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 .
Amendment received 3/18/26 was entered into the record.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 16-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a sheet ejection device and a sheet stacking method, classified in B65H 2405/11162.
II. Claims 16-20, drawn to a sheet ejection device, classified in B65H 2405/111.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related inventions. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 mover configured to move the first mount about an upstream side of the first mount (the subject matter of claim 1, as constrained by Figure 11B) and the mover which moves the second mount and the third mount (the subject matter of claims 1, 7 and 9), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Moreover, applicant contends that the depiction of the mover in Figure 4 would be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the pivot mechanism would be used for different moving portions. The Examiner disagrees. The moving mechanism of Figure 4 is shown such that the mounting arrangement could be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, to situate a similar moving mechanism for the embodiment shown in Figure 11B would be to introduce complexities that one of ordinary skill in the art could not solve. There is no comparable mounting area available to mount the mover.
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 1-15 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.
The claims seem to combine several embodiments in an inconsistent manner rendering the claims unclear.
Claim 1 recites that the first mount is downstream in the sheet ejection direction; the second mount upstream in the ejection direction. The first mount is moved about an upstream side of the first mount. This is shown ONLY in the embodiment depicted in Figure 11B. Claim 5, depending from claim 1, recites that first mount abuts on the second mount in a width direction of the sheet. The width direction as defined in the specification as being perpendicular to the ejection direction. Claim 5 is therefore inconsistent with claim 1 since the two mounts do not abut in the width direction. Similarly, claims 6-9 read on different embodiments that are inconsistent with the embodiment shown in Figure 11B. Indeed the subject matter is contradictory.
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.
As best understood, claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuguchi US 2021/0101768 (“Mizuguchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Mizuguchi disclosed a sheet ejection device comprising:
an output tray (170) configured to be stacked with a sheets,
the output tray including:
a first mount (21) configured to mount the sheets; and a second mount (20, between Y and W) abutting on the first mount, the second mount configured to mount the sheets, the first mount downstream in a sheet ejection direction, the second mount upstream in the sheet ejection direction (Figure 4); and
a mover (212) configured to move the first mount about an upstream side of the first mount.
Regarding claim 2, Mizuguchi disclosed wherein the first mount and the second mount define a mount face configured to mount the sheets (Figures 2 and 4-9).
Regarding claim 3, Mizuguchi disclosed wherein the sheets includes a sheet fixed with toner (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Mizuguchi disclosed as the sheets is ejected onto the output tray, the mover may move the first mount (see at least paragraphs 0071-0073).
Regarding claim 5, Mizuguchi disclosed wherein the first mount abuts on the second mount in a width direction of the sheets (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Mizuguchi disclosed the mover moves the first mount in at least one of an upward direction or a downward direction with respect to a center of the output tray in the width direction of the sheets (see at least Figures 2 and 7-9).
Regarding claim 8, Mizuguchi disclosed wherein the width direction of the sheets is perpendicular to a sheet ejection direction in which the sheets are ejected onto the output tray (see at least Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Mizuguchi disclosed wherein the first mount abuts on the second mount in a sheet ejection direction in which the sheets are ejected onto the output tray (see at least Figures 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 11, Mizuguchi disclosed wherein the first mount includes a mount face to mount the sheets, the mount face moved by the mover (Figures 2 and 10).
Regarding claim 12, Mizuguchi disclosed wherein the mover lifts the first mount to a position where the first mount is stepped up with respect to the second mount (see at least Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Mizuguchi disclosed wherein the mover includes a pivot mechanism to pivot the first mount,
the pivot mechanism including:
a motor (212);
a pinion gear (222) coupled with the motor; and
a rack gear (21e) to mesh with the pinion gear.
Regarding claim 14, Mizuguchi disclosed an image forming apparatus comprising:
The sheet ejection device according to claim 1 as listed above; and
an image forming device to form an image on the sheets (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Mizuguchi disclosed a sheet stacking method comprising:
stacking a plurality of sheets on a first mount and a second mount (see Figures 2, 4, 8, and 9) the first mount downstream in a sheet ejection direction, the second mount upstream in the sheet ejection direction; and moving the first mount (see Figures 8 and 9) rotationally about an upstream side of the first mount.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Mizuguchi is silent as to first and second mounts structured as claimed.
The Examiner disagrees. Figure 4 shows a clear division of first and second mounts (upstream of Y and downstream of Y) structured precisely as claimed as shown in the above rejections. The rejections are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD J SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3096. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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.
/HOWARD J SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights