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 .
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 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Widsten (US 10,913,628).
Regarding claim 1, Widsten discloses an alignment and discrimination module of a medium deposit device, comprising an alignment unit configured to perform alignment correction so that a medium being conveyed is aligned, wherein the alignment unit includes a pair of a first correction roller 104C1 and a second correction roller 104C2 that are inclined toward one side with respect to a conveyance direction of the medium so as to face a reference surface on one side of a medium conveyance surface (see figure below) in order to perform skew correction so that the medium being conveyed is parallel to the conveyance direction, and at the same time, perform shift correction so that one end of the medium is aligned with the reference surface. See e.g. col. 6, lines 6-10.
PNG
media_image1.png
363
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Widsten discloses the alignment and discrimination module of claim 1, wherein the first correction roller 104C1 is connected to a main conveyance drive system 104E that drives all of a plurality of conveyance rollers arranged at a predetermined interval in the conveyance direction of the medium for conveyance of the medium and is rotatably driven, and the second correction roller 104C2 is rotatably driven by a correction conveyance drive system. See figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
480
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fehrenbach (US 8,944,433).
Regarding claim 1, Fehrenbach discloses an alignment and discrimination module of a medium deposit device, comprising an alignment unit configured to perform alignment correction so that a medium being conveyed is aligned, wherein the alignment unit includes a pair of a first correction roller 630 and a second correction roller 732 that are inclined toward one side with respect to a conveyance direction of the medium so as to face a reference surface 750 on one side of a medium conveyance surface in order to perform skew correction so that the medium being conveyed is parallel to the conveyance direction, and at the same time, perform shift correction so that one end of the medium is aligned with the reference surface. See, e.g., col. 14, lines 47-61.
Regarding claim 10, Fehrenbach discloses the alignment and discrimination module of claim 1, further comprising a discrimination unit 29 configured to discriminate a type and authenticity of the medium, wherein the alignment unit 600 and the discrimination unit 29 are formed as an integrated structure. See Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 11, Fehrenbach discloses the alignment and discrimination module of claim 10, wherein the discrimination unit 29 includes at least one sensor among an image sensor for acquiring an image of the medium and discriminating the type of the medium, a magnetic sensor for detecting a magnetic component within the medium and discriminating the authenticity of the medium, and an ultraviolet sensor for detecting an ultraviolet substance within the medium and discriminating the authenticity of the medium. See col. 9, lines 1-14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 12-25 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, Widsten does not disclose everything claimed, including
a plurality of skew sensors configured to detect whether the medium being conveyed is skewed; a plurality of shift sensors configured to detect whether the medium being conveyed is shifted; and a control unit configured to control skew correction and shift correction of the medium to be performed by determining a degree of skew of the medium on the basis of data detected by the plurality of skew sensors and determining a degree of shift of the medium on the basis of data detected by the plurality of shift sensors
in combination with the rest of the claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Matsumoto (US 11,180,334), Widsten (US 9,969,583), and Kallin (US 8,113,511) disclose sheet aligning devices.
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, Curtis Mayes, can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights