DETAILED ACTION
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) 1 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US Pub No. 2020/0002114 A1) in view of Iwami (US Pub No. 2023/0219776 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuda discloses
a tray (11) disposed at a side part of an apparatus body (i.e. is in 200, which is at the side of 100, [0046]) and configured to support a sheet;
a feed unit (20) configured to feed the sheet supported on the tray;
a detection unit (17) configured to detect the sheet fed by the feed unit;
an air blowing unit (comprising 71, 27) configured to blow air to the sheet supported on the tray; and
a control unit (66) configured to execute a feeding operation to feed the sheet by the feed unit and a blowing operation to blow the air by the air blowing unit, respectively,
wherein the control unit is configured to, in a case where the detection unit does not detect the sheet within a predetermined time after executing the feeding operation ([0072]):
execute the blowing operation (i.e. in S22 of Fig. 9) in a state in which the feeding operation is stopped (i.e. misfeeding detected at S12, feeding stopped as per [0072]), and then re-execute the feeding operation (S27 in Fig. 9) in a state in which the blowing operation is reduced (i.e. [0118] discloses 71 to be reset to previous settings, that are lower) but not in which the blowing operation is stopped.
Iwami discloses re-execution of a feeding operation (S25, Fig. 8) in a state in which the blowing operation is stopped (i.e. after S24), for the purpose of returning lifted sheets to the sheet bundle state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Matsuda by including the re-execution of feeding in
a state in which blowing is stopped, as disclosed by Iwami, for the purpose of returning lifted sheets to the sheet bundle state.
Regarding Claim 9, Matsuda discloses
a side edge regulation plate (28) configured to move in a width direction perpendicular to a sheet conveyance direction and configured to regulate a position in the width direction of the sheet supported on the tray,
wherein the air blowing unit includes:
a fan (71); and
a duct (27) which is configured to guide the air blown from the fan to pass
through an interior of the side edge regulation plate such that the air is blown to a side of the sheet (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 10, Matsuda discloses
an image forming unit (comprising 108, 109) configured to form an image on the sheet.
Regarding Claim 11, Matsuda discloses
wherein the control unit is configured to, in a case where the detection unit does not detect the sheet within the predetermined time after executing the feeding operation:
execute the blowing operation (S22 in Fig. 9) as a first blowing mode after executing the feeding operation (S11) and before re-executing the feeding operation (S27 in Fig. 9); and
re-execute the feeding operation (S27 in Fig. 9) as a retry operation after executing the first blowing mode (S22 in Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 12, Matsuda discloses
wherein the control unit is configured to, in a case where the detection unit does not detect the sheet within the predetermined time after executing the feeding operation:
execute continuously the feeding operation to feed the sheet supported on the tray (i.e. in S11 and S27, during the period that the feeding operation is run, it is continuous/not interrupted, wherein the claim does not define ‘continuously’).
Claim(s) 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US Pub No. 2020/0002114 A1) in view of Iwami (US Pub No. 2023/0219776 A1) in view of Shiozawa (US Pub No. 2024/0425311 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Matsuda and Iwami do not disclose pausing of a feeding job.
Shiozawa discloses in a case where the sheet is not fed despite executing the feeding operation (S11=No in Fig. 6) in a feeding job in which the feeding operation is executed for each sheet with respect to one or more sheets (S5 is executed for every iteration of S14-S15), the control unit is configured to pause the feeding job and execute the first blowing mode and the retry operation (when S11=NO, retry is performed on the current sheet, whereby successive sheets are held up/paused), for the purpose of feeding and printing to a present sheet. It is noted that Matsuda already discloses executing the first blowing mode and retry operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuda and Iwami by including the pausing as disclosed by Shiozawa, for the purpose of feeding and printing to a present sheet.
Regarding Claim 14, Matsuda and Iwami do not disclose restarting a feeding job.
Shiozawa discloses the control unit is configured to restart the feeding job in a case where the retry operation was executed and the sheet has been fed (i.e. when S11=YES after refeeding, the flowchart passes on to the next sheet of the job in S14=NO), for the purpose of completing a feeding job.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuda and Iwami by including the restarting as disclosed by Shiozawa, for the purpose of completing a feeding job.
Regarding Claim 15, Matsuda discloses
wherein the control unit is configured to execute a second blowing mode which executes the blowing operation before executing an initial feeding operation in a case of executing the feeding job (i.e. [0088] and [0112] disclose output of 71 is increased during refeeding, from the initial values during initial feeding that caused misfeeding), and
wherein the control unit is configured to execute the first blowing mode in a case where the control unit executed the second blowing mode (i.e. refeeding is performed after misfeeding, which occurs in response to the initial feeding).
Regarding Claim 17, Matsuda discloses
the control unit is configured to stop execution of the feeding job in a case where the sheet is not fed despite executing the retry operation (i.e. where S29=YES, jam handling is performed in S31, wherein [0073] details the jam handling to include stopping the feeding operation, furthermore the 'job' is already taught by the modification of Claim 2 above).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US Pub No. 2020/0002114 A1) in view of Iwami (US Pub No. 2023/0219776 A1) in view of Shiozawa (US Pub No. 2024/0425311 A1) in view of Iioka et al. (US Pub No. 2022/0194723 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Matsuda, Iwami and Shiozawa do not disclose an output portion and the claimed controls.
lioka et al. discloses an output portion configured to output information, wherein in a case of having paused the execution of the feeding job, the control unit is configured to output information to the output portion that the execution of the feeding operation has been stopped (i.e. in S8 of Fig. 6, an error notification is transmitted by controller 13 to printer 100, wherein the claim does not require the notification to be to an operator or to be a visual display), for the purpose of handling an error.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsuda, Iwami and Shiozawa by including the notification as disclosed by lioka et al., for the purpose of handling an error.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 19 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: None of the prior art of record shows the recited control based on sheet type (Claim 16) or a third blowing mode (Claim 19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagatomo (US Pub No. 2025/0110438) discloses a reblowing operation S311 after a number of sheets are fed (S308).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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 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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights