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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a conveyor configured to convey”, “an urging mechanism configured to contact”, “an input device configured to receive”, and “a controller configured toa adjust” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguchi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,221,311) in view of Fukatsu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0157466).
Regarding claim 1: Oguchi discloses a sheet stacking apparatus comprising:
a conveyor configured to convey a sheet (Figs. 1-2; via 48 & 54);
a stacker unit on which the sheet conveyed by the conveyor is stacked (Fig. 2; via stacking unit 34), the stacker being configured to be lowered as an amount of the sheets stacked on the stacker increases (Fig. 2; via the A & B moving direction);
an abutment surface on which a leading edge of the sheet conveyed by the conveyor abuts (Figs. 2 & 5; via 64 & 66);
an urging mechanism configured to control and urge a leading-edge portion, of the sheet, abutting on the abutment surface toward the stacker (Figs 2 & 5; via moving section 58, press member 36, & flap 37);
an input device configured to receive attribute information of the sheet conveyed toward the abutment surface, see for example (Fig. 2; via 51 and/or 52; “second driver 56 includes a motor and a gear,…operates under the control of the controller”); and
a controller configured to adjust an urging force imparted by the urging mechanism based on the received attribute information (via CPU and ROM; “controls the operations of individual sections in the record system…recording of information in the recording section 18, and the postprocess performed by the postprocessing apparatus 30”).
In case it is not clear that Oguchi suggests the movement of the stacking unit to a lowered position. Fukatsu discloses similar stacking apparatus with the use of adjustable and movement of the stacking unit to a lowered position as a number of sheets are stacked, see for example (Fig. 4; via stacker tray 112a is lowered “by a predetermined amount by the first stacker tray elevating motor 152a” based on stacker control unit 210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Oguchi’s stacking unit to be lowered and controlled by a controller to adjust it based on the number of stacked sheets, as suggested by Fukatsu, in order to stack the sheets without causing destruction of the sheet bundle or a stain or a damage by friction, (paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 2: Oguchi discloses that the attribute information includes information regarding a thickness of the sheet (via “a recording section 18 that records information on the paper sheets P”; inherently sheets dimension including thickness could be part of those recorded “information”), and/or
the control unit is configured to adjust the urging force of the urging unit to a first urging force in a case where the sheet conveyed toward the abutment portion has a first thickness, and to adjust the urging force of the urging unit to a second urging force larger than the first urging force in a case where the sheet conveyed toward the abutment portion has a second thickness larger than the first thickness (via “such as the transporting of the paper sheets P in the record system 1, the recoding of information in the recording section 18, and the postprocess performed by the postprocessing apparatus 30” and “the processing tray 42 is an example of a placement section to which a paper sheet P on which information has been recorded by the recording section 18 (see FIG. 1) is to be transported”).
Further, Fukatsu discloses a step of providing a sheet information (paragraph 0072; “Before the sheet conveyance, information on the sheet, such as a sheet size, a sheet type and a sheet destination is sent to the stacker control portion 210 from the controller 960”).
Regarding claim 3: Fukatsu discloses that the sheet information includes information regarding a stiffness of the sheet, (paragraph 0072; “Before the sheet conveyance, information on the sheet, such as a sheet size, a sheet type and a sheet destination is sent to the stacker control portion 210 from the controller 960”), and
the control unit is configured to adjust the urging force of the urging unit to a first urging force in a case where the sheet conveyed toward the abutment portion has a first stiffness, and to adjust the urging force of the urging unit to a second urging force larger than the first urging force in a case where the sheet conveyed toward the abutment portion has a second stiffness higher than the first stiffness (intended use limitations of the control unit).
Regarding claim 4: Fukatsu discloses that the sheet information includes information regarding a grammage of the sheet, (paragraph 0072; “Before the sheet conveyance, information on the sheet, such as a sheet size, a sheet type and a sheet destination is sent to the stacker control portion 210 from the controller 960”).
and the control unit is configured to adjust the urging force of the urging unit to a first urging force in a case where the sheet conveyed toward the abutment portion has a first grammage, and to adjust the urging force of the urging unit to a second urging force larger than the first urging force in a case where the sheet conveyed toward the abutment portion has a second grammage larger than the first grammage (intended use limitations).
Regarding claim 5: Oguchi discloses that the urging unit includes a first member, a second member that is disposed to face the first member and contacts with the sheet (Fig. 2; via the following members 51, 57,37, 60, and 42), and an urging member disposed between the first member and the second member (via press member 36).
Regarding claim 6: Oguchi discloses a first driving unit configured to lift and lower the first member (via drive 52), wherein the control unit is configured to adjust the urging force of the urging unit by adjusting a position of the first member by the first driving unit.
Regarding claim 7: Fukatsu suggests the use of another drive unit configured to lift and lower the stacking unit (Fig. 2; via 210); and a sensor unit configured to detect that a position of an upper surface of a sheet bundle stacked on the stacking unit is a set position (Figs. 1 & 6; via detection sensor 117), wherein the control unit is configured to control the second driving unit such that the position of the upper surface of the sheet bundle stacked on the stacking unit becomes the set position (intended use limitations of the detection unit).
Regarding claim 8: Oguchi discloses a set position is constant regardless of the sheet information (inherently the sheet is fed to an initial and set position via feeder) and/or Fukatsu discloses a set position of the sheets (paragraph 0047; “a sheet S set in one of cassettes 902a-902d and a sheet feeding deck 902e is conveyed by sheet feed rollers”).
Regarding claim 9: Oguchi discloses an alignment rotary member (Fig. 2; via alignment section 60 and rolling mechanism 54); configured to rotate while contacting with the sheet stacked on the stacking unit to move the sheet toward the abutment portion and align the sheet, wherein the first driving unit is configured to lift and lower the alignment rotary member together with the first member.
Regarding claim 10: Oguchi discloses an alignment rotary member (Fig. 2; via alignment section 60 and rolling mechanism 54); configured to rotate while contacting with the sheet stacked on the stacking unit to move the sheet toward the abutment portion and align the sheet; and a third driving unit configured to change a pressing force of the alignment rotary member with respect to the sheet stacked on the stacking unit, see for example (Fig. 2; and stacked sheets PT forced by 54; further those are intended use limitations of the claimed alignment member).
Regarding claim 11: Fukatsu discloses a driving unit configured to lift and lower the stacking unit (Fig. 2; via 210); and a detection unit configured to detect a position of an upper surface of a sheet bundle stacked on the stacking unit (Figs. 1 & 6; via detection sensor 117), wherein the control unit is configured to control the second driving unit based on a detection result of the detection unit such that the stacking unit is lowered as the amount of the sheets stacked on the stacking unit increases.
Regarding claim 12: Oguchi discloses an alignment rotary member (Fig. 2; via alignment section 60 and rolling mechanism 54) configured to rotate while contacting with the sheet stacked on the stacking unit to move the sheet toward the abutment portion and align the sheet.
Regarding claim 13: Oquchi discloses that alignment rotary member is elastically deformed by coming into contact with an upper surface of the sheet stacked on the stacking unit, and an elastic deformation amount of the alignment rotary member is adjusted according to the sheet information (Fig. 2; via rubber blades 57).
Regarding claim 14: Oguchi discloses a region where the alignment rotary member comes into contact with an upper surface of the sheet stacked on the stacking unit and a region where the urging unit comes into contact with the sheet overlap each other in a sheet conveyance direction, see for example (Fig. 2; via both alignment rotary members 54/57 and urging member 36 come in contact of the stacked sheets PT at the same time and/or Fig. 5; via 37 and 51 contacting PA at the same time).
Regarding claim 15: Oguchi discloses that the urging unit includes a first member, a second member that is disposed to face the first member and contacts with the sheet (Fig. 2; via 51 and 42 facing each other’s), and an urging member disposed between the first member and the second member (via press member 36 between 51 and 42), and a roller (via rolling mechanism 54) configured to support the alignment rotary member, the alignment rotary member is elastically deformed by coming into contact with an upper surface of the sheet stacked on the stacking unit, and the control unit (via “controller (not illustrated)”) is configured to adjust the urging force of the urging unit and adjust an elastic deformation amount of the alignment rotary member by adjusting a position of the first member by the first driving unit.
Fukatsu discloses that the sheet stacking apparatus further comprises: a first driving unit configured to lift and lower the first member (Fig. 2; via 210).
Regarding claim 16: Fukatsu discloses a driving unit (Fig. 2; via stacker control portion 210) configured to lift and lower the stacking unit, wherein the control unit is configured to adjust the urging force of the urging unit by adjusting a position of an upper surface of a sheet bundle stacked on the stacking unit by the second driving unit.
Regarding claim 17: Fukatsu discloses a detection unit (Figs. 1 & 6; via detection sensor 117), configured to detect that the position of the upper surface of the sheet bundle stacked on the stacking unit is a set position (via stacker 100), wherein the control unit is configured to (i) change the set position according to the sheet information and (ii) control the second driving unit such that the position of the upper surface of the sheet bundle stacked on the stacking unit becomes the set position.
Regarding claim 18: Oguchi discloses a transfer rotary member disposed above the stacking unit (Fig. 2; via rotary mechanism 54 above stacked sheets PT); a gripping unit attached to the transfer rotary member (via flap member 37) and configured to transfer the sheet in a sheet conveyance direction in a state of gripping the leading edge of the sheet fed from the conveyance unit in the sheet conveyance direction; and an abutment surface configured to come into contact with the leading edge of the sheet to separate the leading edge of the sheet from the gripping unit.
And/or Fukatsu discloses transfer rotary member with a gripping unit, see for example (Fig. 6; via gripping unit 114a/114b in respect to rotary member via belt 131 or 116 and/or 110).
Regarding claim 19: Oguchi discloses an image forming system comprising: an image forming apparatus configured to form an image on a sheet (Fig. 1; via printer 10); and the sheet stacking apparatus (Figs. 1; via stacker unit 34), the sheet stacking apparatus being configured to stack the sheet on which the image is formed by the image forming apparatus, see for example (Fig. 1; stacker 34 stacks printed sheets out of printer 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied art of Oguchi ‘311 does not suggest the claimed input device configured to receive attribute information of the sheet conveyed toward the abutment surface nor a controller configured to adjust an urging force imparted by the urging mechanism based on the received attributed information. The Office as set forth above, believes that the applied art ‘311 indeed suggests the argued upon mechanisms of controlling and adjusting the applied force upon the sheets all based on the stacked sheets, see for example (In this case, however, the first alignment surface 65, the first friction coefficient…a relatively large friction force to the portion of the leading edge” and “When the uppermost paper sheet PA…, the pressing force that the transport section 44 has applied…, applies a relatively small friction force…the second alignment surface 67, applies a relatively larger friction force”).
Clearly ‘311 is suggesting such concern of controlling the amount of applied force on the stacked or conveyed sheets all based on some characteristics of the sheets.
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731