image2.png
419
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the medium conveyance device according to claim 3, further comprising a medium reception unit 41 configured to receive a medium discharged from the discharge port, wherein the medium reception unit is formed in a size fitting in the discharge region in a direction of the straight path.
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the medium conveyance device according to claim 8, wherein the medium reception unit includes an inclination surface (top surface of tray 41) inclined toward a side from a top portion.
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses an image reading device comprising: the medium conveyance device according to claim 1; and a reading unit 42 configured to read an image from the medium conveyed by the medium conveyance device.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kitan (US 8,152,163 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses everything claimed, except Kim lacks a sensor configured to detect a state of the medium in the discharge region. Kitan teaches the use of a sensor 5 configured to detect a state of the medium in the discharge region, in order to determine when the tray is full. Kitan, col. 4, lines 6-17. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add a sensor configured to detect a state of the medium in the discharge region, to the device of Kim, as taught by Kitan, in order to determine when the tray is full.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are 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: the nearest prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. For example, Kim does not disclose everything claimed, including “wherein the discharge region includes an access portion on at least one of left and right side surface portions of the exterior, and the discharge region is configured to be accessed from a side via the access portion”, in combination with the rest of the claimed elements.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ogawa (US 2024/0359938 A1) discloses a conveyance device having a U-turn path.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeremy R. Severson, whose telephone number is (571)272-2209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Duane Smith, can be reached at (571) 272-1166. 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.
/JEREMY R SEVERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759