Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 102
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 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.
2. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,462,185 (Iguchi et al.) (hereinafter “Iguchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-13 show a sheet conveying mechanism (Fig. 1), comprising:
a sheet feeder (including 102) that conveys a sheet to a sheet conveying path (including 202);
a conveying track (including 202) that defines the sheet conveying path of the sheet; and
a conveying roller pair (204A and 204A2) that conveys the sheet along the sheet conveying path (including 202);
wherein the sheet conveying mechanism (Fig. 1) further comprises:
a conveying track separator (including 203) that adjusts a height of the sheet conveying path (including 202),
wherein the sheet conveying path (202) has at least a first height (Fig. 4) and a second height (Fig. 5), and the second height (Fig. 5) is greater than the first height (Fig. 4); and
a conveying roller separator (including 204A3) that adjusts a clamping force of the conveying roller pair (204A and 204A2), wherein the conveying roller pair (204A and 204A2) has at least a first clamping force and a second clamping force, and the second clamping force is smaller than the first clamping force.
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 1-13 show that the sheet conveying mechanism (Fig. 1) further comprises:
a hardware processor (801 in Fig. 8) that has a sheet conveying mode (First thickness sensor NOT ON in step 1302 in Fig. 13) and a sheet discharging mode (First thickness sensor YES ON in step 1302 in Fig. 13), wherein in the sheet conveying mode (First thickness sensor NOT ON in step 1302), the sheet conveying path (including 202) has the first height (lower conveyance guide in step 1304), and in the sheet discharging mode (First thickness sensor YES ON in step 1302), the hardware processor (801) switches the sheet conveying path (including 202) from the first height (lower conveyance guide) to the second height (lift conveyance guide in step 1303).
Regarding claim 3, Figs. 1-13 show that in the sheet discharging mode (First thickness sensor YES ON in step 1302), the hardware processor (801) further determines whether to switch the sheet conveying path (including 202) from the first height (lower conveyance guide) to the second height (lift conveyance guide) based on a conveying abnormality (thickness) of the sheet.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Fig. 13 shows that in the sheet conveying mode (i.e., First thickness sensor NOT ON in step 1302), before a front end of the sheet enters the conveying roller pair (204A and 204A2), the conveying roller pair (204A and 204A2) has the first clamping force (clamped roller pair in steps 1304, 1306 and 1313), when the front end of the sheet enters the conveying roller pair (204A and 204A2), the conveying roller pair (204A and 204A2) has the second clamping force (e.g., if answer is YES in step 1313, steps 1303, 1305, and 1307-1311 are performed and conveying roller pair is unclamped in step 1311), and after the front end of the sheet enters the conveying roller pair (204A and 204A2), the conveying roller pair (204A and 204A2) has the first clamping force (i.e., after step 1312 is performed, roller pair is clamped again), wherein in the sheet discharging mode (First thickness sensor YES ON in step 1302), the conveying roller pair (204A and 204A2) has the first clamping force (clamped roller pair, e.g., in steps 1303-1308).
3. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Publication No. 2001-278503 (hereinafter “JP’503”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1, 4-5 and 12 show a sheet conveying mechanism (Fig. 1), comprising:
a sheet feeder (including 16 and 20) that conveys a sheet to a sheet conveying path (including 40a and 40b);
a conveying track (including 40a and 40b) that defines the sheet conveying path of the sheet; and
a conveying roller pair (22a and 22b) that conveys the sheet along the sheet conveying path (including 40a and 40b);
wherein the sheet conveying mechanism (Fig. 1) further comprises:
a conveying track separator (including 42 in numbered paragraph [0020] of the machine translation) that adjusts a height of the sheet conveying path (including 40a and 40b),
wherein the sheet conveying path (including 40a and 40b) has at least a first height (Fig. 4) and a second height (Fig. 5), and the second height (Fig. 5) is greater than the first height (Fig. 4); and
a conveying roller separator (numbered paragraph [0020] of the machine translation and Figs. 4-5) that adjusts a clamping force of the conveying roller pair (22a and 22b), wherein the conveying roller pair (22a and 22b) has at least a first clamping force and a second clamping force, and the second clamping force is smaller than the first clamping force.
Regarding claim 10, numbered paragraphs [0001] – [0002] of the machine translation teach an image forming apparatus, comprising: a sheet conveying mechanism according to claim 1, that conveys a sheet; and an image former (printer in numbered paragraph [0001]) that forms an image on the sheet.
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.
4. Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi as applied to claims 2 and 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,802,776 (Fukusaka) (hereinafter “Fukusaka”). With regard to claim 4, Iguchi teaches all of the limitations of this claim, except for the hardware processor determining whether to switch the sheet conveying path from the first height to the second height based on a sheet grammage of the sheet, while in the sheet discharging mode, as claimed.
Fukusaka solves a similar problem to that of Iguchi, by changing the height of conveyance path (70 and 71) based upon a property (grammage) of a sheet. Fukusaka shows that it is common in the art to utilize a hardware processor (2) in a discharge mode (col. 2, ln 63 to col. 3, ln. 3 and col. 3, lns. 42 - 45) to determine whether to switch a sheet conveying path (70 and 71 in Fig. 8A) from a first height (e.g., 2.0mm) to a second height (e.g., 3mm) based on a sheet grammage of a sheet. See, e.g., steps S103, S105, S107, S109 and S111 in Fig. 9. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the Iguchi apparatus with a hardware processor and movable sheet conveyance path that changes the height of the sheet conveyance path based upon sheet grammage, because Fukusaka shows that it is common in the art to utilize a hardware processor to change the height of the sheet conveyance path in a discharge mode in a similar type of faulty sheet rejection device to that of Iguchi.
With regard to claim 9, Iguchi teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the conveying track separator (including 203) and the conveying roller separator (including 204A3), but does not teach that either of the conveyance track separator (including 203) or the conveying roller separator (including 204A3) has a driving motor, a driving belt and a rotary cam, as claimed.
Fukusaka solves a similar problem to that of Iguchi, by changing the height of the sheet conveyance path (70 and 71 in Fig. 8A). Fukusaka shows that it is well-known in the art to provide the sheet conveying mechanism (Fig. 1) with a conveying track separator (Figs. 8A-8E) that comprises a first driving motor (73), a first driving belt (77) and a first rotary cam (24), and the first driving motor (73) drives the first rotary cam (24) to rotate through the first driving belt (77) to adjust the height of the sheet conveying path (70 and 71) of a conveying track, and/OR the conveying roller separator comprises a second driving motor, a second driving belt and a second rotary cam, and the second driving motor drives the second rotary cam to rotate through the second driving belt to adjust the clamping force of the conveying roller pair. Because both Fukusaka and Iguchi teach conveying track separator arrangements for adjusting the heights of sheet conveyance paths, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the sheet conveying track separator arrangement of Fukusaka for the sheet conveying track separator arrangement of Iguchi to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the height of the sheet conveying path.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 6-8 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
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Mike 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653