DETAILED ACTION
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: “an engagement structure” and “a retractor” in claims 1, 19 and 21.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the attachment position" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 is rejected by dependency.
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) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (US Pub No. 2022/0334534 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Yamamoto discloses
a sheet tray (17) insertable into and removable from a body of an apparatus (15), the sheet tray having an engagement structure (179) that protrudes in a protruding direction (i.e. Y in Fig. 2) that intersects with an insertion direction (i.e. X in Fig. 2) of the sheet tray with respect to the body of the apparatus, is movable in an intersecting direction (i.e. has at least a component of movement in the Z direction in Fig. 2, Fig. 3) that intersects with both the insertion direction of the sheet tray and the protruding direction of the engagement structure, and is held by the sheet tray in a non-fixed manner (i.e. via 178 that rotates about 1781, [0263]);
a guide (2114) extending in the insertion direction (i.e. has at least a component of direction in the X direction) of the sheet tray to guide the engagement structure when the sheet tray is inserted into the body of the apparatus; and
a retractor (20, see [0067]) to retract the engagement structure in an engaged state in the insertion direction of the sheet tray toward a specified position in the guide (i.e. at the right end of 2215, Fig. 4),
wherein the protruding direction (Y) of the engagement structure intersects with the insertion direction (X) of the sheet tray with respect to the body of the apparatus and protrudes in a width direction of the sheet tray (Y in Fig. 2, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claims 20 and 22, Yamamoto discloses
An image forming apparatus (100) comprising the sheet feeding device according to claim 19/21.
Regarding Claim 21, Yamamoto discloses
a sheet tray (17) insertable into and removable from a body of an apparatus (15), the sheet tray having an engagement structure (179) that protrudes in a protruding direction (i.e. Y in Fig. 2) that intersects with an insertion direction (i.e. X in Fig. 2) of the sheet tray with respect to the body of the apparatus, is movable in an intersecting direction (i.e. has at least a component of movement in the Z direction in Fig. 2, Fig. 3) that intersects with both the insertion direction of the sheet tray and the protruding direction of the engagement structure, and is held by the sheet tray in a non-fixed manner (i.e. via 178 that rotates about 1781, [0263]);
a guide (2114) extending in the insertion direction (i.e. has at least a component of direction in the X direction) of the sheet tray to guide the engagement structure when the sheet tray is inserted into the body of the apparatus; and
a retractor (20, see [0067]) to retract the engagement structure in an engaged state in the insertion direction of the sheet tray toward a specified position in the guide (i.e. at the right end of 2215, Fig. 4),
wherein the engagement structure is held movable (i.e. has at least a component of movement in the Z direction in Fig. 2, Fig. 3) and in a non-fixed manner (i.e. via 178 that rotates about 1781, [0263]) with respect to the attachment position (1781) of the engagement structure of the sheet tray in a direction (i.e. has at least a component of movement in the Z direction in Fig. 2, Fig. 3) that intersects with the insertion direction (X) of the sheet tray and the protruding direction (Y) of the engagement structure. Also see the 112 2nd rejection above.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwase et al. (US Pub No. 2006/0180996 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Iwase et al. discloses
a sheet tray (6) insertable into and removable from a body (1) of an apparatus ([0028]), the sheet tray having an engagement structure (13) that protrudes in a protruding direction (i.e. vertical, Fig. 4) that intersects with an insertion direction (i.e. along 15, Fig. 3) of the sheet tray with respect to the body of the apparatus, is movable in an intersecting direction (i.e. parallel to ‘6’ in Fig. 9, due to its rotation, there is at least a component of movement in this direction) that intersects with both the insertion direction of the sheet tray and the protruding direction of the engagement structure, and is held by the sheet tray in a non-fixed manner (i.e. able to rotate);
a guide (23/24) extending in the insertion direction (i.e. linearly at least along 24a in Fig. 8) of the sheet tray to guide the engagement structure when the sheet tray is inserted into the body of the apparatus; and
a retractor (16) to retract the engagement structure in an engaged state in the insertion direction of the sheet tray toward a specified position (Fig. 8) in the guide ([0043]-[0045], Fig. 5-6, 8),
wherein the engagement structure is held movable (i.e. parallel to ‘6’ in Fig. 9, due to its rotation, there is at least a component of movement in this direction) and in a non-fixed manner (i.e. able to rotate) with respect to the attachment position (i.e. at 17 in Fig. 9) of the engagement structure of the sheet tray in a direction (i.e. parallel to ‘6’ in Fig. 9, due to its rotation, there is at least a component of movement in this direction) that intersects with the insertion direction (i.e. along 15, Fig. 3) of the sheet tray and the protruding direction (i.e. vertical, Fig. 4) of the engagement structure. Also see the 112 2nd rejection above.
Regarding Claim 22, Iwase et al. discloses
An image forming apparatus (i.e. image forming apparatus, [0029]) comprising the sheet feeding device according to claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-15, 17 and 18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior art of record shows a sheet tray to have a hole into which an insertion portion of an engagement pin/structure is inserted (Claims 1, 3-15, 17 and 18). Also see the 112(f) interpretation above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that “The term “retractor” is a structural term and does not use a nonce word”, it is noted that “retractor” remains a nonce word and no structure is recited. “Retraction” is merely a manner/direction of movement and does not impart any structure (i.e. an arm, spring, etc).
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding new Claim 19, Iwase et al. is not relied upon, rather Yamamoto is.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding new Claim 21, “the pin of Figure 4 is fixed to the mounting position of the pin retaining arm 14 so that the pin 13 does not move”, it is noted that the claim does not preclude this. An attachment position is not defined and it is not specified what the pin/structure must move in relation to. Therefore, the attachment position of Iwase et al. maybe be taken as that of arm 14 to 6.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am - 5:30pm.
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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 March 9, 2026