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 8/13/26 was entered into the record.
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) 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14, 21, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takemura et al. US 6,089,772 (“Takemura”).
Regarding claim 1, Takemura disclosed a sheet ejection device comprising:
an output tray (41) configured to be stacked with sheets, the output tray including:
a first mount (241a) configured to mount the sheets, the first mount having a single sheet-mount face (Figure 24); and
a second mount (240) abutting on the first mount, the second mount configured to mount the sheets, and
a mover (242a) configured to move the first mount such that the single sheet-mount face is constantly exposed.
Regarding claim 2, Takemura disclosed the first mount and the second mount define a mount face configured to mount the sheets (Figures 24 and 27).
Regarding claim 3, the sheets includes a sheet fixed with toner.
Regarding claim 4, Takemura disclosed as the sheets are rejected onto the output tray, the mover is configured to move the first mount (see the first full paragraph of column 31).
Regarding claim 5, Takemura disclosed the first mount abuts on the second mount in a width direction of the sheets (Figures 24 and 27).
Regarding claim 6, Takemura disclosed the mover is configured move 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 (Figures 24, 25, and 27).
Regarding claim 8, Takemura disclosed the width direction of the sheets is perpendicular to a sheet ejection direction in which the sheets are ejected onto the output tray (Figure 24).
Regarding claim 10, Takemura disclosed the first mount abuts on the second mount in a sheet ejection direction in which the sheets are ejected onto the output tray (Figure 24).
Regarding claim 11, Takemura disclosed the first mount includes a mount face configured to mount the sheets, the mount face configured to be moved by the mover (Figure 24).
Regarding claim 12, Takemura disclosed the mover is configured to lift the first mount to a position where the first mount is stepped up with respect to the second mount (Figure 24).
Regarding claim 14, Takemura disclosed an image forming apparatus comprising: the sheet ejection device according to claim 1 as discussed above; and an image forming device (including 30) configured to form an image on the sheets.
Regarding claim 21, Takemura disclosed a sheet ejection device comprising: an output tray (41) configured to be stacked with sheets, the output tray including:
a first mount (241a) configured to mount the sheets, the first mount having a sheet-mount face in a whole area of the first mount (Figures 24 and 27); and a second mount (240) abutting on the first mount, the second mount configured to mount the sheets; and a mover (242a) configured to move the first mount so that the sheet-mount face is constantly exposed.
Regarding claim 24, Takemura disclosed an image forming apparatus comprising: the sheet ejection device according to claim 21 as mentioned above; and an image forming device (including 30) configured to form an image on the sheets.
Regarding claim 25, the sheets includes a sheet fixed with toner.
Regarding claim 26, Takemura disclosed the first mount and the second mount abut on a central mount in a width direction of the sheets (see Figures 24, 25, and 27).
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) 13, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura in view of Kneisel et al. US 4,942,435 (“Kneisel”). Takemura disclosed the limitations of claims 1 and 21 as listed above but did not teach a rack and pinion. Kneisel teaches a mover that includes a pivot mechanism configured to pivot a first mount, the pivot mechanism including: a motor; a pinion gear coupled with the motor; and a rack gear to mesh with the pinion gear (see column 8, lines 36-42). Kneisel further teaches a side fence (see at least Figures 2 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teaches of Kneisel to stabilize the stacked sheets and provide a well-known means to regulate the height of the stacking surface as taught Kneisel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Conclusion
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