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 4/15/26 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, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Stemmle US 5,201,517 (“Stemmle”).
Regarding claim 1, Stemmle disclosed a media ejecting apparatus comprising:
an ejection roller (25) to eject a medium;
a first ejection tray (14) located below the ejection roller;
a second ejection tray (17) located above the ejection roller;
a guide (including one roller 27 seen in Figure 3) located in a vicinity of the ejection roller and rotatable around a rotation shaft of the ejection roller between a first position to guide the medium ejected by the ejection roller toward the first ejection tray and a second position to guide the medium ejected by the ejection roller toward the second ejection tray (see Figure 1);
a driving mechanism including a motor (M2) to move the guide between the first position and the second position; and
control circuitry (including 22) configured to control the driving mechanism,
wherein a guide surface is spaced apart from a surface of the ejection roller (at least the thickness of the sheet and at times the full diameter of the roller 27 as it rotates), and
wherein the guide when located at the second position guides the medium in a space between the ejection roller and the guide to the second ejection tray (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Stemmle disclosed another motor (M1) to drive the ejection roller.
Regarding claim 5, Stemmle disclosed an assist roller (another of rollers 27 seen in Figure 3) located above the ejection roller and facing the ejection roller, wherein the assist roller assists the ejection roller in ejecting the medium to the second ejection tray (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Stemmle disclosed an imaging device (10); and a sensor (50) located upstream from the imaging device in a media conveyance direction, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: determine whether the medium conveyed is a separator medium based on an output signal from the sensor; and control the driving mechanism to change a position of the guide based on a determination indicating whether the medium conveyed is the separator medium (see at least col. 1, line 46 – col. 2, line 3; and col. 5, lines 49-54).
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) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemmle in view of Weijers US 5,924,688 (“Weijers”). Stemmle disclosed the limitations of claim 1 as listed above and further that the guide includes a guide rotation shaft (26), and that the driving mechanism further drives the ejection roller (see col. 9, lines 5-15), but does not teach using an interrupter as claimed.
Weijers teaches an interrupter located between a guide (3) and rotation shaft (5) of the guide, and the interrupter interrupts a driving force generated from a motor and transmitted to the rotation shaft of the guide for a predetermined period of time (Figures 1-4). The rotation shaft of the guide includes a protrusion (20), the interrupter includes a cam (10) fixed to the guide, the cam includes a space for the protrusion to rotate and a contact portion (13) located in the space, and the interrupter further interrupts the driving force generated from the motor and transmitted to the rotation shaft of the ejection roller until the protrusion rotates to contact the contact portion in the space (Figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an interrupter arrangement between the guide and the guide rotation shaft as a well-known way to mechanically cause a timing delay to ensure proper timing for directional changes when varying sheet destinations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Stemmle failed to teach a guide surface spaced from a surface of the ejection roller. The Examiner disagrees. Stemmle teaches the sheet itself to be situated between the guide surface of 27 and the surface of the ejection roller 25. Accordingly, the two surfaces are spaced from one another at least the thickness of the sheet. Accordingly, the rejections are considered proper.
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