DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
While the drawings appear to illustrate the newly recited “surface which is positioned lower toward the downstream side in the medium ejecting direction, is formed on an upper end of the wall portion …” (Claim 1), no corresponding reference number is shown.
Specification
The specification does not disclose the newly recited “surface which is positioned lower toward the downstream side in the medium ejecting direction, is formed on an upper end of the wall portion…” (Claim 1) or a corresponding reference number for it.
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, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyagi (US Pub No. 2017/0267476 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Miyagi discloses
a housing (7);
an ejection roller (27) disposed in the housing to eject a medium;
an opposing roller (28) opposed to the ejection roller; and
a tray (5) disposed in the housing to stack the medium ejected by the ejection roller,
the housing including:
a medium conveyance path (i.e. dotted line along 'P' in Fig. 3) tilted such that the medium conveyance path is lower toward a downstream end (i.e. lower towards the left in Fig. 3) of the medium conveyance path in a medium ejecting direction (i.e. from 11 to 5 in Fig. 3) to eject the medium downward; and
a wall portion (i.e. see Fig. 3 mark-up below) disposed below a nip surface between the ejection roller and the opposing roller (i.e. the point where surfaces of 27 and 28 contact each other), the wall portion not overlapped, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the medium ejecting direction, with a circle (i.e. 'circle' in the
Fig. 3 mark-up below) that is centered at an intersection point between an extension line (i.e. 'extension line' in the Fig. 3 mark-up below) of the nip surface of the ejection roller and the opposing roller and a placement surface of the tray (i.e. upper surface of 5) and passes through a point closest to the intersection point on outer circumference surfaces of the ejection roller and the opposing roller such that, when the medium ejected by the ejection roller falls down, a rear end of the medium does not come into contact with the wall portion (i.e. since the wall is retreated from 27, it can be seen that a rear end of a medium would not contact it).
wherein a surface (i.e. see the zoomed-in markup of Fig. 3 immediately below) which is positioned lower toward the downstream side in the medium ejecting direction, is formed on an upper end of the wall portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Miyagi discloses
the tray includes a first placement surface (i.e. upper surface of 5) on which at least a part of the medium ejected by the ejection roller is placed, and
the housing includes a second placement surface (i.e. see Fig. 3 mark-up below, the horizontal surface of 7 just above the dotted lines that represent the stored position
of tray 5) that is connected to the wall portion and on which at least another part of the medium ejected by the ejection roller is placed.
Regarding Claim 4, Miyagi discloses
the wall portion is disposed so as not to be overlapped with an involute curve that has, as a base circle (i.e. see the smaller circle drawn just downstream of 27 in the Fig. 3 mark-up below, wherein this circle contacts the tray and the outer circumference of 27 and forms involute curves around its circumference), a circle passing through a first position located upstream from the intersection point in the medium ejecting direction on the placement surface of the tray and a second position closest to the first position on the outer circumference surfaces of the ejection roller and the opposing roller when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the medium ejecting direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
572
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi (US Pub No. 2017/0267476 A1) in view of Kawano et al. (US Patent No. 5,741,009).
Regarding Claim 3, Miyagi does not disclose an elastic roller.
Kawano et al. discloses at least one of the opposing roller or the ejection roller (405) further includes an elastic roller (4052/4053) disposed on an outer circumference surface of the at least one of the opposing roller or the ejection roller, for the purpose of enhancing conveyance force.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Miyagi by including the elastic roller as disclosed by Kawano et al., for the purpose of enhancing conveyance force.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi (US Pub No. 2017/0267476 A1) in view of Okada (JP 2001-315309).
Regarding Claim 5, Miyagi does not disclose a mirror or fluororesin polish.
Okada discloses a mirror or fluororesin polish ("The inner surface of the positioning guide 17 is mirror-finished by, for example, chrome plating, or is coated with a resin such as Teflon (registered trademark) or giniracon." For the purpose of reducing friction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Miyagi by including the mirror or fluororesin polish as disclosed by Okada, for the purpose of reducing friction.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi (US Pub No. 2017/0267476 A1) in view of Mori (JP 2019-014600).
Regarding Claim 6, Miyagi does not disclose a wall portion to have a plurality of holes.
Mori discloses wall portion (23) to have a plurality of holes (24) for the purpose of sucking gas on the loading surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Miyagi by including the plurality of holes as disclosed by Mori, for the purpose of sucking gas on the loading surface.
Regarding Claim 7, Mori discloses the plurality of holes are disposed in the housing at positions closer to a lowest end of the ejection roller and the opposing roller than the placement surface of the tray (i.e. at least the upper row of holes 24, see Fig. 9, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Miyagi does not disclose a motor and blade.
Mori discloses a motor to rotate a roller to convey the medium (i.e. rollers 34 are disclosed as conveying/transporting the sheet) and a blade disposed in the housing to rotate with rotation of the motor (fan 62 is depicted as having blades/vanes, wherein 62 rotates/is capable of rotating with/concurrently with rotation of the motor) for the purpose of sucking gas on the loading surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Miyagi by including the motor and blade as disclosed by Mori, for the purpose of sucking gas on the loading surface.
Regarding Claim 9, Miyagi does not disclose the placement surface to be tilted.
Mori discloses the placement surface (21) of the tray is tilted such that the placement surface is lower toward an upstream end of the placement surface in the medium ejecting direction (see Fig. 9), for the purpose of preventing sheets from falling out of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Miyagi by including the tilted placement surface as disclosed by Mori, for the purpose of preventing sheets from falling out of the device.
Regarding Claim 14, Miyagi does not disclose another wall portion having a plurality of holes.
Mori discloses another wall portion (i.e. the wall parallel to 15 and perpendicularly adjacent to 23 in Fig. 9) different from the wall portion includes a plurality of holes (24), for the purpose of sucking gas on the loading surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Miyagi by including the plurality of holes as disclosed by Mori on another wall portion, for the purpose of sucking gas on the loading surface.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi (US Pub No. 2017/0267476 A1) in view of Mori (JP 2019-014600) in view of Toshinori (JP 2020-093408).
Regarding Claim 10, Miyagi and Mori do not disclose a staggered hole pattern.
Toshinori discloses a staggered hole pattern (Fig. 3) for the purpose of adhering 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 Miyagi and Mori by including the staggered hole pattern as disclosed by Toshinori, for the purpose of adhering a sheet.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Miyagi, Mori and Toshinori do not explicitly disclose the hole patterns 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 Miyagi, Mori and Toshinori by including the claimed hole patterns, since Toshinori discloses that the hole patterns are not fixed and may be adjusted in various parameters ("the number, arrangement, size, etc. of the first and second suction holes 26, 27 can be freely adjusted. Further, the shapes of the first and second suction holes 26, 27 are not limited to circular shapes, and may be polygonal shapes (not shown)." Furthermore, it is noted that opening areas per unit area may be selected from among a finite number of options (i.e. larger towards top or bottom, larger towards outer or inner positions) wherein it would have also been 'obvious to try' the claimed patterns.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi (US Pub No. 2017/0267476 A1) in view of Mori (JP 2019-014600) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-140245).
Regarding Claim 13, Miyagi and Mori do not disclose a recessed portion.
Tanaka et al. discloses a tray has a recessed portion (16, Fig. 14) disposed at an upstream end of the placement surface of the tray in the medium ejecting direction or
at an end of the placement surface of the tray in the direction perpendicular to the medium ejecting direction, for the purpose of preventing contact with the wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Miyagi and Mori by including the recessed portion as disclosed by Tanaka et al., for the purpose of preventing contact with the wall.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that “In Miyagi, a wall portion disposed below the driving discharge roller 27 extends straight, and does not have a surface which is positioned lower toward a downstream side in a discharging direction. Therefore, Miyagi does not disclose or suggest "wherein a surface which is positioned lower toward the downstream side in the medium ejecting direction, is formed on an upper end of the wall portion", as recited in amended claim 1.”, it is noted that as seen in the zoomed-in markup view of Fig. 3 above, a surface is clearly shown downstream of 27 that has a downwards slope in the ejecting direction and is formed on an upper end of the wall portion.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 March 23, 2026