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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “an gradient” should be “a gradient”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “capable of adjust” should be “capable of adjusting”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pultorak (US 2013/0094065).
Regarding claim 1, Pultorak discloses a conveyance device comprising: a supply tray 20 on which a plurality of documents 11 are stacked; a supply roller 40 configured to come into contact with an uppermost document among the plurality of documents stacked on the supply tray; a separation roller 41 facing the supply roller and configured to separate, one by one, the plurality of documents stacked on the supply tray; and a control unit 65 configured to acquire imaging data obtained by imaging the uppermost document stacked on the supply tray (par. 13), wherein the control unit analyzes the imaging data to thereby determine whether the uppermost document is a document bound with another document and, when determining that the uppermost document is the document bound with another document, stops the supply roller (see par. 23 – transport is stopped when staples, paper clips, or rubber bands are detected by the device).
Regarding claim 5, Pultorak discloses the convey apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an imaging unit 30 located to face the supply tray 20, wherein the control unit 65 acquires the imaging data from the imaging unit (par. 13).
Regarding claim 9, Pultorak discloses a reading apparatus comprising: the conveyance device according to claim 1; and a reading unit configured to read the plurality of documents (see par. 12 and Fig. 1 – device is a document scanner).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pultorak in view of Jin (US 2020/0250840).
Regarding claim 2, Pultorak teaches the conveyance device according to claim 1, wherein the imaging data is data obtained by imaging a first document, which is the uppermost document, and a second document, which is a document next to the first document among the plurality of documents, and the control unit detects a determination line indicating an edge of the second document lacks by analyzing the imaging data. Pultorak, par. 25 – dual shadows are detected. Pultorak lacks the explicit disclosure of stopping the supply roller when a gradient of the determination line exceeds a threshold. Jin teaches the determination of a shadow when a gradient exceeds a threshold, in order to perform the detection of shadows. Jin, par. 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to determine that there is a shadow when a gradient exceeds a threshold, in the device of Pultorak, as taught by Jin, in order to perform the detection of shadows. Further, Pultorak teaches stoppage of the device when other misfeeding occurs to that the operator may be alerted. Pultorak, par. 23. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to stop the roller when the shadow is detected, in the device of Pultorak, in order that the operator may be alerted.
Regarding claim 7, Pultorak teaches the conveyance device according to claim 1, wherein the imaging data is data obtained by imaging a first document, which is the uppermost document, and a second document, which is a document next to the first document among the plurality of documents, and the control unit detects a determination line indicating an edge of the second document by analyzing the imaging data, detects a shadow located between the first document and the second document by analyzing the imaging data. Pultorak, par. 25 – dual shadows are detected. Pultorak lacks the explicit disclosure of, when a gradient of the determination line exceeds a threshold and the shadow is detected, stopping the supply roller. Jin teaches the determination of a shadow when a gradient exceeds a threshold, in order to perform the detection of shadows. Jin, par. 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to determine that there is a shadow when a gradient exceeds a threshold, in the device of Pultorak, as taught by Jin, in order to perform the detection of shadows. Further, Pultorak teaches stoppage of the device when other misfeeding occurs to that the operator may be alerted. Pultorak, par. 23. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to stop the roller when the shadow is detected, in the device of Pultorak, in order that the operator may be alerted.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pultorak.
Regarding claim 3, Pultorak discloses the conveyance device according to claim 1, wherein the imaging data is data obtained by imaging a first document, which is the uppermost document, and a second document, which is a document next to the first document among the plurality of documents, and the control unit detects a shadow located between the first document and the second document by analyzing the imaging data (see par. 25 – dual shadows may indicate a multifeed). Pultorak lacks the explicit disclosure of stopping the roller when the shadow is detected. Pultorak teaches stoppage of the device when other misfeeding occurs to that the operator may be alerted. Pultorak, par. 23. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to stop the roller when the shadow is detected, in the device of Pultorak, in order that the operator may be alerted.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pultorak as modified above, in view of Akaishi (US 12,041,207).
Regarding claim 4, the device of Pultorak as modified above comprises the conveyance device according to claim 3. The device of Pultorak as modified above lacks an irradiation unit configured to emit light toward the supply tray. Akaishi teaches the use of a light source to illuminate an image capture area of a sheet imaging device. Akaishi, col. 5, lines 58-61. 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 an irradiation unit configured to emit light toward the supply tray, in the device of Pultorak as modified above, as taught by Akaishi, in order to illuminate the image capture area of the imaging device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pultorak in view of Lee (US 2026/0062245).
Regarding claim 6, Pultorak discloses everything claimed, except wherein the imaging unit is configured to be capable of adjusting a position thereof. Lee teaches the use of an adjustable imaging unit in a sheet feeding device, in order to account for the size of sheets being imaged. Lee, par. 132. 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 imaging unit of Pultorak be capable of adjusting a position thereof, as taught by Lee, in order to account for the size of sheets being imaged.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pultorak in view of Fujita (US 11,731,851).
Regarding claim 8, Pultorak comprises the conveyance apparatus according to claim 1. Pultorak lacks the explicit disclosure of a storage unit configured to store a machine-learned model configured to output a determination value indicating, based on the imaging data, whether the uppermost document is a document bound with another document, and the control unit analyzes the imaging data by causing the model to output the determination value based on the imaging data and determines, based on the determination value, whether the uppermost document is a document bound with another document. Lee teaches the use of machine learning in a sheet feeding device to allow for greater accuracy. Lee, col. 14, lines 13-45, and col. 16, lines 53-67. 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 a storage unit configured to store a machine-learned model configured to output a determination value indicating, based on the imaging data, whether the uppermost document is a document bound with another document, and the control unit analyzes the imaging data by causing the model to output the determination value based on the imaging data and determines, based on the determination value, whether the uppermost document is a document bound with another document, in the device of Pultorak, as taught by Fujita, in order to allow for greater accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fesquet (US 7,446,278) discloses a method for the detection of postal items in a mail sorting machine.
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, Curtis Mayes, can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights