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 .
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. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 3 must be shown 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. US 6,505,019 (“Sato”).
Regarding claim 1, Sato disclosed a sheet conveyance device comprising:
a rotating member (58) that rotates while in contact with a sheet, the rotating member conveying the sheet; and
a cleaning portion that cleans the rotating member, wherein the cleaning portion has:
a cleaning member (including 55, 56) that makes contact with an outer circumferential surface of the rotating member to remove foreign substances from the outer circumferential surface of the rotating member; and
a housing (53) that stores the foreign substances removed from the outer circumferential surface of the rotating member, and
a part of the housing is arranged at a position where the part can make contact with the sheet, the part guiding the sheet conveyed by the rotating member (see at least Figure 9).
Regarding claim 2, Sato disclosed the cleaning portion further includes a scraper (56, 60) that makes contact with an outer circumferential surface of the cleaning member to remove foreign substances from the outer circumferential surface of the cleaning member, and the housing stores the foreign substances removed from the outer circumferential surface of the cleaning member by the scraper (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 3, Sato disclosed the cleaning member and the scraper are attached to the housing, and the housing is removably mountable in a main body of the sheet conveyance device (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 5, Sato disclosed an image forming apparatus comprising: the sheet conveyance device according to claim 1 as discussed above; and a print portion (12) that prints on the sheet being conveyed by the sheet conveyance device (Figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Sato disclosed an image reading apparatus comprising: the sheet conveyance device according to claim 1; and an image reading portion (11) that reads an image formed on the sheet being conveyed by the sheet 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.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato. Sato teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the cleaning member shown in Figure 9 is a brush roller. Sato teaches an alternate paper dust removing device as shown in Figure 3.
The cleaning portion further includes a scraper (625) that makes contact with an outer circumferential surface of the cleaning member (623) to remove foreign substances from the outer circumferential surface of the cleaning member, and the housing (624) stores the foreign substances removed from the outer circumferential surface of the cleaning member by the scraper. The cleaning member and the scraper are attached to the housing, and the housing is removably mountable in a main body of the sheet conveyance device (see at least Figure 3). The cleaning member is a brush roller (623) that rotates while in contact with the outer circumferential surface of the rotating member (Figure 3). Sato shows this configuration with regard to an embodiment of the first paper dust removing device. Yet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use this teaching for the second paper dust removing device in the embodiment shown in Figure 8. To do so would require simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, the brush is effective to remove long and hard fibers as taught by Sato. See also MPEP 2143(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD J SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3096. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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 at (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.
/HOWARD J SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights