Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/163,042

MEDIUM EJECTION APPARATUS TO CHANGE CONVEYANCE SPEED OF EJECTION ROLLER ACCORDING TO SIZE OF MEDIUM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 01, 2023
Examiner
GOKHALE, PRASAD V
Art Unit
3653
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Pfu Limited
OA Round
4 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
832 granted / 968 resolved
+34.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1001
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§102
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§112
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 968 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (US Patent No. 5,181,705) in view of Mizutani et al. (US Pub No. 2007/0228649 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Ueda et al. discloses an imaging device (comprising 63-68, L); an ejection roller (127) located at a downstream side from the imaging device in a medium conveyance direction (Fig. 8); an ejection tray (110) to stack a medium ejected by the ejection roller; a medium detection sensor (122) located at the downstream side from the imaging device and an upstream side from the ejection roller in the medium conveyance direction (Fig. 8); and a processor (140) to detect a size of the medium ejected by the ejection roller (lines 50-60 of Column 9), and control the drive mechanism to control a conveyance speed of the ejection roller when ejecting the medium (lines 50-60 of Column 9), wherein the processor changes the conveyance speed of the ejection roller from a first conveyance speed to a second conveyance speed lower than the first conveyance speed (lines 38-40, lines 50-60 of Column 9) in the middle of ejecting the medium (i.e. “at the final stage of paper discharge”, lines 38-40 of Column 9, lines 1-3 of Column 10) in accordance with detection of the medium by the medium detection sensor (lines 50-60 of Column 9), and wherein the second conveyance speed is set in accordance with the size of the medium (lines 50-60 of Column 9). It is noted that the phrase “in accordance with” is generally broad and does not require any specific correlation (i.e. direction or magnitude), rather the mere presence of the limitation that follows. Ueda et al. discloses a drive mechanism including a motor (132) but not explicitly with a pulley and belt, or with a gear to drive the ejection roller; Mizutani et al. discloses a drive mechanism including a motor with a pulley and belt, or with a gear (comprising 42, 101, see [0034]) to drive the ejection roller (21a), for the purpose of transmitting drive force. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ueda et al. by including the drive mechanism as disclosed by Mizutani et al., for the purpose of transmitting drive force. Regarding Claim 5, Ueda et al. discloses detecting a size of a medium (lines 50-60 of Column 9) ejected by an ejection roller (127) located at a downstream side from an imaging device (comprising 63-68, L) in a medium conveyance direction (Fig. 8), to eject the medium to an ejection tray (110); and the conveyance speed of the ejection roller is changed from a first conveyance speed to a second conveyance speed lower than the first conveyance speed (lines 38-40, lines 50-60 of Column 9) in the middle of ejecting the medium (i.e. “at the final stage of paper discharge”, lines 38-40 of Column 9, lines 1-3 of Column 10) in accordance with detection of the medium by a medium detection sensor (122, lines 50-60 of Column 9) located at the downstream side from the imaging device and an upstream side from the ejection roller in the medium conveyance direction (Fig. 8), and wherein the second conveyance speed is set in accordance with the size of the medium (lines 50-60 of Column 9). It is noted that the phrase “in accordance with” is generally broad and does not require any specific correlation (i.e. direction or magnitude), rather the mere presence of the limitation that follows. Ueda et al. discloses controlling a drive mechanism including a motor (132, lines 50-60 of Column 9) but not explicitly with a pulley and belt, or with a gear to drive the ejection roller; Mizutani et al. discloses a drive mechanism including a motor with a pulley and belt, or with a gear (comprising 42, 101, see [0034]) to drive the ejection roller (21a), for the purpose of transmitting drive force. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ueda et al. by including the drive mechanism as disclosed by Mizutani et al., for the purpose of transmitting drive force. Regarding Claim 9, Ueda et al. discloses a medium ejection apparatus including, an imaging device (comprising 63-68, L), an ejection roller (127) located at a downstream side from the imaging device in a medium conveyance direction (Fig. 8), an ejection tray (110) to stack a medium ejected by the ejection roller, and a medium detection sensor (122) located at the downstream side from the imaging device and an upstream side from the ejection roller in the medium conveyance direction (Fig. 8), to execute a process, the process comprising: detecting a size of a medium (lines 50-60 of Column 9) ejected by the ejection roller; and controlling the drive mechanism to control a conveyance speed of the ejection roller when ejecting the medium (lines 50-60 of Column 9), wherein the conveyance speed of the ejection roller is changed from a first conveyance speed to a second conveyance speed lower than the first conveyance speed (lines 38-40, lines 50-60 of Column 9) in the middle of ejecting the medium (i.e. “at the final stage of paper discharge”, lines 38-40 of Column 9, lines 1-3 of Column 10) in accordance with detection of the medium by the medium detection sensor (lines 50-60 of Column 9), and wherein the second conveyance speed is set in accordance with the size of the medium (lines 50-60 of Column 9). It is noted that the phrase “in accordance with” is generally broad and does not require any specific correlation (i.e. direction or magnitude), rather the mere presence of the limitation that follows. Ueda et al. discloses controlling a drive mechanism including a motor (132, lines 50-60 of Column 9) but not explicitly with a pulley and belt, or with a gear to drive the ejection roller or a non-transitory medium; Mizutani et al. discloses a drive mechanism including a motor with a pulley and belt, or with a gear (comprising 42, 101, see [0034]) to drive the ejection roller (21a), for the purpose of transmitting drive force and a computer-readable, non-transitory medium (301) storing a computer program ([0045]), for the purpose of executing instructions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ueda et al. by including the drive mechanism and non-transitory medium as disclosed by Mizutani et al., for the purpose of transmitting drive force and executing instructions. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 11 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 speed relationship (Claims 2, 6 and 10) or the region size (Claims 3, 7 and 11) as claimed, particularly in light of the disclosed criticality. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 October 1, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 01, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 23, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 18, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 06, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 12, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602071
VEHICLE PADS THAT EMULATE TRADITIONAL VEHICLE PEDALS AND INCLUDE MECHANICAL HYSTERESIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589968
GUIDE MECHANISM AND PAPER SHEET HANDLING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589959
MEDIUM CONVEYANCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585300
COLLECTIVE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR A ROTORCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577068
SHEET FEEDING DEVICE AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+8.1%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 968 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month