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 .
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.
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0179374 (Ikeda et al.) (hereinafter “Ikeda”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0188581 (Niwata et al.) (hereinafter “Niwata”).
Regarding claim 3, Figs. 1-3 of Ikeda show a media conveying apparatus, comprising:
a feed table (120) on which a medium is placed;
a conveyor (61) to convey the medium placed on the feed table (120);
a sensor (70) to detect floating of the medium conveyed by the conveyor (61); and
a guide (unnumbered vertical wall to the right of element 70 in Fig. 3) to guide the medium conveyed by the conveyor (61) to the sensor (70), wherein the guide (unnumbered vertical wall to the right of element 70 in Fig. 3) has a guide face with no step. Ikeda teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the guide (unnumbered vertical wall to the right of element 70 in Fig. 3) and the sensor (70), but Ikeda does not explicitly teach that the sensor (70) projects from the guide (unnumbered vertical wall to the right of element 70 in Fig. 3), as claimed.
Niwata shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a media conveying apparatus (Fig. 5) with a sensor (113) to detect floating of a medium conveyed by a conveyor (115 and 116) and a guide (right side of 102 in Fig. 4), in which at least a portion of sensor (113) projects from the guide (right side of 102). See, e.g., Fig. 4 of Niwata. Because both Niwata and Ikeda teach sensor arrangements for detecting floating media, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the sensor arrangement of Niwata including the sensor that projects from the guide for the sensor arrangement of Ikeda to achieve the predictable result of detecting floating media.
3. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0206539 (Takeuchi et al.) (hereinafter “Takeuchi”) in view of Ikeda.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 13-14 of Takeuchi show a media conveying apparatus, comprising:
a feed table (lower element 11) on which a medium is placed;
a conveyor (lower element 12) to convey the medium placed on the feed table (lower element 11);
an ejector (including 41 and 43) to eject the medium conveyed by the conveyor (lower element 12);
an ejection tray (55) located above the feed table (lower element 11) to stack the medium ejected by the ejector (including 41 and 43); and
an extension tray (51) connected to a downstream side of the ejection tray (55) in a media ejection direction (left in Fig. 13),
wherein, in a state where the medium ejected from the ejector (including 41 and 43) is stacked on the ejection tray (55) and the extension tray (51), a lower end portion of the extension tray (51) on an upstream side in the media ejection direction is located closer to the feed table (lower element 11) than a lower end portion of the ejection tray (55) on a downstream side in the media ejection direction. Takeuchi teaches all of the limitations of this claim, except for a sensor to detect floating of the medium conveyed by the conveyor, as claimed.
Ikeda shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a media conveying apparatus (Fig. 3) with a sensor (70) to detect floating of a medium conveyed by a conveyor (61). Numbered paragraphs [0041] – [0043] explain that the sensor (70) detects flip-up of a document P when the document is delivered to determine whether a stapling process is applied to the document P. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the Takeuchi apparatus with a floating sensor, for the purpose of detecting whether a stapling process is applied to a document, as taught by Ikeda. With regard to the recitation “a lower surface of the extension tray can contact a rear end of the medium conveyed by the conveyor”, this recitation depends upon the material or article worked upon by the structure being claimed. (emphasis added). As one working example, a specially-shaped medium (sheet) can be selected to be placed in the media conveying apparatus, such that the lower surface of the extension tray (51) can contact the rear end of this specially-shaped medium. As such, this recitation does not impart patentability to claim 1. See, e.g., MPEP2115. A sheet can extend out from a rear end of cassette 18 in Fig. 11 of Takeuchi and up to the lower surface of the extension tray (55) and meet the claim limitations. Figure 11 of Takeuchi shows that cassette 18 can extend out and there is NO teaching that cassette 18 is covered at all while extended outward. In fact, Fig. 8 appears to teach the opposite, because Fig. 8 shows that the cassettes (e.g., cassette 1) would be open if not for the attachment of ejection tray (55) and extension tray (51). Cassette 18 has NO tray or extension tray attached to cover it up.
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 6 and 13-14 of Takeuchi show that the ejection tray (55) has an inclined surface on the downstream side in the media ejection direction that inclines from the downstream side to the upstream side to approach the feed table (lower element 11).
Regarding claim 4, Figs. 13-14 of Takeuchi show a media conveying apparatus, comprising:
a feed table (lower element 11) on which a medium is placed;
a conveyor (lower element 12) to convey the medium placed on the feed table (lower element 11);
an ejector (including 41 and 43) to eject the medium conveyed by the conveyor (lower element 12); and
a tray (including 51 and 55) located above the feed table (lower element 11) to stack the medium ejected by the ejector (including 41 and 43),
wherein, the tray (including 51 and 55) includes:
a base (51); and
an attachment (55) connected to at least one of a left side or a right side of the base (51),
a lower end of the base (51) is located closer to the feed table (lower element 11) than a lower end of the attachment (55),
lower left and right end portions of a projection (52) of the base (51) projecting more downstream than the attachment (55) in a media ejection direction have no step, and
a lower end portion of the attachment (55) on a downstream side in the media ejection direction have no step. Takeuchi teaches all of the limitations of this claim, except for a sensor to detect floating of the medium conveyed by the conveyor, as claimed.
Ikeda shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a media conveying apparatus (Fig. 3) with a sensor (70) to detect floating of a medium conveyed by a conveyor (61). Numbered paragraphs [0041] – [0043] explain that the sensor (70) detects flip-up of a document P when the document is delivered to determine whether a stapling process is applied to the document P. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the Takeuchi apparatus with a floating sensor, for the purpose of detecting whether a stapling process is applied to a document, as taught by Ikeda. With regard to the recitation “a lower surface of the base and a lower surface of the attachment can contact a rear end of the medium conveyed by the conveyor”, this recitation depends upon the material or article worked upon by the structure being claimed. (emphasis added). As one working example, a specially-shaped medium (sheet) can be selected to be placed in the media conveying apparatus, such that the lower surface of the base and the lower surface of the attachment can contact the rear end of the medium conveyed by the conveyor. As such, this recitation does not impart patentability to claim 4. See, e.g., MPEP2115. A sheet can extend out from a rear end of cassette 18 in Fig. 11 of Takeuchi and up to the lower surface of the base and the lower surface of the attachment and meet the claim limitations. Figure 11 of Takeuchi shows that cassette 18 can extend out and there is NO teaching that cassette 18 is covered at all while extended outward. In fact, Fig. 8 appears to teach the opposite, because Fig. 8 shows that the cassettes (e.g., cassette 1) would be open if not for the attachment of ejection tray (55) and extension tray (51). Cassette 18 has NO tray or extension tray attached to cover it up.
Regarding claim 5, Figs. 13-14 of Takeuchi show that the attachment (55) has an inclined surface on the downstream side in the media ejection direction (left in Fig. 13) that inclines from outside to inside in a direction orthogonal to the media ejection direction (left in Fig. 13) to be more upstream in the media ejection direction.
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 13-14 of Takeuchi show that the attachment (55) has an inclined surface on the downstream side in the media ejection direction (left in Fig. 13) that inclines from downstream to upstream in the media ejection direction to approach the feed table (lower element 11).
Regarding claim 7, Figs. 13-14 of Takeuchi show that the lower left and right end portions of the base (51) have no step across both ends in the media ejection direction.
Regarding claim 8, Figs. 13-14 of Takeuchi show that lower left and right end portions of the attachment (55) have no step.
Response to Arguments
4. With regard to claim 3, applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of the response, filed 11/6/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0179374 (Ikeda et al.) (hereinafter “Ikeda”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0188581 (Niwata et al.) (hereinafter “Niwata”).
With regard to claims 1-2 and 4-8, applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
CLAIM 1
Applicant argues
Takeuchi discloses that "Referring to FIG. 1, the recording apparatus is provided with a removable sheet feeder cassette 1, which is disposed in the bottom portion of the main assembly of the recording apparatus." (paragraph [0029]), "The discharged sheet holding portion 5 has: a discharged recording sheet catching plate 55; and a tray 51 which functions as an extension to the discharged recording sheet catching plate 55 to hold discharged recording sheets." (paragraph [0035]), "Referring to FIG. 11, the recording apparatus in this embodiment is structured to be usable with a pair of sheet feeder cassettes 1 and 18 which can be vertically stacked in the main assembly of the recording apparatus." (paragraph [0064])
In Takeuchi, the tray 51 to hold the discharged recording sheets cannot contact the sheet set in the sheet feeder cassette 1 or the sheet feeder cassette 18 since the sheet feeder cassette 1 or the sheet feeder cassette 18 covers the sheet set in the sheet feeder cassette 1 or the sheet feeder cassette 18.
Therefore, Takeuchi does not disclose or suggest "an extension tray connected to a downstream side of the ejection tray in a media ejection direction", and "wherein, in a state where the medium ejected from the ejector is stacked on the ejection tray and the extension tray, a lower surface of the extension tray can contact a rear end of the medium conveyed by the conveyor, and a lower end portion of the extension tray on an upstream side in the media ejection direction is located closer to the feed table than a lower end portion of the ejection tray on a downstream side in the media ejection direction", as recited in claim 1.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. With regard to the recitation “a lower surface of the extension tray can contact a rear end of the medium conveyed by the conveyor”, this recitation depends upon the material or article worked upon by the structure being claimed. (emphasis added). As one working example, a specially-shaped medium (sheet) can be selected to be placed in the media conveying apparatus, such that the lower surface of the extension tray (51) can contact the rear end of this specially-shaped medium. As such, this recitation does not impart patentability to claim 1. See, e.g., MPEP2115. A sheet can extend out from a rear end of cassette 18 in Fig. 11 of Takeuchi and up to the lower surface of the extension tray (55) and meet the claim limitations. Figure 11 of Takeuchi shows that cassette 18 can extend out and there is NO teaching that cassette 18 is covered at all while extended outward. In fact, Fig. 8 appears to teach the opposite, because Fig. 8 shows that the cassettes (e.g., cassette 1) would be open if not for the attachment of ejection tray (55) and extension tray (51). Cassette 18 has no tray or extension tray attached to cover it up.
With regard to applicant’s arguments directed to Ikeda, this reference is not relied upon to teach the recitation “a lower surface of the extension tray can contact a rear end of the medium conveyed by the conveyor, and a lower end portion of the extension tray on an upstream side in the media ejection direction is located closer to the feed table than a lower end portion of the ejection tray on a downstream side in the media ejection direction" in claim 1.
CLAIM 4
Next, applicant argues
As stated, in Takeuchi, the tray 51 to hold the discharged recording sheets cannot contact the sheet set in the sheet feeder cassette 1 or the sheet feeder cassette 18 since the sheet feeder cassette 1 or the sheet feeder cassette 18 cover the sheet set in the sheet feeder cassette 1 or the sheet feeder cassette 18.
Therefore, Takeuchi does not disclose or suggest "a tray located above the feed table to stack the medium ejected by the ejector", "the tray includes: a base; and an attachment connected to at least one of a left side or a right side of the base", and "a lower surface of the base and a lower surface of the attachment can contact a rear end of the medium conveyed by the conveyor", as recited in claim 4.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. With regard to the recitation “a lower surface of the base and a lower surface of the attachment can contact a rear end of the medium conveyed by the conveyor”, this recitation depends upon the material or article worked upon by the structure being claimed. (emphasis added). As one working example, a specially-shaped medium (sheet) can be selected to be placed in the media conveying apparatus, such that the lower surface of the base and the lower surface of the attachment can contact the rear end of the medium conveyed by the conveyor. As such, this recitation does not impart patentability to claim 4. See, e.g., MPEP2115. A sheet can extend out from a rear end of cassette 18 in Fig. 11 of Takeuchi and up to the lower surface of the base and the lower surface of the attachment and meet the claim limitations. Figure 11 of Takeuchi shows that cassette 18 can extend out and there is NO teaching that cassette 18 is covered at all while extended outward. In fact, Fig. 8 appears to teach the opposite, because Fig. 8 shows that the cassettes (e.g., cassette 1) would be open if not for the attachment of ejection tray (55) and extension tray (51). Cassette 18 has NO tray or extension tray attached to cover it up.
With regard to applicant’s arguments directed to Ikeda, this reference is not relied upon to teach the recitation "a lower surface of the base and a lower surface of the attachment can contact a rear end of the medium conveyed by the conveyor" in claim 4.
The rejections of dependent claims 2 and 5-8 are also outlined above.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. 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
Prosecution Insights