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 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 1-4, 9-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirota (US 8,773,684).
Regarding claim 1, Hirota discloses a conveyance device comprising: a conveyance route (see fig. below) that conveys a recording material supplied from a recording material supplier 55 to an image former 25; a multiple feeding detector 52 that detects multiple feeding of the recording material supplied from the recording material supplier; a medium sensor 53 that detects characteristic information corresponding to a characteristic of the recording material; and a branch route (see fig. below) that branches off the conveyance route at a branch portion on the conveyance route and purges the recording material whose characteristic information has been detected by the medium sensor, without causing the recording material to pass through the image former, wherein the recording material about which the multiple feeding has been detected by the multiple feeding detector is purged via the branch route. See col. 6, line 39 – col. 7, line 22.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hirota discloses the conveyance device according to claim 1, wherein the branch portion is disposed upstream of the image former 25 in a conveyance direction of the recording material. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 3, Hirota discloses the conveyance device according to claim 1, wherein the branch route is disposed between the recording material supplier 55 and the image former 25. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, Hirota discloses the conveyance device according to claim 1, further comprising a tray 54 on which the recording material purged via the branch route is placeable.
Regarding claim 9, Hirota discloses the conveyance device according to claim 1, wherein the medium sensor 53 is disposed upstream of the branch portion in a conveyance direction of the recording material. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 10, Hirota discloses the conveyance device according to claim 9, wherein the medium sensor 53 includes a contactless-type sensor that detects the characteristic information without making contact with the recording material. See col. 4, lines 25-29.
Regarding claim 11, Hirota discloses the conveyance device according to claim 9, wherein the medium sensor 53 includes at least one of a sensor that detects the characteristic information corresponding to a basis weight of the recording material, a sensor that detects the characteristic information corresponding to a thickness of the recording material, and a sensor that detects the characteristic information corresponding to a moisture content of the recording material. See col. 4, lines 25-29.
Regarding claim 20, Hirota discloses an image forming system comprising: the conveyance device according to claim 1; the recording material supplier 55; and the image former 25.
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 12-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota in view of Koyama (JP 2021-143069).
Regarding claim 12, the device of Hirota comprises everything claimed, except wherein the multiple feeding detector is disposed upstream of the medium sensor in a conveyance direction of the recording material. Koyama teaches the use of a sheet feeding device having the multiple feeding detector 80 disposed upstream of the medium sensor 90 in a conveyance direction, in order to allow the medium sensor to use the results of the multiple feeding detector to control the medium sensor. See Koyama, par. 53. 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 multiple feeding detector disposed upstream of the medium sensor in a conveyance direction of the recording material, in the device of Hirota, as taught by Koyama, in order to allow the medium sensor to use the results of the multiple feeding detector to control the medium sensor.
Regarding claim 13, the device of Hirota as modified by Koyama comprises the conveyance device according to claim 12, wherein the multiple feeding detector (Hirota, 52) is disposed upstream of the branch portion in a conveyance direction of the recording material. See Hirota, Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 14, the device of Hirota as modified by Koyama comprises the conveyance device according to claim 1, further comprising a controller (Koyama, 96) that controls the medium sensor, based on a detection result of the multiple feeding detector. See Koyama, par. 53.
Regarding claim 15, the device of Hirota as modified by Koyama comprises the conveyance device according to claim 14, wherein a controller (Hirota, 21a) acquires the characteristic information of the recording material about which the multiple feeding has not been detected, and controls the image former, based on the acquired characteristic information. See Hirota, col. 7, line 42 – col. 8, line 27.
Regarding claim 19, the device of Hirota as modified by Koyama comprises the conveyance device according to claim 14, wherein the controller (Koyama, 96) controls conveyance of the recording material, and when the medium sensor 90 detects the characteristic information of the recording material, the controller continues conveyance of the recording material whose characteristic information has been detected. See Koyama, par. 48.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota in view of Koyama and Naoki (JP 2015-160737).
Regarding claim 16, the device of Hirota as modified by Koyama comprises everything claimed except wherein the controller does not perform detection of the characteristic information by the medium sensor or does not acquire the characteristic information, as to the recording material about which the multiple feeding has been detected. Naoki teaches a sheet feeding device wherein the controller does not perform detection of the characteristic information by the medium sensor or does not acquire the characteristic information, as to the recording material about which the multiple feeding has been detected, because if double feeding occurs, it is not possible to properly detect the type of paper. Naoki, par. 46. 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 controller not perform detection of the characteristic information by the medium sensor or not acquire the characteristic information, as to the recording material about which the multiple feeding has been detected, in the device of Hirota as modified by Koyama, as taught by Naoki, because if double feeding occurs, it is not possible to properly detect the type of paper.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota in view of Koyama and Fukunaga (US 2023/0406011).
Regarding claim 17, the device of Hirota as modified by Koyama comprises everything claimed, except wherein the controller controls conveyance of the recording material, and when the medium sensor detects the characteristic information of the recording material, the controller stops conveyance of the recording material whose characteristic information has been detected. Fukunaga teaches the use of a device wherein the controller controls conveyance of the recording material, and when the medium sensor detects the characteristic information of the recording material, the controller stops conveyance of the recording material whose characteristic information has been detected, in order to improve detection accuracy. Fukunaga, par. 47. 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 controller control conveyance of the recording material, and when the medium sensor detects the characteristic information of the recording material, the controller stop conveyance of the recording material whose characteristic information has been detected, in the device of Hirota as modified by Koyama, as taught by Fukunaga, in order to improve detection accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 18 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: the nearest prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. For example, Hirota does not disclose everything claimed, including the medium sensor being disposed on the branch route, in combination with the rest of the claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Aikawa (US 11,595,901) discloses a sheet feeding device having a multi feed detector and a sheet storage section.
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