DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a part of the first sheet tray overlaps one end portion of the manual feed tray in a gravity direction” (Claim 1), “extends toward the common conveyance roll pair linearly along the gravity direction” (Claim 11) and “the portion at least partially overlaps the second feeding device in the gravity direction” (Claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, it is recited that “a part of the first sheet tray overlaps one end portion of the manual feed tray in a gravity direction”. This suggests the trays are at least partially superposed (i.e. gravity direction) however the drawings show trays 4A and 5 to be juxtaposed. It is the Examiner’s position that Applicant intends that the trays are at the same height in the vertical/gravity direction.
The term “close to” in claims 4, 8 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is not understood how “close to” the manual feeding device/driven conveyance roll/one side surface, the first feeding device/drive feed roll/relay conveyance roller pair is required to be.
Regarding Claim 11, it is recited that “extends toward the common conveyance roll pair linearly along the gravity direction”, wherein this is understood to refer to path 6G. While it does bend to protrude away from the side surface (11) towards common conveyance roller pair (61), it does not occur linearly as seen in Fig. 1, rather it curves. Furthermore, this is not shown to be in the gravity direction, rather it is upwards from 65 in the vertical direction (i.e. the force of gravity acts downwards in the vertical direction).
Regarding Claim 12, it is recited that “the portion at least partially overlaps the second feeding device in the gravity direction”. This suggests that the introduction port (16) and second feeding device (42B) are at least partially superposed (i.e. gravity direction) however the drawings show 16 and 42B to be juxtaposed. It is the Examiner’s position that Applicant intends that these structures are at the same height in the vertical/gravity direction.
Claims 2-7, 9 and 13-20 are rejected by dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamata et al. (US Patent No. 9,372,469 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawamata et al. discloses
a housing (60) that has left and right side surfaces (i.e. left and right exterior vertical walls of 60 in Fig. 1);
a manual feed tray (51) that protrudes from one side surface of the left (Fig. 1) and right side surfaces;
a manual feeding device (i.e. may be taken as either 50 or the rollers on path 32, since it is not required to be a pick roller) that feeds a sheet from the manual feed tray;
a first sheet tray (i.e. the uppermost 41) that is arranged inside the housing, and faces the manual feed tray such that at least a part of the first sheet tray overlaps one end portion of the manual feed tray in a gravity direction (i.e. is at the same vertical height as 51, when opened for feeding);
a first feeding device (comprising 42) that feeds a sheet from the first sheet tray; and
a common conveyance roll pair (see annotated Fig. 1 below) that is arranged inside the housing, and first receives and conveys both the sheet fed from the first feeding device and the sheet fed from the manual feeding device.
Regarding Claim 2, Kawamata et al. discloses
the common conveyance roll pair is arranged between the first feeding device and the manual feeding device, at a position which is diagonally upwardly away from both the first feeding device and the manual feeding device and at which conveyance paths are joined (i.e. as in Fig. 1, the common conveyance roll pair is between 42 and 50, and is diagonally upward from both feeding devices, particularly where the manual feeding device is the rollers on path 32, and at a location at which the conveyance paths are joined).
Regarding Claim 3, Kawamata et al. discloses
the manual feeding device is arranged to be present inside the housing (i.e. where it is taken to be the rollers on path 32).
Regarding Claim 4, Kawamata et al. discloses
the first feeding device is arranged at a position close to the manual feeding device to leave a distance corresponding to a left and right width of the common conveyance roll pair (i.e. 42 is arranged such that the common conveyance roll pair lies in the distance between 42 and the rollers of 32, in the widthwise direction in Fig. 1).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamata et al. (US Patent No. 9,372,469 B1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kawamata et al. does not disclose the tray size as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Kawamata et al. by including a first sheet
tray sized to accommodate an A3 size sheet, as it would have been an obvious matter
of design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the
size of a component and for the purpose of printing to an A3 size sheet. A change in
size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamata et al. (US Patent No. 9,372,469 B1) in view of Okazaki et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0391566 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kawamata et al. discloses a manual feed tray that opens but does not explicitly disclose an inclination.
Okazaki et al. discloses a manual feed tray (102) having an inclination angle (Fig. 1) for the purpose of stacking sheets in a manner that they are urged towards the pick roller 17, for the purpose of accurately feeding a sheet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Kawamata et al. by including the inclination as
disclosed by Okazaki et al., for the purpose of accurately feeding a sheet.
While Kawamata et al. and Okazaki et al. do not explicitly disclose the inclination
angle to be within the range claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kawamata et al. and
Okazaki et al. by including the claimed inclination range, since it has been held that
where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the
optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art and for the purpose of
accurately feeding a sheet. It is noted that while Applicant discloses general criticality in
[0057], the effect of preventing sheets from falling is correlated to merely having an
inclination, wherein the precise angle of that inclination would be a matter of obvious
design choice, based on sheet size.
Regarding Claims 7, Kawamata et al. discloses the common conveyance roll pair to be a pair of rolls (Fig. 1) but does not explicitly disclose drive/driven rolls arranged as claimed.
Okazaki et al. discloses the common conveyance roll pair is a pair of rolls in which a drive conveyance roll (14r) that is driven to rotate and a driven conveyance roll (14k) that rotates as a result of contact with the drive conveyance roll are combined, and
the drive conveyance roll (14r) is arranged on a side further away from the one side surface (i.e. the right exterior vertical wall of 1A) than the driven conveyance roll in a left and right horizontal direction (Fig. 1), for the purpose of conveying a sheet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Kawamata et al. by including the drive/driven rolls
arranged as disclosed by Okazaki et al., for the purpose of conveying a sheet.
Regarding Claim 9, Kawamata et al. discloses
the first feeding device (42) is arranged at a position close to a side further away from the one side surface than a position directly below the common conveyance roll pair (i.e. 42 is further to the right from the left exterior vertical wall of 60 than the common conveyance roll pair is from the left exterior vertical wall).
Regarding Claims 14-20, Kawamata et al. discloses
an image forming unit (10) that is arranged inside the housing, and forms an image on a sheet; and
an adjustment conveyance roll pair (see annotated Fig. 1 below) that is arranged inside the housing, and conveys a sheet into the image forming unit,
wherein the common conveyance roll pair is arranged at a position that is below the adjustment conveyance roll pair and that is shifted to a side closer to the one side surface than the adjustment conveyance roll pair (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
Kawamata et al. does not explicitly disclose this roll pair to be driven.
Okazaki et al. discloses a driven roll pair (14), for the purpose of conveying a sheet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Kawamata et al. by including a driven roll pair as
disclosed by Okazaki et al., for the purpose of conveying a sheet.
Therefore, it is noted that by explicitly driving the adjustment conveyance roll pair
of Kawamata et al., it is fully capable of adjusting a timing for feeding the sheet, wherein
furthermore, no controller is recited.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamata et al. (US Patent No. 9,372,469 B1) in view of Okazaki et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0391566 A1) in view of Sato et al. (US Pub No. 2002/0176725 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kawamata et al. and Okazaki et al. do not explicitly disclose a drive feed roll and conveyance stop roll.
Sato et al. discloses a manual feeding device includes a drive feed roll (63) that is driven to rotate (driven like 51, [0088]) and feeds a sheet, and a conveyance stop roll (65) that is in contact with the drive feed roll to prevent conveyance of an excess sheet overlapped and conveyed by the drive feed roll (i.e. disclosed as a double feed prevention roller, claim does not require stopping), and
the drive feed roll is arranged above the conveyance stop roll (Fig. 1), and is arranged close to the driven conveyance roll of the common conveyance roll pair (close to R10, also see the 112 rejection above), for the purpose of preventing double feed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Kawamata et al. by including the drive feed roll and
conveyance stop roll as disclosed by Sato et al. , for the purpose of preventing double
feed.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamata et al. (US Patent No. 9,372,469 B1) in view of Sato et al. (US Pub No. 2002/0176725 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kawamata et al. discloses
a second sheet tray (i.e. second from topmost 41) that is arranged below the first sheet tray inside the housing;
a second feeding device (i.e. the corresponding roller 42) that feeds a sheet from the second sheet tray; and
a relay conveyance roll pair (see annotated Fig. 1 below) that is arranged at a position which is diagonally upwardly away from the second feeding device to be close to the one side surface, and conveys the sheet fed from the second sheet tray by first receiving the sheet and relaying the sheet to the common conveyance roll pair,
Kawamata et al. does not disclose the second feeding device and relay conveyance roll pair to be shifted as claimed.
Sato et al. discloses a second feeding device (53-55) is arranged at a position shifted to a side closer to the one side surface than the first feeding device (i.e. closer to the right exterior vertical wall of the apparatus than is 50-52), and
a relay conveyance roll pair (i.e. roll pair that is immediately downstream of 74) is arranged at a position that is below a common conveyance roll pair (R10) and is shifted to a side closer to the one side surface than the common conveyance roll pair and the second feeding device (Fig. 1), for the purpose of feeding sheets of differing sizes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Kawamata et al. by including the second feeding
device and relay conveyance roll pair as disclosed by Sato et al., for the purpose of
feeding sheets of differing sizes.
Regarding Claim 11, Kawamata et al. discloses
a relay conveyance path (Fig. 1) through which a sheet is guided and conveyed from the relay conveyance roll pair to the common conveyance roll pair,
Kawamata et al. does not disclose the path to be bent as claimed.
Sato et al. discloses
wherein the relay conveyance path is configured as a conveyance path consisting of a conveyance route with a shape that is once bent to protrude in a direction away from the one side surface and then extends toward the common conveyance roll pair linearly along the gravity direction (i.e. it bends from the rollers immediately downstream of 74 and protrudes leftwards away from the right exterior vertical wall and then extends toward R10 linearly near numeral 72, Fig. 1), for the purpose of feeding sheets of differing sizes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Kawamata et al. by including the bent path as
disclosed by Sato et al., for the purpose of feeding sheets of differing sizes. Also see
the 112 rejection above.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamata et al. (US Patent No. 9,372,469 B1) in view of Sato et al. (US Pub No. 2002/0176725 A1) in view of Okazaki et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0391566 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Kawamata et al. discloses the relay conveyance roll pair to be a pair of rolls (Fig. 1) but does not explicitly disclose drive/driven rolls arranged as claimed.
Okazaki et al. discloses a conveyance roll pair is a pair of rolls in which a drive conveyance roll (14r) that is driven to rotate and a driven conveyance roll (14k) that rotates as a result of contact with the drive conveyance roll are combined, and
the drive conveyance roll (14r) is arranged on a side further away from the one side surface (i.e. the right exterior vertical wall of 1A) than the driven conveyance roll (Fig. 1), for the purpose of conveying a sheet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Kawamata et al. and Sato et al. by including the
drive/driven rolls arranged as disclosed by Okazaki et al., for the purpose of conveying
a sheet. It is noted that it can be applied to any of the conveyance roll pairs of
Kawamata et al., including the relay conveyance roll pair.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miura et al. (US Pub No. 2008/0211176) discloses manual feed tray MF and driving roll 15.
Okada et al. (US Pub No. 2006/0133875) discloses manual feed tray 14 and introduction port 12.
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 August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights