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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “holding member” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Noso (US 12,434,936 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Noso discloses a sheet processing apparatus comprising: a tray 521 on which conveyed sheets are stacked one by one; a restricting member 73 provided at one end of the tray; a paddle member 57 provided so as to be able to ascend and descend on the tray and configured to abut and align one end of the sheet against the restricting member by rotating in contact with the conveyed sheet (col. 8, lines 29-39); and a controller 10 that determines a height position of the paddle member on the tray based on the number of sheets stacked on the tray (col. 8, lines 1-14) and sheet information of the sheet to be conveyed (col. 10, lines 16-25) and controls the height position of the paddle member.
Regarding claim 2, Noso discloses the sheet processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller changes the height position of the paddle member every time the sheet is conveyed one by one. Col. 12, lines 13-20.
Regarding claim 3, Noso discloses the sheet processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sheet information includes thickness information of the sheet, and the controller determines the height position of the paddle member based on the number of sheets and the thickness information. Col. 11, lines 3-20.
Regarding claim 5, Noso discloses the sheet processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the sheet information includes size information of the sheet, and the controller corrects the determined height position of the paddle member based on the size information. Col. 11, lines 3-20.
Regarding claim 6, Noso discloses the sheet processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein When a sheet size indicated by the size information is larger than a predetermined size, the controller corrects the height position of the paddle member to a position lower than the determined height position. Col. 11, lines 3-20.
Regarding claim 7, Noso discloses the sheet processing apparatus according to 3, wherein the controller corrects the determined height position of the paddle member in accordance with an image forming state with respect to the front and back of the sheet to be conveyed. Col. 11, lines 35-45.
Regarding claim 11, Noso discloses the sheet processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the paddle member 57 includes a rotor 571 and a fin 572a having elasticity and projecting outward from an outer peripheral surface of the rotor and conveys the sheet toward the restricting member 73 by rotating the rotor in a predetermined direction in a state where the fin is brought into contact with the sheet and brings one end of the sheet into contact with the restricting member. Col. 8, lines 15-39.
Regarding claim 12, Noso discloses the sheet processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the paddle member 57 includes a fin formed portion that causes the fin 572a to abut on the sheet to apply a conveying force to the sheet in accordance with rotation of the rotor in the predetermined direction, and a fin non-formed portion that does not cause the fin to abut on the sheet and does not apply the conveying force to the sheet. See Fig. below.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Noso discloses the sheet processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein a plurality of fins 572a,b is formed at the fin formed portion at predetermined intervals, and when any of the plurality of fins abuts on the sheet and is elastically deformed, the fin does not interfere with another adjacent fin. See Fig. above.
Regarding claim 14, Noso discloses the sheet processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller 10 raises the paddle member while the sheet is being conveyed toward the restricting member by rotating the paddle member at the determined height position. Col. 12, lines 1-6.
Regarding claim 15, Noso discloses an image forming system comprising: an image forming apparatus 200 that conveys a sheet one by one and forms an image on the sheet being conveyed; and a sheet processing apparatus 1 including: a tray 521 on which conveyed sheets are stacked one by one; a restricting member 73 provided at one end of the tray; a paddle member 57 provided so as to be able to ascend and descend on the tray and configured to abut and align one end of the sheet against the restricting member by rotating in contact with the conveyed sheet; and a controller 10 that determines a height position of the paddle member on the tray based on the number of sheets stacked on the tray (col. 8, lines 1-14) and sheet information of the sheet to be conveyed (col. 10, lines 16-25), and controls the height position of the paddle member, wherein the sheet processing apparatus receives the sheet on which an image is formed in the image forming apparatus and aligns one end of the sheet on the tray by making the one end abut on the restricting member. Col. 8, lines 29-39.
Regarding claim 16, Noso discloses the image forming system according to claim 15, wherein the sheet processing apparatus 1 is mounted on a body space of an apparatus main body 200 of the image forming apparatus. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 17, Noso discloses a control method for controlling a sheet processing apparatus comprising: a tray 521 on which sheets to be conveyed are stacked one by one; a restricting member 73 provided at one end of the tray; and a paddle member 57 that is provided so as to be able to ascend and descend on the tray and that abuts one end of the sheet against the restricting member to align the sheet by rotating in contact with the sheet to be conveyed (col. 8, lines 29-39), the method including: determining the height position of the paddle member on the tray based on the number of sheets stacked on the tray and sheet information of the sheet to be conveyed, and controlling the height position of the paddle member. See col. 8, lines 1-14 and col. 10, lines 16-25.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noso in view of Yamazaki (US 8,328,192 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Noso discloses everything claimed, except Noso lacks the disclosure of the controller 10 determining a basis weight classification of the sheet based on the thickness information and determining the height position of the paddle member based on a representative value predetermined for the basis weight classification. Yamazaki teaches that sheet basis weight is proportional to sheet thickness, and that the two data types can be used in place of each other for ease of calculation. Yamazaki, col. 8, lines 22-31. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have the controller of Noso determine a basis weight classification of the sheet based on the thickness information and determine the height position of the paddle member based on a representative value predetermined for the basis weight classification, as taught by Yamazaki, for ease of calculation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noso in view of Wilsher (US 10,005,637 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Noso discloses the sheet processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the controller corrects the determined height position of the paddle member based on an amount of ink transferred to the sheet to be conveyed. Col. 11, lines 35-45. Noso lacks the explicit disclosure of the controller correcting the determined height position of the paddle member based on an amount of toner transferred to the sheet to be conveyed. Wilsher teaches that ink can be used in place of toner in a printer, in order to render images onto print media. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use ink, and have the controller correct the determined height position of the paddle member based on an amount of ink transferred to the sheet to be conveyed, in the device of Noso, as taught by Wilsher, in order to render images onto the print media in the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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, Noso does not disclose everything claimed, including wherein the controller acquires temperature information and humidity information and corrects the determined height position of the paddle member based on the temperature information and the humidity information, 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: Nakano (US 10,479,636 B2) is directed toward a sheet processing tray having a return paddle.
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