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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a support part which is configured to” in claim 3 and “a positioning member configured to” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al., US 20220203710 A1, modified by Komuro, 20140319760 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi et al. teaches:
A tray (Paragraph 0005, "An object of the present disclosure is to provide an image forming apparatus including a feeding tray…"; Figure 2, Item 11),
a first accommodating part configured to accommodate a rolled first sheet medium (Paragraph 0008, "a feeding tray capable of being inserted into and pulled out from the housing, and including a first accommodation part in which a roll body"; Figure 2, Item 11a),
a second accommodating part disposed side by side with respect to the first accommodating part in a first direction and having a support surface configured to support a second sheet medium, the second accommodating part being configured to accommodate a plurality of sheets of the second sheet medium in a stacked state (Paragraph 0008, "feeding tray capable of being inserted into and pulled out from the housing, and including... a second accommodation part in which a plurality of sheet-shaped media are accommodated in a state of being stacked"; Paragraph 0077, "In the above-described embodiments, the second accommodation part 11b is located behind the first accommodation part 11a. However, the second accommodation part 11b may also be located in front of the first accommodation part 11a"; Figure 2, Item 11b).
Yamaguchi et al. does not disclose that the second accommodating part is configured to be either in a first state where a length of the support surface in the first direction is a first length, or in a second state where the length of the support surface in the first direction is a second length shorter than the first length.
However, Komuro teaches that a drawer portion can be drawn out from the storage portion, extending a sheet feeding cassette, which corresponds to the second accommodating part, thereby defining two states in which the cassette is a first length, and a second where the cassette is a second length shorter than the first length (Paragraph 0066, "The drawer portion 23 constitutes a wall surface on the front side (on the sheet discharging side, that is, on the +Y side) of the storage portion 21 and is provided in the front portion of the sheet feeding cassette 11. The drawer portion 23 is formed so that it can be drawn out towards the front side from the storage portion 21"; Figures 10 and 11, Item 11).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second accommodating part of Yamaguchi et al. to be configured to either be in a first state where a length of the support surface in the first direction is a first length, or in a second state where the length of the support surface in the first direction is a second length shorter than the first length, as disclosed by Komuro. This would be done to allow the cassette to store sheets of media that may be longer than the length of the cassette in the second state, as taught by Komuro (Paragraph 0066, "The drawer portion 23 is drawn out towards the front side from the storage portion 21 when a sheet that has a length that is longer than the length of the sheet feeding cassette 11 in the Y-axis direction is stored in the sheet feeding cassette 11").
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi teaches:
An image recording apparatus comprising the tray as defined in claim 1 (Paragraph 0002, "The present disclosure relates to an image forming apparatus including a feeding tray capable of accommodating both a roll body and a cut medium"),
a casing configured to support the tray to be movable in the first direction (Paragraph 0008, "a feeding tray capable of being inserted into and pulled out from the housing"; Figure 4),
wherein the casing has:
a recording part configured to record an image on each of the first sheet medium and the second sheet medium (Paragraph 0033, "In the present embodiment, the roll sheet P1a unrolled from the roll body R accommodated in the first accommodation part 11a is fed toward the conveying path by the feed roller 1, and is sent to the sheet discharging tray 6 via the intermediate roller pair 9, the conveying roller pair 3a, the head 5... In addition, the cut sheet P2 accommodated in the second accommodation part 11b is fed toward the conveying path by the feed roller 2, and is sent to the sheet discharging tray 6 via the intermediate roller pair 9, the conveying roller pair 3a, the head 5..."; Figure 2, Item 5),
a conveyor configured to convey the first sheet medium or the second sheet medium from the tray toward the recording part (Paragraph 0033, "The conveying path for the roll sheet P1a is defined by the feed roller 2, the intermediate roller pair 9, the conveying roller pair 3a, and the sheet discharging roller pair 3b... The conveying path for the cut sheet P2 is defined by the feed roller 2, the intermediate roller pair 9, the conveying roller pair 3a, and the sheet discharging roller pair 3b").
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al., US 20220203710 A1, modified by Komuro, 20140319760 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshino et al., US 20180272763 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi et al. does not disclose:
wherein the support surface has a first surface and a second surface which is relatively movable in the first direction with respect to the first surface,
in each of the first state and the second state of the second accommodating part, the first surface and the second surface overlap with each other in a direction orthogonal to the first surface, and
an overlap amount of the first surface and the second surface in a case of the second accommodating part being in the second state is greater than the overlap amount of the first surface and the second surface overlap in a case of the second accommodating part being in the first state.
However, Yoshino et al. teaches a discharge tray consisting of a first and second tray, in which the second tray is relatively movable with respect to the first tray in the first direction, being forwards and backwards (Paragraph 0023, "In this case, it is possible to have a configuration in which the second tray is advanced or retreated with respect to the first tray in a predetermined range"). Yoshino et al. also teaches that in each of the first state and the second state of the second accommodating part, the first surface and the second surface overlap with each other (Paragraph 0026, "In the recording apparatus, a distal end side of the first rack portion in the medium discharging direction and a rear end side of the second rack portion in the medium discharging direction overlap each other"). Furthermore, Yoshino et al. also teaches that the overlap amount of the first and second surface in the second state is greater than that of in the first state (Figures 1, 2, and 3, Items 11 and 12).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. to have that the second surface is movable with respect to the first surface in the first direction, that the two surfaces overlap, and that the overlapping region in the second state is larger than that of in the first state. This modification allows the tray to be compactly stored within the apparatus main body, while also allowing the tray to receive paper sheets which may have a longer length in the conveyance direction, as taught by Yoshino et al. (Paragraph 0003, "Also, in order to compactly store the medium receiving tray in an apparatus main body and to receive paper which is elongated in a discharging direction, a multistage type medium receiving tray including a plurality of trays overlapped in a storage state may be adopted"; Paragraph 0098, "The paper discharging tray 10 of the second development state (FIG. 3) is used when receiving the paper having a larger size (longer length) in the medium discharging direction than the paper discharging tray 10 in the first development state (FIG. 2)").
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi does not disclose:
a positioning member configured to position ends in the first direction of the plurality of sheets of the second sheet medium accommodated in the second accommodating part and configured to be moved in the first direction with respect to the first accommodating part,
wherein the second accommodating part is configured to be switched between the first state and the second state by moving the positioning member in the first direction with respect to the first accommodating part.
However, Komuro teaches that the drawer portion, which is drawn out from the storage portion to extend the sheet feeding cassette, is provided with an inner wall which may be configured to server as an edge guide for the ends of the sheets stored in the sheet feeding cassette, functioning as a positioning member (Paragraph 0069, "Note that the role of the drawer portion 23 is to increase the size of the sheets that can be stored in the storage portion 21; accordingly, the drawer portion 23 does not need to constitute the inner wall of the storage portion 21 and the drawer portion 23 may be configured in any way that serves as an edge guide that supports the rear end of the sheet, for example").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. to align the edges of the sheets of the second sheet medium in the second accommodating part with a positioning member, as taught by Komuro.
Furthermore, Yoshino et al. teaches that the positioning member, in this case being the most distal portion of the second surface, which is provided with a raised lip which retains the discharged paper sheets (Figure 2, Item 12), may be drawn and withdrawn in order to switch a discharge tray from the first state to the second state (Paragraph 0029, "In this case, it is possible to manually switch a state to the storage state and the development state of the medium receiving portion").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. such that the second accommodating part is configured to be switched between the first state and the second state by moving the positioning member to provide the user with means to manually change the state of the second accommodating part, as taught by Yoshino et al. (Paragraph 0029, "In this case, it is possible to manually switch a state to the storage state and the development state of the medium receiving portion").
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al., US 20220203710 A1, modified by Komuro, 20140319760 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawajiri, US 20230087880 A1.
Yamaguchi et al. does not disclose a support part which is configured to support the rolled first sheet medium and which is detachably attached with respect to the first accommodating part.
However, Kawajiri teaches a support member that supports the core body of a rolled medium which is detachable and thus can be removed from the accommodation section (Abstract, "A printing apparatus 10 includes support member 12 that supports a core body Ra of a roll medium R"; Paragraph 0123, "When the roll feeding shaft 12 detaches, the transport mechanism 17 and the feed drive mechanism 42 are stopped, and the no paper state is reported. Therefore, the user can take the roll feeding shaft 12 out from the accommodation section 11...").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. to include a support part supporting the rolled first sheet medium which is detachably attached with respect to the first accommodating part so as to support the rolled medium and to facilitate replacement, as taught by Kawajiri (Paragraph 0119, "Therefore, the user can take the roll feeding shaft 12 out from the accommodation section 11 and set a new roll paper R on the roll feeding shaft 12").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rami Alshoroogi whose telephone number is (571)272-8946. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571)431-0716. 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.
/RAMI A ALSHOROOGI/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853