Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
2. Claims 1-2 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0082977 (Maeda et al.) (hereinafter “Maeda”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,609,333 (Mandel et al.) (hereinafter “Mandel”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-13 of Maeda show a medium supply device comprising:
a stacking unit (16) in which media are stackable in a vertical direction;
a first regulating unit (42) that is provided on the stacking unit (16) and that regulates positions of side portions of the media in a width direction;
a supply unit (44) that supplies air to more than one of the media stacked on the stacking unit (16) so that the more than one of the media are raised and separated from each other;
a transport unit (80) that successively feeds the media that are raised and separated from each other by the supply unit (44);
a detection unit (48) that detects conditions of the media that are raised and separated from each other by the supply unit (44) from outside in the width direction;
a second regulating unit (60) that is attached to an upper section of the stacking unit (16) when the media stacked in the stacking unit (16) are second media and that regulates positions of side portions of the second media in the width direction, the second media having a smaller dimension than first media in the width direction; and
the detection unit (48) is moved (pivoted down) to an area in which the second media are detectable when the second regulating unit (60) is attached. Maeda shows most of the limitations of claim 1 including the detection unit (48) that is moved (pivoted down) to the area in which the second media are detectable when the second regulating unit (60) is attached, but Maeda does not explicitly show what structure (moving unit) moves the detection unit (48), as claimed.
Mandel shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a media supply device (Fig. 5) with a moving unit (including 55 and 57) that moves a detection unit (including 54, 58 and 66) to an area in which media are detectable. The rotational movement of the moving unit (including 55 and 57) and attached detection unit (including 54, 58 and 66) has a horizontal movement component and a vertical movement component. As such, the detection unit (including 54, 58 and 66) is moved in a horizontal direction, as claimed. Amended claim 1 does NOT require the movement of the detection unit to be only in the horizontal direction. Because both Mandel and Maeda teach detection unit arrangements for detecting heights of sheet stacks, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the detection unit arrangement of Mandel for the detection unit arrangement of Maeda to achieve the predictable result of detecting the height of a sheet stack.
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 1-13 of Maeda show that the detection unit (48) is provided on the first regulating unit (42), and
wherein the second regulating unit (60) is removably attachable to the first regulating unit (42). This same arrangement would be used when substituting the detection unit arrangement of Mandel for the detection unit arrangement of Maeda.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Figs. 1-13 of Maeda show an image forming apparatus comprising:
the medium supply device according to claim 1; and
an image forming unit (numbered paragraph [0002]) that forms an image on the first media or the second media supplied by the medium supply device.
3. Claims 1-2, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0163246 (Nakano et al.) (hereinafter “Nakano”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-13 of Maeda show a medium supply device comprising:
a stacking unit (16) in which media are stackable in a vertical direction;
a first regulating unit (42) that is provided on the stacking unit (16) and that regulates positions of side portions of the media in a width direction;
a supply unit (44) that supplies air to more than one of the media stacked on the stacking unit (16) so that the more than one of the media are raised and separated from each other;
a transport unit (80) that successively feeds the media that are raised and separated from each other by the supply unit (44);
a detection unit (48) that detects conditions of the media that are raised and separated from each other by the supply unit (44) from outside in the width direction;
a second regulating unit (60) that is attached to an upper section of the stacking unit (16) when the media stacked in the stacking unit (16) are second media and that regulates positions of side portions of the second media in the width direction, the second media having a smaller dimension than first media in the width direction; and
the detection unit (48) is moved (pivoted down) to an area in which the second media are detectable when the second regulating unit (60) is attached. Maeda shows most of the limitations of claim 1 including the detection unit (48) that is moved (pivoted down) to the area in which the second media are detectable when the second regulating unit (60) is attached, but Maeda does not explicitly show what structure (moving unit) moves the detection unit (48), as claimed.
Nakano shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a media supply device (1) with a moving unit (including 303) that moves a detection unit (31) to an area in which media are detectable. See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0038] - [0039]. The rotational movement of the moving unit (including 303) and attached detection unit (31) has a horizontal movement component and a vertical movement component. As such, the detection unit (31) is moved in a horizontal direction, as claimed. Amended claim 1 does NOT require the movement of the detection unit to be only in the horizontal direction. Because both Nakano and Maeda teach detection unit arrangements for detecting heights of sheet stacks, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the detection unit arrangement of Nakano for the detection unit arrangement of Maeda to achieve the predictable result of detecting the height of a sheet stack.
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 1-13 of Maeda show that the detection unit (48) is provided on the first regulating unit (42), and
wherein the second regulating unit (60) is removably attachable to the first regulating unit (42). This same arrangement would be used when substituting the detection unit arrangement of Nakamura for the detection unit arrangement of Maeda.
Regarding claim 12, Figs. 6A-6B of Nakano show that the detection unit (31) is an imaging unit that captures an image of edge portions of a first media or a second media that are raised and separated from each other.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Figs. 1-13 of Maeda show an image forming apparatus comprising:
the medium supply device according to claim 1; and
an image forming unit (numbered paragraph [0002]) that forms an image on the first media or the second media supplied by the medium supply device.
4. Claims 1-2 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0233226 (Nakamura) (hereinafter “Nakamura”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-13 of Maeda show a medium supply device comprising:
a stacking unit (16) in which media are stackable in a vertical direction;
a first regulating unit (42) that is provided on the stacking unit (16) and that regulates positions of side portions of the media in a width direction;
a supply unit (44) that supplies air to more than one of the media stacked on the stacking unit (16) so that the more than one of the media are raised and separated from each other;
a transport unit (80) that successively feeds the media that are raised and separated from each other by the supply unit (44);
a detection unit (48) that detects conditions of the media that are raised and separated from each other by the supply unit (44) from outside in the width direction;
a second regulating unit (60) that is attached to an upper section of the stacking unit (16) when the media stacked in the stacking unit (16) are second media and that regulates positions of side portions of the second media in the width direction, the second media having a smaller dimension than first media in the width direction; and
the detection unit (48) is moved (pivoted down) to an area in which the second media are detectable when the second regulating unit (60) is attached. Maeda shows most of the limitations of claim 1 including the detection unit (48) that is moved (pivoted down) to the area in which the second media are detectable when the second regulating unit (60) is attached, but Maeda does not explicitly show what structure (moving unit) moves the detection unit (48), as claimed.
Nakamura shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a media supply device (Fig. 1) with a moving unit (724A and 724B) that moves a detection unit (724) to an area in which media are detectable. See, e.g., numbered paragraph [0039]. In particular, the moving unit adjusts (moves) the detection area D_A. Numbered paragraph [0039] and Fig. 13B teach that the detection area D_A is “adjusted” (i.e., moved). The detection area D_A in Fig. 13B appears to be conical in shape. Moving the cone around results in different horizontal components of movement of the detection area D_A. As such, the detection unit (detection area) is moved in a horizontal direction, as claimed. Amended claim 1 does NOT require the movement of the detection unit to be only in the horizontal direction. Because both Nakamura and Maeda teach detection unit arrangements for detecting heights of sheet stacks, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the detection unit arrangement of Nakamura for the detection unit arrangement of Maeda to achieve the predictable result of detecting the height of a sheet stack.
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 1-13 of Maeda show that the detection unit (48) is provided on the first regulating unit (42), and
wherein the second regulating unit (60) is removably attachable to the first regulating unit (42). This same arrangement would be used when substituting the detection unit arrangement of Nakamura for the detection unit arrangement of Maeda.
Regarding claim 13, Figs. 13A-13B of Nakamura show that the detection unit (including 724A and 724B) is a photoelectric sensor that detects conditions of edge portions of a first media or a second media that are raised and separated from each other by detecting light emitted from a light-emitting portion (724A) with a light-receiving portion (724B).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Figs. 1-13 of Maeda show an image forming apparatus comprising:
the medium supply device according to claim 1; and
an image forming unit (numbered paragraph [0002]) that forms an image on the first media or the second media supplied by the medium supply device.
5. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Mandel, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Japanese Publication No. 2010-126296 (hereinafter “JP’296”). With regard to claims 9 and 10, Maeda in view of Mandel teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the detection unit (48 in Maeda) being provided at least at one side of the second media in the width direction, but Maeda and Mandel do not explicitly show that the second regulating unit is attached at each side of the second media in the width direction, as claimed.
JP’296 shows that it is well-known in the art to attached a second regulating unit (including 72 and 73) at each side of a second media in a width direction, for the purpose of guiding the edges of very narrow sheets. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the apparatus of Maeda in view of Mandel with a second regulating unit at each side of the second media, for the purpose of allowing this apparatus to guide side edges of very narrow sheets, as shown in JP’296.
6. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Mandel, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura. With regard to claim 11, Maeda in view of Mandel teaches most of the limitations of this claim, but does not teach at least one processor configured to change an amount of air supplied by the supply unit based on a result of detection performed by the detection unit, as claimed.
Nakamura teaches that it is common in the art to provide a media supply device (Fig. 1) with at least one processor (Fig. 3) configured to change an amount of air supplied by a supply unit (including 723) based on a result of detection performed by a detection unit (724). Numbered paragraph [0039] states that “the side edge air part 723 only needs to change an amount of blowing of the side edge air A_2 depending on a floating height of the sheet P detected by the side edge detection sensor 724”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the media supply device of Maeda in view of Mandel with a processor configured to change air flow based on detection by the detection unit, because Nakamura shows that it is common in the art to control air flow in this manner in a similar type of media supply device that that of Maeda as modified by Mandel.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues
However, it is evident from annotated FIG. 2 that Mandel's moving system 55 and linear spring 57 do not move the sensing bar 54, the arms 58, and the arm positional sensor 66 in a horizontal direction. Instead, Mandel moves the arms 58 in a vertical direction. Therefore, Mandel fails to teach "a moving unit that moves the detection unit in a horizontal direction to an area in which the second media are detectable when the second regulating unit is attached" as recited in amended claim 1.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. Mandel shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a media supply device (Fig. 5) with a moving unit (including 55 and 57) that moves a detection unit (including 54, 58 and 66) to an area in which media are detectable. The rotational movement of the moving unit (including 55 and 57) and attached detection unit (including 54, 58 and 66) has a horizontal movement component and a vertical movement component. As such, the detection unit (including 54, 58 and 66) is moved in a horizontal direction, as claimed. Amended claim 1 does NOT require the movement of the detection unit to be only in the horizontal direction.
Next, applicant argues
However, Nakano swings the image sensor 31 around a swing center shaft 302 to change its imaging angle (FIGS. 6A-6B3). Further, as depicted in FIGS. 7A-7B3 and 8A-81B below, Nakano discloses scenarios where the image sensor 31 may move vertically along a guide 310 or remain at a fixed position. In other words, Nakano does not provide any teaching regarding the motor 303 moving the image sensor 31 in a horizontal direction. Therefore, Nakano fails to teach "a moving unit that moves the detection unit in a horizontal direction to an area in which the second media are detectable when the second regulating unit is attached" as recited in amended claim 1.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. Nakano shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a media supply device (1) with a moving unit (including 303) that moves a detection unit (31) to an area in which media are detectable. See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0038] - [0039]. The rotational movement of the moving unit (including 303) and attached detection unit (31) has a horizontal movement component and a vertical movement component. As such, the detection unit (31) is moved in a horizontal direction, as claimed. Amended claim 1 does NOT require the movement of the detection unit to be only in the horizontal direction. Because both Nakano and Maeda teach detection unit arrangements for detecting heights of sheet stacks, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the detection unit arrangement of Nakano for the detection unit arrangement of Maeda to achieve the predictable result of detecting the height of a sheet stack.
Next, applicant argues
As cited in paragraph [0039], Nakamura discloses a detection of the sheet P between the conveying surface S_1 and the stacking surface S_2 by adjusting the detection area DA with an optical system. Nevertheless, Nakamura does not teach the adjustment of the detection area DA through the movement of the side edge detection sensor 724 by the light emitting element 724A and the light receiving element 724B. It is within the understanding for one having ordinary skills in the art that, according to Nakamura, the light emitting element 724A and the light receiving element 724B, included in the side edge detection sensor 724, do not drive the detection sensor 724 to move. Applicant respectfully submits that Nakamura does not teach a moving unit.
As such, Nakamura fails to disclose "a moving unit that moves the detection unit in a horizontal direction to an area in which the second media are detectable when the second regulating unit is attached" as recited in amended claim 1.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. The examiner considers movement of the detection area D-A to be movement of the detection unit to an area in which the second media are detectable, as claimed. Nakamura shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a media supply device (Fig. 1) with a moving unit (724A and 724B) that moves a detection unit (724) to an area in which media are detectable. See, e.g., numbered paragraph [0039]. In particular, the moving unit adjusts (moves) the detection area D_A. Numbered paragraph [0039] and Fig. 13B teach that the detection area D_A is “adjusted” (i.e., moved). The detection area D_A in Fig. 13B appears to be conical in shape. Moving the cone around results in different horizontal components of movement of the detection area D_A. As such, the detection unit (detection area) is moved in a horizontal direction, as claimed. Amended claim 1 does NOT require the movement of the detection unit to be only in the horizontal direction. Because both Nakamura and Maeda teach detection unit arrangements for detecting heights of sheet stacks, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the detection unit arrangement of Nakamura for the detection unit arrangement of Maeda to achieve the predictable result of detecting the height of a sheet stack.
The rejections of dependent claims 2 and 9-15 are also outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3-8 and 16-20 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.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Mike McCullough can be reached on 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653