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 1-5, 9, 10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueno et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0171857).
For claim 1: Ueno et al. teaches a post-processing device 6 (see Figs. 1 and 3) comprising: a loading section 71 that has a loading surface 85 directed obliquely upward and in which a recording medium M, P is loaded on the loading surface 85 in a state where one end of the recording medium (see Fig. 3, the end against wall 76) is directed downward (see Fig. 3, element 76 being in the downward direction); a supporting section 76, 76a that supports the one end of the recording medium M, P (see paragraph 98, medium P) loaded on the loading surface 85; a restricting section 86, 86 (see Fig. 3, note however that any of the surfaces 86, 62 and the frame above 77 can be considered a restricting portion which performs the function of restricting bending of the medium in the Z-axis) that restricts bending of the recording medium M, P by coming into contact with the recording medium M, P loaded on the loading surface 85; and an abutting section 77 that abuts the one end of the recording medium against the supporting section by pushing an upper end of the recording medium opposite to the one end downward (see paragraphs 98 and 99), in a state where the restricting section restricts the bending of the recording medium.
For claim 2: Ueno et al. teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1, wherein the restricting section 86 has a flat surface which comes into contact with the recording medium M, P loaded on the loading surface 85 (see Fig. 8), and restricts bending of the recording medium by the flat surface coming into contact with the recording medium in a state where the recording medium is movable along a direction of pushing performed by the abutting section 77 (see paragraph 93 and Figs. 3 and 8, the bending of the sheet along the surface 85 would project it towards the surface 86 which would restrict an excess of the bending by contacting the sheet).
For claim 3: Ueno et al. teaches the post-processing device according to claim 2, wherein a gap (see Figs. 3 and 8) between the loading surface 85 and a facing surface 86 of the restricting section 86, which is in contact with the recording medium and faces toward the loading surface, is greater than a thickness of all of recording media loaded on the loading surface (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6, the gap is thicker than the thickness of all of the medium at the situation presented in Fig. 6 and generally must be thicker than the thickness of the media to allow accommodation of the media).
For claim 4: Ueno et al. teaches the post-processing device according to claim 3, wherein the restricting section increases the gap as the number of loaded recording media which is loaded on the loading surface increases (see paragraph 93, the gap is adjustable by the cam member 88).
For claim 5: Ueno et al. teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1, wherein the restricting section moves from a non-contact position that is not in contact with the recording medium transported toward the loading surface, and comes into contact with the recording medium to restrict bending of the recording medium (see Fig. 8, operation of the eccentric cam 88 can move the surface of the restricting portion 86 in the direction to and away from the position of the medium M, P on the loading surface 85, whether the medium is in contact with the surface at either position is a result of the specific physical forces on the particular recording medium at the time of each operation of the device and does not distinguish the structure of the recited claim from that demonstrated by the prior art).
For claim 9: Ueno et al. teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1, wherein in a state of protruding upward from the upper end of the recording medium, the restricting section (see Fig. 3, the guide frame of chute 60 and particularly the portion adjacent to abutting section 77 can be considered the restricting section which is protruding upward from the upper end of the recording medium in the tray) comes into contact with the recording medium to restrict bending of the recording medium (see Fig. 3, the portion of the chute below roller 75 particularly contacts the recording medium to restrict bending thereof).
For claim 10: Ueno et al. teaches the post-processing device according to claim 9, wherein a notch through which the abutting section 77 is able to enter is formed at an upper end of the restricting section (see Fig. 3, the abutting section 77 travels through a notch formed by a portion of the restricting section and the lower surface 85 in the region 71).
For claim 12: Ueno et al. teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a transporting section 60 that is provided at a position facing an upper portion of the loading surface and that transports the recording medium downward toward the loading surface (see Fig. 3), wherein the restricting section 86, 86 moves in an approaching direction in which the restricting section approaches the loading surface 85 while being displaced downward with respect to the transporting section from a retraction position on a side of the transporting section opposite to the loading surface, then moves in the approaching direction while being displaced upward, and comes into contact with the recording medium to restrict bending of the recording medium (see Fig. 8, in operation, the restricting section 86 moves toward the surface 85 when pressed by the elongated portion of the cam 88 and retracts when pressed by the shallow portion of the cam 88 and can come into contact with the recording medium to restrict bending of the recording medium in the height direction).
For claim 13: Ueno et al. teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1, wherein the restricting section 86, 86 moves to the recording medium M, P from a retraction position (see Fig. 8, a position with the short extension of the cam 88) on a side of the recording medium, which is loaded on the loading surface 85, opposite to the loading surface and comes into contact with the recording medium to restrict bending of the recording medium (see Fig. 8, capable of contacting the medium if it is sufficiently bent to limit bending), and guides the recording medium, which is transported toward the loading surface, to the loading surface, at the retraction position (see Fig. 8, even at a retracted position, the section 86 is still capable of guiding the recording medium if sufficiently bent).
Regarding claims 14-18: Ueno et al. teaches an image forming section 10, 20 (see Fig. 1) that forms an image on a recording medium; and the post-processing device according to each of claims 1-5 that executes post-processing on the recording medium on which the image forming section forms the image (see Fig. 1, the downstream post-processing device 6, 60).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0171857) in view of Ohtsuka et al. (US PG Pub 2013/02500328).
For claim 11: Ueno et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 except an aligning section that comes into contact with both side ends of the recording medium and aligns the side ends of the recording medium in a state where the restricting section restricts bending of the recording medium. However, Ohtsuka et al. teaches an aligning section 611, 612 that comes into contact with both side ends of the recording medium 6 and aligns the side ends of the recording medium (see paragraph 131, see Fig. 8). 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 the aligning section as taught by Ohtsuka et al. into the post processing tray in Ueno et al. for the purpose of aligning the sheets deposited on the tray in the widthwise direction. In combination, the alignment occurs with the bending restricting element of Ueno et al. positioned over the tray.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 19 and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record or any obvious combination thereof teaches a restricting section for a tray in a post-processing device wherein the restricting section moves in a direction in which the restricting section approaches the loading surface while being displaced upward from the non-contact position, and comes into contact with the recording medium to restrict bending of the recording medium.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights