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 § 102
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 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.
2. Claims 1-3, 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0309296 (Taki et al.) (hereinafter “Taki”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figs. 1-18 show a stacking apparatus, comprising:
a stacking portion (t1) on which a sheet discharged by a discharge member (805) is to be stacked;
a tray (Ht) including a placement surface on which the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (t1) is to be placed, wherein the tray (Ht) is movable with respect to the stacking portion (t1); and
a holding portion (including 141-145 or wall labeled “V” in Fig. 14) configured to hold the tray (Ht) in a first state (position in Fig. 2) and in a second state (position in Fig. 8) in which the tray (Ht) is able to support the same sheet as the sheet on the stacking portion (t1),
wherein the placement surface of the tray (Ht) in the first state (position in Fig. 2) vertically oriented, or closer to being vertical oriented than the placement surface of the tray (Ht) in the second state (position in Fig. 8) on which the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (t1) is to be placed.
Regarding independent claim 14, Figs. 1-18 show a stacking apparatus, comprising:
a stacking portion (t1) on which a sheet discharged by a discharge member (805) is to be stacked;
a tray (Ht) including a placement surface on which the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (t1) is to be placed, wherein the tray (Ht) is movable with respect to the stacking portion (t1); and
a support portion (H) configured to support the tray (Ht) in a sliding-movable and rotatable manner,
wherein the tray (Ht) is slid and moved from a first state (position in Fig. 2), and then is rotated to be brought into a second state (position in Fig. 8) in which the tray (Ht) is able to support the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (t1), and
wherein the placement surface of the tray (Ht) in the first state (position in Fig. 2) is vertically oriented, or closer to being vertically oriented than the placement surface of the tray (Ht) in the second state (position in Fig. 8).
Regarding independent claim 20, Figs. 1-18 show an image forming apparatus (P) comprising:
an image forming portion (numbered paragraph [0010]) configured to form an image on a sheet; and
a stacking apparatus (including t1, Ht and 131-145) including:
a stacking portion (t1) on which the sheet, on which the image is formed by the image forming portion (numbered paragraph [0010]) and which is discharged by a discharge member (805), is to be stacked;
a tray (Ht) including a placement surface on which the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (t1) is to be placed, wherein the tray (Ht) is movable with respect to the stacking portion (t1); and
a holding portion (including 141-145) configured to hold the tray (Ht) in a first state (position in Fig. 2) and in a second state (position in Fig. 8) in which the tray (Ht) is able to support the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (t1),
wherein the placement surface of the tray (Ht) in the first state (position in Fig. 2) is vertically oriented, or closer to being vertically oriented than the placement surface of the tray (Ht) in the second state (position in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 1-18 show that the tray (Ht) is configured to be slidingly-movable and rotatable with respect to the holding portion (wall labeled “V”).
Regarding claim 3, Figs. 1-18 show that the tray (Ht) is slid and moved out of the holding portion (wall labeled “V”) from the first state (position in Fig. 2) in which the tray (Ht) has been stored in the holding portion (wall labeled “V”), and then the tray (Ht) is rotated to be brought into the second state (position in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 15, Figs. 1-18 show a holding portion (including 141-145) that is provided with the support portion (H) and is configured to store the tray (Ht) in the first state (position in Fig. 2).
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.
3. Claims 5, 7, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taki. With regard to claims 5 and 17, Figs. 1-15 of Taki show that the holding portion (including 141-145) is configured to be mountable to an image forming apparatus (P) including an image forming portion (numbered paragraph [0010]), the stacking portion (t1) is provided within a discharge space included in a body (body of P in Fig. 6) of the image forming apparatus (P), and a sheet, on which an image is formed by the image forming portion (P), is to be stacked on the stacking portion (t1), the holding portion (including 141-145) includes:
a joint portion (144) configured to couple a placement surface of the stacking portion (t1) and the placement surface of the tray (Ht) to each other; and
a mounting portion (143) configured to mount the holding portion (including 131-145) to the image forming apparatus (P), and
the joint portion (144) and the mounting portion (143) are mounted to the holding portion (H). Taki shows that the joint portion (144) and the mounting portion (143) are mounted to the holding portion (H), but Taki does not explicitly teach that the joint portion (144) and the mounting portion (143) are removably mounted, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the joint portion (144) and the mounting portion (143) removably mounted to the holding portion (H), since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access (e.g., removable to allow for repair), it would be obvious to make the joint portion, the mounting portion, and holding portion removable for that purpose. See, e.g., “Making Separable” in MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 1-15 show the holding portion (including 141-145), but do not explicitly show that the holding portion (including 141-145) is removably mountable to the image forming apparatus (P), as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the holding portion (including 141-145) removably mounted to the image forming apparatus (P), since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access (e.g., removable to allow for repair), it would be obvious to make the holding portion (including 141-145) removable for that purpose. See, e.g., “Making Separable” in MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Figs. 1-15 show that the placement surface of the stacking portion (t1), the joint portion (144), and the placement surface of the tray (Ht) form a surface on which the sheet is to be placed, and the surface has a length in a conveying direction for the sheet, but Taki does not show that this length is equal to or larger than 600 mm, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the length equal to or larger than 600mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. Absent any criticality whatsoever for the length, making the length 600mm or larger involves only routine skill in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the length 600mm or larger, e.g., to accommodate long sheets.
4. Claims 1-3, 8-12, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0204253 (Mae et al.) (hereinafter “Mae”) in view of Japanese Publication No. 9-319171 (hereinafter “JP’171”) (cited in the 9/5/24 IDS).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figs. 1-6 of Mae show a stacking apparatus, comprising:
a stacking portion (102) on which a sheet discharged by a discharge member (numbered paragraph [0056]) is to be stacked;
a tray (100) including a placement surface on which the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (102) is to be placed, wherein the tray (100) is movable with respect to the stacking portion (102); and a holding portion (106) configured to hold the tray (100) in a first state (pivoted up) and in a second state (pivoted down) in which the tray (100) is able to support the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (102). See, e.g., Fig. 3 of Mae, which shows the same sheet P on tray (100) and stacking portion (102). Mae teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the tray (100), but does not show that the placement surface of the tray (100) in the first state is in a state of a vertical, or in a state closer to the vertical than the placement surface of the tray in the second state, as claimed.
JP’171 shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a stacking apparatus (Fig. 2) with a tray (including 9), wherein the tray (including 9) is movable; and a holding portion (including 11) configured to hold the tray (including 9) in a first state (pivoted up) and in a second state (pivoted down) in which the tray (including 9) is able to support the sheet, wherein a placement surface of the tray (including 9) in the first state (pivoted up) is vertically oriented, or closer to being vertically oriented than the placement surface of the tray (including 9) in the second state (pivoted down), as claimed. Because both JP’171 and Mae teach tray arrangements for stacking sheets, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the tray arrangement of JP’171 for the tray arrangement of Mae to achieve the predictable result of stacking sheets. Since Fig. 3 of Mae already shows the same sheet P on tray (100) and stacking portion (102) with the placement surface of the tray (100) in a second state, this same arrangement would result from modifying Mae according to the teachings of JP’171. As such, Mae in view of JP’171 results in the placement surface of the tray in the first state being vertically oriented, or closer to being vertical oriented than the placement surface of the tray in the second state on which the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion is to be placed, as claimed.
Regarding independent claim 14, Figs. 1-6 of Mae show a stacking apparatus, comprising:
a stacking portion (102) on which a sheet discharged by a discharge member (numbered paragraph [0056]) is to be stacked;
a tray (100) including a placement surface on which the same sheet (P) as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (102) is to be placed, wherein the tray (100) is movable with respect to the stacking portion (102); and a support portion (106) configured to support the tray (100) in a sliding-movable and rotatable manner, wherein the tray (100) is slid and moved from a first state (pivoted up) into a second state (pivoted down) in which the tray (100) is able to support the same sheet (P) as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (102). See, e.g., Fig. 3 of Mae, which shows the same sheet P on tray (100) and stacking portion (102). Mae teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the tray (100) and the support portion (106), but Mae does not show that the placement surface of the tray (100) in the first state is vertically oriented, or closer to being vertically oriented than the placement surface of the tray (100) in the second state, as claimed.
JP’171 shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a stacking apparatus (Fig. 2) with a tray (including 9), wherein the tray (including 9) is movable; and a support portion (including 12-13) configured to support the tray (including 9) in a slidingly-movable and rotatable manner, wherein the tray (including 9) is slid and moved from a first state (pivoted up), and then is rotated to be brought into a second state (pivoted down) in which the tray (including 9) is able to support the sheet, and wherein the placement surface of the tray (including 9) in the first state is vertically oriented, or closer to being vertically oriented than the placement surface of the tray in the second state (pivoted down). Because both JP’171 and Mae teach tray arrangements for stacking sheets, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the tray arrangement of JP’171 for the tray arrangement of Mae to achieve the predictable result of stacking sheets. Since Fig. 3 of Mae already shows the same sheet (P) on tray (100) and stacking portion (102) with the placement surface of the tray (100) in a second state, this same arrangement would result from modifying Mae according to the teachings of JP’171. As such, Mae in view of JP’171 results in the tray being slid and moved from the first state, and then is rotated to be brought into the second state in which the tray is able to support the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion, as claimed.
Regarding independent claim 20, Figs. 1-6 of Mae show an image forming apparatus comprising:
an image forming portion (including 10) configured to form an image on a sheet; and
a stacking apparatus (including 102 and 100) including:
a stacking portion (102) on which the sheet, on which the image is formed by the image forming portion (including 10) and which is discharged by a discharge member (numbered paragraph [0056]), is to be stacked;
a tray (100) including a placement surface on which the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (102) is to be placed, wherein the tray (100) is movable with respect to the stacking portion (102); and
a holding portion (106) configured to hold the tray (100) in a first state and in a second state in which the tray (100) is able to support the same sheet (P) as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (102). See, e.g., Fig. 3 of Mae, which shows the same sheet P on tray (100) and stacking portion (102). Mae teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the tray (100) and the support portion (106), but Mae does not show that the placement surface of the tray (100) in the first state is vertically oriented, or closer to being vertically oriented than the placement surface of the tray (100) in the second state, as claimed.
JP’171 shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a stacking apparatus (Fig. 2) with a tray (including 9) including a placement surface, wherein the tray (including 9) is movable; and a holding portion (including 12-13) configured to hold the tray (including 9) in a in a first state (pivoted up) and in a second state (pivoted down) in which the tray (including 9) is able to support the sheet, and wherein the placement surface of the tray (including 9) in the first state (pivoted up) is vertically oriented, or closer to being vertically oriented than the placement surface of the tray in the second state (pivoted down). Because both JP’171 and Mae teach tray arrangements for stacking sheets, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the tray arrangement of JP’171 for the tray arrangement of Mae to achieve the predictable result of stacking sheets. Since Fig. 3 of Mae already shows the same sheet (P) on tray (100) and stacking portion (102) with the placement surface of the tray (100) in a second state, this same arrangement would result from modifying Mae according to the teachings of JP’171.
Regarding claim 2, Figs. 1-3 of JP’171 show that the tray (including 9) is configured to be slidingly-movable and rotatable with respect to the holding portion (including 12-13).
Regarding claim 3, Figs. 1-3 of JP’171 show that the tray (including 9) is slid and moved out of the holding portion (including 12-13) from the first state (pivoted up) in which the tray (including 9) has been stored in the holding portion (including 12-13), and then the tray (including 9) is rotated to be brought into the second state (pivoted down).
Regarding claim 9, Figs. 1-3 of JP’171 show that, when the tray (including 9) is in the first state (pivoted up), the first engaging portion (lower portion of element 12) comes into abutment against a lower end portion of the guide portion (13).
Regarding claim 10, Figs. 1-3 of JP’171 show that, when the tray (including 9) is in the first state (pivoted up), the first engaging portion (upper portion of element 12) and the second engaging portion (lower portion of element 12) are held by the guide portion (13) so as to prevent the tray (including 9) from rotating.
Regarding claim 11, Figs. 1-3 of JP’171 show that, when the tray (including 9) is slid and moved upward from the first state (pivoted up) and the second engaging portion (lower portion of element 12) is positioned at an upper end portion of the guide portion (13), the tray (including 9) becomes rotatable about the second engaging portion (lower portion of element 12) so as to be brought into the second state (pivoted down).
Regarding claim 12, Figs. 1-3 of JP’171 show that, when the tray (including 9) is in the second state (pivoted down), the first engaging portion (upper portion of element 12) is arranged upstream of the second engaging portion (lower portion of element 12) in the discharging direction, and the first engaging portion (upper portion of element 12) is held in abutment against the holding portion (including 11-13) so that the second state (pivoted down) is kept.
Regarding claim 15, Figs. 1-3 of JP’171 show a holding portion (11) that is provided with the support portion (including 12-13) and is configured to store the tray (including 9) in the first state (pivoted up).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Figs. 1-3 of JP’171 show that the tray (including 9) includes a first engaging portion (upper portion of element 12) and a second engaging portion (lower portion of element 12) provided on a side portion of the tray (including 9) in a width direction orthogonal to a direction of discharging the sheet discharged by a discharge member (including 8), and the first engaging portion (upper portion of element 12) and the second engaging portion (lower portion of element 12) are configured to engage with a guide portion (13), which is provided in the holding portion (including 11), so that the tray (including 9) is sliding-movable with respect to the holding portion (including 11).
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mae in view of JP’171 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese Publication No. 2006-21862 (hereinafter “JP’862”). With regard to claim 4, JP’171 shows the holding portion (including 11), but does not show that the holding portion (including 11) includes an inclined bottom surface, and an opening is included in a lower end portion of the inclined bottom surface.
JP’862 shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a holding portion (including 16 and 17) that holds a tray (16a), in which the holding portion (including 16 and 17) has an inclined bottom surface (17), and an opening is included in a lower end portion of the inclined bottom surface (17). The inclined bottom surface (17) has a handle (17a) that allows the inclined bottom surface (17) to open up, thereby forming an opening, for the purpose of allowing access to the inside of the holding portion (including 16 and 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the holding portion with an inclined bottom portion that has an opening, for the purpose of allowing access to the inside of the holding portion, as shown in JP’862.
6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mae in JP’171 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0167349 (Niimura) (hereinafter “Niimura”). Mae in view of JP’171 teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the first and second engaging portions (upper and lower portions of element 12 of JP’171), but Mae and JP’171 do not teach that the first engaging portion and the second engaging portion are provided on each side portion of the tray in the width direction, as claimed.
Niimura shows that it is common in the art to provide first and second engaging portions (upper and lower portions of element 211a) on each side portion (opposite ends) of a tray (211) in a width direction to allow both ends of the tray (211) to be supported while rotating and sliding in slot arrangements (including 212a and 212b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the first and second engaging portions (upper and lower portions of element 12 of JP’171) on each side portion (opposite ends) of the tray (11 in JP’171) for the purpose of allowing both ends of the tray (11) to be supported while rotating and sliding in slots (13 in JP’171) on the opposite sides, as taught by Niimura.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues
Notable features of independent claims 1, 14, and 20 include:
(A) a stacking portion (e.g., 21) on which a sheet discharged by a discharge member (e.g., 20) is to be stacked;
(B) a tray (e.g., 120) including a placement surface (e.g., 123a) on which the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion is to be placed, wherein the tray is movable with respect to the stacking portion;
(C) a holding portion (e.g., 121) configured to hold the tray in a first state and in a second state in which the tray is able to support the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion; and
(B) (1) wherein the placement surface of the tray in the first state is vertically
oriented, or closer to being vertical oriented than the placement surface of the tray in the second state on which the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking
portion is to be placed.
Applicant submits that the applied references would not have disclosed or taught the arrangement set forth in the claimed features (A)-C) above.
Taki disclose a first discharge tray t1, a second discharge tray t2, and a holding unit H that can be positioned in a receiving position (on top of the first discharge tray) where a sheet discharged by a roller 805 is received and in a retracted position (away from the first discharge tray to avoid abutting with a discharged sheet). In the receiving position, the discharged sheet is fed directly to the holding unit H. Taki's holding unit does not receive or support the same sheet discharged to the first discharge tray 1 (or the second discharge tray 2). As Taki's holding unit H cannot support the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the first or second discharge tray t1, t2, Taki would not have disclosed or taught at least the claimed features (B)-(C) above.
In the present development, the tray and the stacking portion together can support the same sheet, namely a long sheet. Taki's holding unit H is configured to hold the sheet on its own, without the same sheet being also supported by the first or second discharge tray.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. Taki teaches a tray (Ht) including a placement surface on which a same sheet as a sheet stacked on a stacking portion (t1) is to be placed, wherein the tray (Ht) is movable with respect to the stacking portion (t1); and
a holding portion (including 141-145 or wall labeled “V” in Fig. 14) configured to hold the tray (Ht) in a first state (position in Fig. 2) and in a second state (position in Fig. 8) in which the tray (Ht) is able to support the same sheet as the sheet on the stacking portion (t1),
wherein the placement surface of the tray (Ht) in the first state (position in Fig. 2) vertically oriented, or closer to being vertical oriented than the placement surface of the tray (Ht) in the second state (position in Fig. 8) on which the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (t1) is to be placed.
With regard to the tray (Ht) including the placement surface on which the same sheet as the sheet stacked on the stacking portion (t1), Figs. 14 and 18 show stacking portion (t1), elements 143-145 that pivotably support tray (Ht), and a discharge port (Q1). Figures 14 and 15 clarify that pivot element 144 is on a left end of element 143 and element 145 is on a right end of element 143. When element 143 is slid all the way to the right, as shown in Fig. 15, tray (Ht) is in the second position and is attached at element 144 located away from discharge port (Q1). Also, Figs. 14 and 18 clarify that elements 143-145 slide along grooves (142) and that stacking portion (t1) is exposed between left and right ends and front and back ends of element 143. Since tray (Ht) is away from discharge port (Q1) and stacking portion (t1) is exposed when tray (Ht) is in the second position, any sheet ejected from discharge port (Q1) contacts the exposed stacking portion (t1) and also is placed on the placement surface of tray (Ht). As such, all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 14 and 20 are met by Taki.
Next, applicant argues
First, applicant notes that Mae's cover 102 in the embodiment of Figs. 5a-5c at best would correspond to the claimed stacking portion rather than the claimed tray. That is, as shown in Mae's Fig. 5b and set forth in 61, the cover 102 is disposed so that the paper inlet port 101 faces the ejection port 29 of the image forming apparatus 1. Thus, the cover receives the sheet discharged from the ejection port 29 rather than being discharged to a stacking portion. Mae has no corresponding stacking portion on which the sheet is discharged from the ejection portion 29. Accordingly, Mae would not have disclosed or taught the claimed features (A)-(C).
In response to applicant’s argument that element 102 of Mae would correspond to the claimed stacking portion rather than the claimed tray, the examiner agrees with this argument. The examiner relies upon element 102 for the claimed stacking portion and elements 106 and 100 for a holding portion and tray in the rejection above. JP’171 is then relied upon to provide a teaching for modifying the Mae apparatus to include a holding portion and a tray that allows the tray to move between first and second positions, as claimed.
Next, applicant argues
Second, the embodiment of Fig. 1 shows Mae's cover 102 including a puncher unit 111, a folder unit 112, and a stapler unit 113. If Mae's cover 102, which is pivotable about the pin 106 as shown in Fig. 5b in the embodiment of Figs. 5a-5c, were to include such puncher unit, folder unit, and the stapler unit, applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not even have contemplated positioning such a complex/bulky cover 102 in the vertical position as disclosed in lijima. Indeed, as shown in Figs. 5b-5c, Mae's cover 102 merely pivots down by a small amount to discharge the sheets over the cover 102 relative to a non-pivot position in which the sheet is fed through the cover 102. But the cover is not configured to pivot 90 degrees or to a vertical position.
In contrast, lijima's tray is a simple device that can be easily moved by a person. In this respect, applicant submits that the combination urged by the examiner would not have been tenable and would not have led to the claimed feature (B)(1).
The examiner disagrees with these arguments. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Mae is not relied upon to teach a holding member and tray that moves between a first vertical position and a second non-vertical position, as claimed. Mae is relied upon to teach a holding portion and a tray, and then JP’147 is relied upon to provide a teaching for modifying the Mae apparatus to include a holding portion and a tray arrangement that allows the tray to move between a vertical position and a non-vertical position, as claimed. The combination simply replaces one well-known holding portion and tray arrangement with another well-known holding portion and tray arrangement. Also, Fig. 3 of Mae shows that the holding portion (102) holds the tray (100) in a non-vertical orientation (second state) such that the tray (100) supports the same sheet (P) as the sheet (P) stacked on the stacking portion (102). Figure 3 shows that the same sheet (P) extends over both holding portion (102) and tray (100). This same support arrangement would occur on the apparatus of Mae in view of JP’147, according to the teachings of Fig. 3 of Mae. All of the limitations of independent claims 1, 14 and 20 are met by Mae in view of JP’147.
The rejections of the dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 are also outlined above.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
9. 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