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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda US 2019/0342461 (hereinafter “Honda”) in view of Honda JP 2021-167237 A (hereinafter “Honda ‘237”, cited in an IDS) in view of Beppu JP 2019-119604 A (hereinafter “Beppu”, cited in an IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 9-11, Honda teaches a document transport device comprising:
a transport unit (11 and 12) configured to transport the document along a predetermined transport path; a processing unit (40) configured to perform processing on the transported document;
a double feeding detection unit (20) configured to detect double feeding of the document along the transport path; and
a control unit (100) configured to determine occurrence of double feeding, wherein the control unit acquires a theoretical threshold corresponding to the transport path and a calculation value calculated based on a detection result of the double feeding detection unit and a transport length of the document, determines the occurrence of double feeding (see example of FIG. 4) when the calculation value (detected value of overlap) is greater than the theoretical threshold ("threshold period of time" or "number of the output times" or "total multi-feeding determination number, which is essentially the threshold length/period of overlap, refer to [0040] and [0057]) , and determines non-occurrence of double feeding when the calculation value is smaller than the theoretical threshold (implicit from the example of FIG. 4, or example of multi- layered paper in FIG. 5, or document with sticky notes in [0057]).
Honda teaches the claimed invention except for a placement unit on which a document is placed, and “executing a first mode in which the calculation value is used to determine occurrence of double feeding, and a second mode in which the total value of the calculation values is used to determine occurrence of double feeding, in the first mode, determines the occurrence of double feeding when the calculation value is greater than the theoretical threshold, and determines non-occurrence of double feeding when the calculation value is smaller than the theoretical threshold.”
.
Honda ‘237 teaches a similar device that comprises a placement unit (101) to support an individual document or stack of documents to be fed by a transport unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Honda’s device with a placement unit as taught by Honda ‘237’s in order to provide a conventional means of supporting a documents to be fed by the transport unit.
Beppu teaches a similar device that incorporates two different modes (“continuous mode” or “accumulation mode”, corresponding to claimed first and second modes) based on the type of sheet medium being conveyed as an alternative known means of determining a double feed condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Honda’s device with first mode and second modes as taught by Beppu in order to provide a known alternative means of detecting a double feed condition.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Honda teaches wherein the double feeding detection unit detects double feeding of the document at a fixed interval ([0040], the calculation value is a cumulative value (“total multi-feeding determination number”) obtained by counting the number of times double feeding is detected at a fixed interval in a period in which double feeding is detected, and the control unit resets (refer to [0061] and s26 in FIG. 8) the cumulative value when double feeding is no longer detected and the cumulative value does not meet the theoretical threshold.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the transport unit includes a first pair of transport rollers (11) that transport the document to the processing unit and a second pair of transport rollers (12) that transport the document processed by the processing unit, and a length of a specific document in a direction in which the document is transported is longer than a length from a nip position of the first pair of transport rollers to a nip position of the second pair of transport rollers.
Regarding claim 5, Honda teaches wherein the specific document is a business card (refer to [0074]).
Regarding claim 6, Honda teaches wherein the specific document is an instant photographic sheet (refer to [0074]).
Regarding claim 7, Honda teaches an operation unit (70, refer to [0044]) configured to receive an operation of a user, wherein the control unit is configured to change the theoretical threshold based on information input from the operation unit ([0081]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 and 8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3094. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michael 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.
/LUIS A GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights