DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, it’s not clear as to what’s required by the applicant’s claimed control since each control relates to a claimed “execution condition” which is wholly undefined. This is not a normal term in the art and further, with broadest reasonable interpretation has no generic meaning. Since this condition is undefined the metes and bounds of the claims as they currently stand cannot be determined.
Further, in clause 4 of claim 1, the applicant uses the phrase “an execution condition of measurement processing” which is understood to mean a single condition of a specific type. However, the applicants’ claim defines measurement processing and gives each set of terms ‘execution condition’ and ‘measurement processing’ their own meaning rather than the phrase as a whole. Further references to “the execution condition” (in clauses 5, 6 and 7) are understood to require the whole of ‘execution condition of measurement processing’ since antecedent basis refers back to that. This creates a circular confusion since the applicant is attempting to treat the phrase as having two different aspects that are separate from one another. Further, the applicant’s claim doesn’t recite what “satisfies the condition” for the claimed execution condition so it’s not clear as to what is required to be either satisfied or not satisfied. With this confusion it’s not clear what the first determination processing requires, does it require the determination of a timing from when a sheet reaches the detection portion? With that understanding the first acquisition portion is not understood since if the execution process is not satisfied (which from the first determination processing means a sheet didn’t make it to the sensor?) the first acquisition processing portion acquires the conveying speed of the sheet (which how is this possible if the downstream sensor doesn’t detect the sheet?). This continues to further compound in confusion with each further clause and needs to be addressed (e.g. measurement processing is a part of the first determination processing portion and its own processing portion now for executing the same process twice? and the final clause of second acquisition and meeting the required the conditions).
While claim 1 is referenced for most of this rejection, the method is substantially commensurate and is rejected as such.
It is noted that the applicant’s specification recites the phrase “execution condition of measurement processing” as well as many possible ways to determine “execution processing”, however while the claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification cannot be read into the claims.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by dependency.
Note: the lack of an art rejection of the claims doesn’t indicate allowable subject matter since, as noted above, the independent claim as it currently stands cannot be clearly understood.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art generally discloses features believed to be relevant to the applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights