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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/20/2026 has been entered.
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.
3. Claims 1, 5-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0308986 (Dobashi et al.) (hereinafter “Dobashi”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,594,974 (Teriault) (hereinafter “Theriault”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 18-23 and 73 of Dobashi show a sheet storage device (Fig. 73) comprising:
a sheet storage (including 407 in Fig. 19) configured to receive sheets (T1-T5) conveyed along a conveyance direction (left in Fig. 22) and to store the sheets (T1-T5) stacked on each other;
a support frame (including 412) comprising a guide (dotted-line boxes in Fig. 19), the guide (dotted-line boxes in Fig. 19) being tilted with respect to a direction of gravity (down); and
a holder (including 408-411, 414 and 405) configured to detachably hold the sheet storage (including 407) and to be movable in an up-and-down direction along the guide (dotted-lines in Fig. 19),
wherein the holder (including 408-411, 414 and 405) is configured to move the sheet storage (including 407) downward along the guide (dotted-line boxes in Fig. 19) during loading of the sheets (T1-T5) in the storage (including 407), responsive to a weight of the sheets (T1-T5) stacked in the sheet storage (including 407). Dobashi teaches all of the limitations of this claim, except for the storage (including 407) being a storage box, as claimed.
Theriault shows that it is well-known in the art to utilize a storage box (B) to receive sheets (P) conveyed along a conveyance direction (left in Fig. 3) and to store the sheets (P) stacked on each other. Because both Theriault and Dobashi teach sheet storage arrangements for receiving and storing sheets, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the storage box of Theriault for the storage of Dobashi to achieve the predictable result of receiving and storing sheets. Thus, all of the limitations of claim 1 are met by the cited combination of references.
Regarding claim 5, Fig. 23 of Dobashi shows that the sheet storage (including 407) has a stacking surface (top surface) tilted at a tilt angle relative to a horizontal plane, when it is on the guide (dotted-line boxes in Fig. 19). Figure 3 of Theriault also shows that the sheet storage (B) has a stacking surface tilted at a tilt angle relative to a horizontal plane when it is on a guide (80). In addition, MPEP2115 states that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 186 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Since the recitation “the sheet storage box stores the sheets, each of the sheets having a first portion having a first thickness and a second portion having a second thickness thinner than the first thickness, and the tilt angle θ is set as: θ ≥ tan-1 (tN/y) where t indicates a difference in thickness between the first portion and the second portion of each of the sheets, y indicates a length of each of the sheets in the conveyance direction, and N indicates a maximum number of sheets stackable in the sheet storage box” in claim 5 depends upon the material or article worked upon by the structure being claimed, this recitation does NOT patentably distinguish claim 5 from the prior art apparatus of Dobashi in view of Theriault.
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 18-23 of Dobashi show a spring (406) configured to bias the holder (including 408-411, 414 and 405) upward in the up-and-down direction. Also, MPEP2115 states that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 186 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Since the recitation “wherein the spring is configured so that an amount of decent that the holder moves along the guide due to stacking of a single sheet from among the sheets in the sheet storage box is set to a thickness of the single sheet” in claim 6 depends upon the material or article worked upon by the structure being claimed, this recitation does NOT patentably distinguish claim 6 from the prior art apparatus of Dobashi in view of Theriault (emphasis added). A user can select a special sheet that causes the spring to move by a distance equal to a thickness of the sheet.
Regarding claim 17, Dobashi shows a spring (406) configured to bias the holder (including 408-411, 414 and 405) upward in the up-and-down direction to passively control an amount of descent the holder (including 408-411, 414 and 405) moves along the guide (dotted-line boxes in Fig. 19) due to stacking of the sheets in the sheet storage box (storage box (B) taught by Theriault).
4. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi in view of Theriault as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,096,340 (Berg) (hereinafter “Berg”) (a reference of record). With regard to claim 3, Theriault teaches that the sheet storage box (B) comprises: a stacking surface (bottom surface) at a bottom of the sheet storage box (B), the stacking surface (bottom surface) being tilted downward toward a downstream direction of the conveyance direction (left in Fig. 3) and being orthogonal to the up-and-down direction, but Theriault does not show a contact surface, as claimed.
Berg shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a storage box (302) with a contact surface (320 or 318) at a downstream end of the sheet storage box (302) in a conveyance direction (down in Fig. 4), the contact surface (320 or 318) being tilted in a width direction relative to a direction orthogonal to the conveyance direction (down in Fig. 4) and being contactable with leading edge edges of each of the sheets stacked in the sheet storage box (302). Berg explains that the surfaces facilitate stacking of multiple storage boxes upon one another. See, e.g., column 6, lines 57-64. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the storage box with a contact surface tilted in a width direction, for the purpose of facilitating stacking of multiple storage boxes, as taught by Berg.
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 4 of Berg shows that the sheet storage box (302) has a shape of a hollow box having an opening at a side opposite a contact surface (bottom surface); and side surfaces respectively on each side of the contact surface in the width direction and, the side surfaces (314, 316, 306 and 308) being orthogonal to the width direction and tilted relative to the conveyance direction (down in Fig. 4). Berg explains that the surfaces facilitate stacking of multiple storage boxes upon one another. See, e.g., column 6, lines 57-64. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the storage box with side surfaces orthogonal to the width direction and tilted relative to the conveyance direction, for the purpose of facilitating stacking of multiple sheet storage boxes, as taught by Berg.
5. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi in view of Theriault as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,572,293 (Motamed) (hereinafter “Motamed”) (a reference of record). With regard to claim 8, Dobashi in view of Theriault teaches all of the limitations of this claim, except for a shock absorber, as claimed.
With regard to claim 8, Motamed shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a sheet storage box (Fig. 2) with a shock absorber (131) on a downstream end of the sheet storage box (Fig. 2) in a conveyance direction (right in Fig. 3B); and a sheet contact section (upper section of element 131) on the shock absorber (131), the sheet contact section (upper section of element 131) having a contact surface (upper surface) contactable with leading edges of each of sheets in the conveyance direction (right), wherein the shock absorber (131) contacts a back face of the sheet contact section that is opposite to the contact surface (upper surface) of the sheet contact section (upper section of element 131), for the purpose facilitating uphill or downhill stacking as shown in Figs. 3B and 3C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the sheet storage box with a shock absorber arrangement, for the purpose of facilitating downhill stacking, as taught by Motamed.
With regard to claim 9, Motamed shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a sheet storage box (including 110, 111, 120 and 130) with a sheet stacking tray (131) in the sheet storage box (including 110, 111, 120 and 130) at a bottom end of the sheet storage box (including 110, 111, 120 and 130) with respect to the direction of gravity (down), wherein the sheet stacking tray (131) has a stacking surface (upper surface) on which sheets are stacked, and the sheet stacking tray (including 110, 111, 120 and 130) has an upstream end (left end in Fig. 3C) and a downstream end (right end in Fig. 3C) along a conveyance direction, and thickness along the direction of gravity (down) of the sheet stacking tray (131) between the upstream end (left end) and the downstream end (right end) gradually decreases toward the downstream end (right end). Lines 54-64 in column 10 explain that the wedge-shaped stacking tray (131) facilitates either uphill or downhill stacking according to the orientation of the sheet stacking tray (131). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the apparatus of Dobashi in view of Theriault with a wedge-shaped sheet stacking tray, for the purpose of facilitating downhill stacking, as taught by Motamed.
6. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi in view of Theriault as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,377,966 (Ohmori) (hereinafter “Ohmori’) (a reference of record). With regard to claim 10, Dobashi in view of Theriault teaches all of the limitations of this claim, except for a restrictor, as claimed.
Ohmori shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a sheet storage (Fig. 1) with a restrictor (including 13 and 15) inside the sheet storage (Fig. 1), the restrictor (including 13 and 15) configured to restrict a widthwise position of each of sheets in the sheet storage (Fig. 1) in a width direction tilted (see inwardly beveled portions of elements 15 and 15 in Fig. 1) relative to a direction orthogonal to a conveyance direction (left in Fig. 2), for the purpose of guiding sheets into the middle of the sheet storage (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the sheet storage box with a restrictor, for the purpose of guiding sheets into the middle of the sheet storage box, as taught by Ohmori.
With regard to claim 11, Ohmori shows that the restrictor (including 13 and 15) has a tilted surface (inwardly beveled portions in Fig. 1) to gradually reduce a width within the sheet storage (Fig. 1) toward a downstream direction of the conveyance direction (left in Fig. 2). This same arrangement would be provided on the sheet storage box according to the teachings of Ohmori.
7. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,273,491 (Roux) (hereinafter “Roux”) (a reference of record) in view of Japanese Publication No. 1-226652 (hereinafter “JP’652”).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Figs. 1-11 of Roux show a sheet storage device (Fig. 11) comprising:
a sheet storage box (21) configured to receive sheets (3) conveyed along a conveyance direction and to store the sheets (3) stacked on each other;
a support frame (“Support frame” in annotated Fig. 11 above) comprising a guide (“Guide” in annotated Fig. 11 above), the guide (“Guide” in annotated Fig. 11) being tilted with respect to a direction of gravity (down);
a holder (including 22 and 23) configured to detachably hold the sheet storage box (21) and to be movable in an up-and-down direction along the guide (“Guide” in annotated Fig. 11), wherein the holder (including 22 and 23) is configured to move the sheet storage box (21) downward along the guide (“Guide” in annotated Fig. 11). Roux teaches all of the limitations of this claim, except for a restrictor, as claimed.
JP’652 shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a sheet storage (1) with a restrictor (including 2 and 2) inside the sheet storage (1), the restrictor (including 2 and 2) configured to restrict a widthwise position of the sheets in the sheet storage (1) in a width direction tilted (see inwardly beveled portions of elements 2 and 2 in Fig. 1) relative to a direction orthogonal to a conveyance direction (down and right in Fig. 1), for the purpose of guiding sheets into the middle of the sheet storage (1). Also, JP’652 shows that the restrictor (including 2 and 2) has a tilted surface (inwardly beveled portions in Fig. 1) to gradually reduce a storage width of the sheet storage space in the sheet storage (1) toward a downstream direction of the conveyance direction (down and right in Fig. 1), wherein the storage width is gradually reduced from a first width that is greater than a width of the sheets to a second width that is equal to the width of the sheets. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the sheet storage box (21) of the Roux apparatus with a restrictor, for the purpose of guiding sheets into the middle of the sheet storage box (21), as taught by JP’652.
Regarding claim 16, Roux in view of JP’652 teaches all of the limitations of this claim, except for the restrictor (including 2 and 2 of JP’652) being detachably removable from the storage, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the restrictor detachably removable (i.e., separable) from the storage box, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the storage box to which the restrictor is attached, it would be obvious to make the restrictor removable for that purpose. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) and MPEP 2144.04. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the restrictor detachably removable from the storage box, because it is desirable to be able to clean any portion of the storage box covered/obstructed by the restrictor.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-14 of the response, filed 2/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the rejections of claims 3-4, 6, and 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a several new grounds of rejection are made of claims 1, 3-6, 8-11 and 15-17 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 12-14 are allowed.
Conclusion
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 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653