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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 21, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Note MPEP 608.01(o) states that “The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import, and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies.” Therefore, both the reference plane and the particular angular relationship of the outer side surface as defined in claim 1 must be shown (preferably with reference to particular drawing Figures and specific reference numerals) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 11, it is suggested that the term “a sheet” in line 4 be deleted and replaced with --the sheet-- since the sheet was previously recited in line 2 of claim 1. Additionally, in line 7 of claim 11, it is suggested that the term “an image” be deleted and replaced with --the toner image-- since the toner image was previously recited in line 3.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the language “such that the further away from the conveyance center the outer side surface is, the further away from the reference plane” is not properly supported by the original disclosure and appears to be new matter. First, it is noted that the reference plane as recited in the claims has not been discussed anywhere in the specification nor has it been clearly illustrated in the drawings. In particular, the element that applicant argues (in the remarks dated 08/21/2026) is the reference plane (i.e., element T in Figures 3 and 9) was defined in the specification as the conveyance path for the sheet (see, for example, paragraphs [0035] and [0038] in the specification). Additionally, there are no drawing Figures that illustrate the side surface 646 and the side surface inclined portion 645 in relation to the recited reference plane as recited and therefore the claimed inclination is not clearly shown or defined by the original disclosure. Additionally, it is noted that the primary discussion of the outer side surface is provided in the specification in paragraph [0053] and [0057]. However, the language in the specification defines the outer side surface relative to the lower guide member (and not a reference plane) and therefore is not consistent with the claim language as currently recited. Furthermore, neither the language in the specification nor the drawing Figures make it clear as to which way the side surface is inclined. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the drawing figures do not clearly and consistently show the relationship described by the claim language. In particular, while Figure 8 shows a side surface inclined portion 645, it does not clearly illustrate the relationship of that side surface inclined portion relative to the plane defined by the conveyance roller pair. Additionally, it is noted that other drawing Figures do not appear to illustrate the side surface having an inclination at all, such as for example, Figures 5-6. Therefore, it is not clear what the particular claimed configuration of the side surface of the rib is intended to be.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the language in the last 6 lines of the claim are confusing in meaning and scope. In particular, the language “such that the further away from the conveyance center the outer side surface is, the further away from the reference plane” is not clear in meaning and is confusing since it appears to be defining the outer side surface of a rib on the first guide member relative to a reference plane that has not clearly been illustrated in the drawings or described in the specification. Additionally, it is noted that the primary discussion of the outer side surface is provided in the specification in paragraph [0053] and [0057]. However, the language in the specification defines the outer side surface relative to the lower guide member (and not a reference plane) and therefore is not consistent with the claim language as presently recited. Furthermore, the language in the specification does not make it clear as to which way the side surface is inclined. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the drawing figures do not clearly and consistently show the relationship described by the claim language. In particular, while Figure 8 shows a side surface inclined portion 645, it does not clearly illustrate the relationship of that side surface inclined portion relative to any reference plane defined by the conveyance roller pair. Additionally, it is noted that other drawing Figures do not appear to illustrate the side surface having an inclination at all, such as for example, Figures 5-6. Therefore, it is not clear what the particular claimed configuration of the side surface of the rib is intended to be.
With respect to claim 12, the phrase “wherein the first guide includes a plurality of ribs, and” in line 2 is a double recitation of subject matter previously recited in claim 1. To correct this issue, it is suggested that the phrase “wherein the first guide includes a plurality of ribs, and” be deleted.
With respect to claim 14, the phrase “wherein the first guide member includes a first opening formed between the first rib and the second rib and” is a double recitation of language previously recited in claim 1, To correct this issue, it is suggested that the phrase “a first opening formed between the first rib and the second rib and” be deleted from claim 14.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Due to the extreme indefiniteness of the claims with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections set forth above, an examination of these claims with respect to the prior art could not be completed at this time since the exact scope and meaning of the claims could not be readily determined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejections. In particular, note that the claims as amended have raised issues with 35 USC 112, first and second, as set forth in the rejections above.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the drawing objection, the applicant states that “The reference plane (line T in FIGS. 3 and 9) is parallel to downstream contact portions 644 and 654, located on the lower guide member 65 side relative to the downstream contact portion 644, and located on the upper guide member 64 side relative to the downstream contact portion 654, making clear the direction to which the outer side surface is inclined relative to the reference plane.” However, the Examiner disagrees with this argument because this explanation does not clarify the inclination angle/direction of the outer side surface of the first rib as recited in claim 1. Specifically, the relationship shown in Figures 3 and 9 has been defined by claim language set forth in claim 7 and does not appear to have anything to do with the language recited in claim 1 regarding the inclination of the outer side surface. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded of any errors in the above rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights