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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
1. Due to Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, filed, 6/15/2026, with respect to the claims have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1,2,4,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama USP 10,138,083 in view of Murakami et al. USP 5,778,300.
Koyama discloses, regarding claim 1, An image forming system (200) comprising:
an image forming unit (101) configured to form an image on a sheet;
a processing unit including a processing portion (203) configured to perform predetermined processing on the sheet on which the image is formed by the image forming portion, and a sending portion (204) configured to send the sheet processed by the processing portion;
a stacking tray (302) provided with respect to the processing unit so as to be lifted and lowered and configured to stack the sheet sent by the sending portion;
a lifting/lowering portion (M) configured to lower the stacking tray such that a height of an uppermost sheet among the sheets on the stacking tray falls within a predetermined range and to lift the stacking tray as the sheets stacked on the stacking tray are removed;
a displacement portion (308; 12a-c,212) provided on the stacking tray and configured to be displaced from a first position toward a second position as the sheet is stacked on the stacking tray (see at least fig.9);
an output portion provided in the processing unit and configured to output an electric signal according to the displacement of the displacement portion (portion of sensor 221 which transmit signals, as shown in fig.7A and disclosed in C7/L49-54);
a reception portion provided in the processing unit and configured to receive the electric signal output from the output portion (portion of sensor 221 which receives signals, as shown in fig.7A); and
a wiring portion provided in the processing unit and configured to connect the output portion and the reception portion (see at least C6/L33-36.
Koyama does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations of the claim.
Murakami teaches the use of a control portion capable of executing a mode in which in a case where a preceding job is completed and a subsequent job is input, the subsequent job is started (see at least C5/L29-35).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a control portion capable of executing a mode in which in a case where a preceding job is completed and a subsequent job is input, the subsequent job is started, as taught by Murakami, in the device of Koyama, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the combination yields that when the electric signal received by the reception portion indicates that the displacement portion is in the first position, for the purpose of properly timing the start operation of the next job (see at least C5/L29-35).
Koyama further discloses, regarding claim 2, wherein the output portion is configured to output the electric signal according to the displacement of the displacement portion in a state in which the stacking tray is at a predetermined position (when the flag 212 does or does not interrupt the signal as shown in fig.7A,8A).
Regarding claim 4,
wherein the output portion is configured to output the electric signal according to a position of the stacking tray or a position of the sheet stacked on the stacking tray in a case where the stacking tray is positioned below the predetermined position (see at least C7/L49-54), and
the lifting/lowering portion is configured to move up and down the stacking tray such that a position of a stacking surface of the stacking tray on which the sheet is stacked or a position of an upper surface of an uppermost sheet among a plurality of sheets stacked on the stacking surface according to the electric signal output from the output portion falls within the predetermined range (see at least C7/L48-C8/L10).
Regarding claim 8,
wherein the displacement portion is a first displacement portion (308),
the image forming system further comprises a second displacement portion (12a-c,212) provided in the processing unit and configured to be displaced according to displacement of the first displacement portion by coming into contact with the first displacement portion in a state in which the stacking tray is at a predetermined position and in any one of a case where there is no sheet on the stacking tray and a case where there is the sheet on the stacking tray (see at least fig.4A,4B,7A,8A, C9/L43-59), and
the output portion is configured to output the electric signal according to the displacement of the second displacement portion (see at least C6/L30-36).
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama USP 10,138,083 and Murakami et al. USP 5,778,300, further in view of Kobayashi USP 9,802,780.
Koyama discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶4 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Kobayashi teaches the use of a sensor (120) oriented so as to detect the displacement portion (118) in a width direction of the sheet intersecting a sheet sending direction (fig.5), wherein the output portion is configured to output an electrical signal in accordance with the state of the displacement portion (118) (C7/L64-66, C8/L4-8), and the displacement portion (118) is configured to not be detected by the sensor in a case where there is no sheet on the stacking tray and the stacking tray is at the predetermined position or, in a case where there is the sheet on the stacking tray and the stacking tray is at the predetermined position (this is clear from the positions of the sensor 120 and displacement portion 118 as shown in fig.5 and C7/L64-66, C8/L4-8).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a sensor oriented so as to detect the displacement portion in a width direction of the sheet intersecting a sheet sending direction, wherein the output portion is configured to output an electrical signal in accordance with the state of the displacement portion, and the displacement portion is configured to not be detected by the sensor in a case where there is no sheet on the stacking tray and the stacking tray is at the predetermined position or, in a case where there is the sheet on the stacking tray and the stacking tray is at the predetermined position, as taught by Kobayashi, in the device of Koyama, where one having ordinary skill in the art would replace the sensor of Kobayashi with a light emitting portion provided in the processing unit; and a light receiving portion configured to receive light emitted from the light emitting portion and provided in the processing unit, wherein the output portion is configured to output the electric signal according to a light receiving state of the light receiving portion, the light emitting portion is disposed on one side of a stacking surface, on which the sheet is stacked, of the stacking portion in a width direction of the sheet intersecting a sheet sending direction of the sending portion, the light receiving portion is disposed on the other side of the stacking surface in the width direction, and the displacement portion is configured to block the light emitted from the light emitting portion such that the light emitted from the light emitting portion is not received by the light receiving portion in a case where there is no sheet on the stacking tray and the stacking tray is at the predetermined position or, in a case where there is the sheet on the stacking tray and the stacking tray is at the predetermined position, since such light emitting and receiving portions are well known in the art (see MPEP 2144.01). The combination of Kobayashi with Koyama can be done with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a simplified structure for sheet presence/absence detection.
6. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama USP 10,138,083 and Murakami et al. USP 5,778,300, further in view of Iwadate et al. USP 9,815,646.
Koyama discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶4 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
Iwadate teaches further comprising a conveyance portion (113) disposed above the stacking tray (111) and configured to move to a conveyance position (PR1) where the conveyance portion comes into contact with the sheet on the stacking tray and conveys the sheet upstream in a sheet sending direction of the sending portion, and a retraction position (PR2) where the conveyance portion retracts upward from the conveyance position, wherein the conveyance portion is positioned at the conveyance position in a case where the control portion determines the presence or absence of the sheet on the stacking tray according to the electric signal output from the output portion (see at least fig.5B, C7/L10-30).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a conveyance portion disposed above the stacking tray and configured to move to a conveyance position where the conveyance portion comes into contact with the sheet on the stacking tray and conveys the sheet upstream in a sheet sending direction of the sending portion, and a retraction position where the conveyance portion retracts upward from the conveyance position, wherein the conveyance portion is positioned at the conveyance position in a case where the control portion determines the presence or absence of the sheet on the stacking tray according to the electric signal output from the output portion, as taught by Iwadate, in the device of Koyama, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of aligning sheets in the stacking portion thus providing a neat stack for a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5-7,9 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
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE A. NICHOLSON III whose telephone number is (571)272-5487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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 C 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.
/LESLIE A NICHOLSON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights