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 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, 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0134036).
For claims 1 and 11: Sato et al. teaches an image forming apparatus (see Fig. 2) comprising: an image forming unit 20, 32, P that forms an image onto a recording medium (see Fig. 2, sheets from sheet supply section 18); an image reading unit 1, 100, 105, 110 that is disposed above the image forming unit 20 in an up-down direction (see Fig. 2, section 1, 100, 105, 110 being above section 20), transports a document (see Fig. 2, sheet in tray 131), and reads an image formed on the document (see paragraph 58, sensor 105 reading the sheet); a first output section 142, 142A that is provided in a connection section (see Fig. 2, common output section being the connection section above 71) connecting the image forming unit 20, 32, P and the image reading unit 1, 100, 110, 105 to each other in the up-down direction and to which the document read by the image reading unit 101, 105 and transported in a width direction of the image forming unit is output (see Fig. 2, sheet sitting on section 141, 141A); a second output section 72, 72A that is provided below the first output section 142, 142A in the connection section and to which the recording medium having the image formed thereon by the image forming unit is output (see Fig. 2, sheets output by the printing device at 72, 72A rest on the section 71); and a rotating member 141 that serves as a front portion of the first output section in a depth direction of the image forming unit (see Fig. 2), is rotatable by a rotating shaft 75 disposed at an upstream side in an output direction of the document (see Fig. 2), and switches between an output position and another output position (see Fig. 4, downwardly angled position) to output the document and wherein the another output position is a descent position on which a downstream end of the rotating member 141 in the output direction descends relative to the output position (see Fig. 4, descending pivoting position).
For claim 2: Sato et al. teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a supporter 12a (see Fig. 4) that is provided above the second output section and below the first output section and that supports the recording medium to be inverted when the image forming unit forms images onto both faces of the recording medium, wherein the supporter is not present below the rotating member.
For claim 3: Sato et al. teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rotating member 75 serves as an upstream portion of the first output section in the output direction of the document (see Fig. 4, the element 75 sits at the upstream portion of the first output section 141, 141A (see Fig. 4, the rollers 117 outputting the sheet, but the section 141 supporting the outputted sheet).
For claim 4: Sato et al. teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a retainer 12A that retains the rotating member 75 to prevent the rotating member from rotating from the output position when the image forming unit forms the image onto the recording medium (see paragraph 54, the protrusion 12A holding the plate and the rotating member 75 in place as seen in Fig. 2, only overcome by a large force).
For claim 7: Sato et al. teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first output section in plan view has a shape in which a downstream side thereof in the output direction of the document is cut out relative to an upstream side thereof toward a rear side of the image forming unit in the depth direction (see Figs. 2 and 4, in Fig. 4, there is a plate below the plate 141 which is cut out on a downstream side relative to the upstream side thereof).
For claim 9: Sato et al. teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rotating member 75 includes a protrusion 141 (see Fig. 4, in particular, the portion of the plate 141 which is connected to the hinge member 75 supporting a side portion of the document) that supports a lateral side of the document when the output document is smaller than an A4-size document.
For claim 10: Sato et al. teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a protruding height of the protrusion from an upper surface of the rotating member is lower at a downstream side thereof in the output direction of the document than at an upstream side thereof (see Fig. 4, the downstream side is lower at least in the dashed line depicting when the section 141 is rotated downward).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0134036) in view of Suzuki (US PG Pub 2014/0086602).
For claim 5: Sato et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 except a lighting unit that emits light when the document output to the first output section or the recording medium output to the second output section is present, wherein the rotating member is capable of transmitting the light from the lighting unit. However, Suzuki teaches a lighting element provided with a shield plate rotating about a hinge (see paragraph 36) which can change the shield plate position in response to a sheet conveyance (see paragraph 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Sato et al. to provide the rotating member with a light and a shield allowing the lighting unit with the rotation unit to light the section having a document output as taught by Suzuki for the purpose of selectively indicating where a document is present.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0134036).
For claim 6: Sato et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 except that the rotating member has a color different from a color of another portion of the first output section. However, the distinction of a different color in a part of a component is not a patentable distinction from the prior art. Moreover, changes in color are known to those of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of aesthetic design choice. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Sato et al. to provide a hinge being a different color from the remainder of the output section through election of suitable distinct materials.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0134036) in view of Ino (US PG Pub 2012/0061902).
For claim 8: Sato et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 except that, in plan view, a downstream side of the rotating member in the output direction of the document is cut out relative to an upstream side thereof toward the rear side of the image forming unit in the depth direction. However, Ino teaches a rotating hinge member that is cut out on a downstream side relative to an upstream side there (see Fig. 8, the leftmost side of the hinge is a full semi-circular region, the region immediately below the shaft 73 is a downstream side which is cutoff relative to its upstream element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to provide a cutoff downstream portion of the rotatable hinge element as taught by Ino to reduce friction and facilitate rotational movement of the component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sato does not describe any structure that rotates or switches between two positions wherein the second position is a position that descends relative to the first position. However, this is shown in Fig. 4 of Sato where at least one position is substantially lower and contacting the surface of the tray.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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 prior art of record does not teach controlling the output position to output the document based on the side of the document as required by claim 12.
Conclusion
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 DAVID H BANH whose telephone number is (571)270-3851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571)272-2149. 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.
/DAVID H BANH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853