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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Publication No. 2008-110845 (hereinafter “JP’845”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0026134 (Tsuru) (hereinafter “Tsuru”) (both references of record).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-7 of JP’845 show a medium discharge device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a discharged-medium placement unit (27) including a placement surface (upper surface of 27);
a discharge roller pair (24A and 24B) that discharge a medium so as to be placed on the placement surface (upper surface of 27), the discharge roller pair (24A and 24B) being a final roller pair to contact the medium being placed on the placement surface (upper surface of 27); and
wherein the discharge roller pair (24A and 24B) is configured to change a discharge angle at which the medium is discharged from the discharge roller pair (24A and 24B),
the discharged-medium placement unit (27) is configured to change a placement angle of the placement surface (upper surface of 27) in the discharge direction. JP’845 teaches all of the limitations of this claim, except for the medium discharge device (Fig. 1) being configured such that at least one of the discharge angle and the placement angle is changed in accordance with a discharge speed of the medium being discharged from the discharge roller pair, as claimed.
Tsuru shows that it is well-known in the art to change a discharge angle (theta = d1 or d2) of a discharge roller pair (31A and 31B) in accordance with a discharge speed of a medium being discharged from the discharge roller pair (31A and 31B), for the purpose of limiting scratching of sheets. See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0014] and [0086] – [0100]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the angle of discharge roller pair (24A and 24B) of JP’845 in accordance with the discharge speed of the medium discharged from the discharge roller pair (24A and 24B), for the purpose of limiting scratching of sheets, as taught by Tsuru.
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 5 of JP’845 shows a discharge angle change unit (including 34-42) configured to change the discharge angle, wherein the discharge angle change unit (including 34-42) moves a second roller (24B) with respect to a first roller (24A) along a circumferential surface of the first roller (24A) to change a nipping position between the first roller (24A) and the second roller (24B), the first roller (24A) being one of the discharge roller pair (24A and 24B), the second roller (24B) being the other one thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Figs. 4(b) of JP’845 shows a placement angle change unit (including 32 and 33) configured to change the placement angle, wherein the placement angle change unit (including 32 and 33) configured to move a downstream end of the placement surface (upper surface of 27) vertically with respect to an upstream end of the placement surface (upper surface of 27).
Regarding claim 4, Figs. 1-4 of JP’845 show that the discharge angle and the placement angle are changed by a single driving unit (including 32, 32 and 41).
Regarding claim 5, Figs. 1-7 of JP’845 show a medium discharge device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a discharge angle change unit (including 34-40) configured to change the discharge angle;
a placement angle change unit (including 33) configured to change the placement angle;
a first driving unit (41 and 42) configured to drive the discharge angle change unit (including 34-40);
a second driving unit (32) configured to drive the placement angle change unit (including 33); and
a control unit (including 43), wherein
the control unit (including 43) is configured to use first data (paper size and paper type) to drive the first driving unit (including 41 and 42) to change the discharge angle based on the first data, use second data (paper size and paper type) to drive the second driving unit (32) to change the placement angle based on the second data, and use third data (paper size and paper type) to change the discharge angle and the placement angle, based on the third data. JP’845 teaches most of the limitations of claim 5, but does not teach that the first data is set as an appropriate range of the discharge angle with respect to the discharge speed of the medium, the second data is set as an appropriate range of the placement angle with respect to the discharge speed of the medium, and the third data is set as an appropriate range of the discharge angle and the placement angle with respect to the discharge speed of the medium, as claimed.
Tsuru shows that it is well-known in the art to utilize data in the form of sheet discharge speed to control the angular change between a discharge roller pair (31A and 31B) and a discharged-medium placement unit (32B) for the purpose of limiting scratching of sheets. See, e.g., numbered paragraphs [0086] – [0100]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize first, second and third data in the form of sheet discharge speed to control the discharge angle and the placement angle on the apparatus of JP’845, for the purpose of limiting scratching of sheets, as taught by Tsuru.
Regarding claim 6, numbered paragraph [0086] of Tsuru teaches that it is well-known in the art to have at least a discharge angle (theta = d1 or d2) changed in accordance with a basis weight of the basis weight of a medium, for the purpose of limiting scratching of sheets. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the discharge angle of the discharge roller pair (24A and 24B) of JP’845 in accordance with basis weight, for the purpose of limiting scratching of sheets, as taught by Tsuru.
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’845 in view of Tsuru as applied claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0127447 (Hammen) (hereinafter “Hammen”). JP’845 in view of Tsuru teaches an image reading apparatus comprising: the medium discharge device according to claim 1, but does not teach a reading unit being positioned upstream of the medium discharge device and being configured to read the medium being transported, as claimed.
Hammen shows that it is common in the art to utlize a discharge roller pair (22) that is placed at a specific angle with respect to a discharged-medium placement unit (16) in a scanning apparatus (10) that has a reading unit (32) positioned upstream of a medium discharge device (including 28 and 22) and being configured to read the medium being transported. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the variable angle discharge roller pair and discharged-medium placement unit arrangement of JP’845 in view of Tsuru in a scanning apparatus, because Hammen shows that it is common in the art utilize an angled discharge roller pair and discharged-medium placement unit arrangement in a scanner apparatus.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant makes the following argument with regard to the Tsuru reference:
In Figures 3, the rollers of Figures 1A through 1B are represented by the green circles. Notice that these rollers are not the blue discharge rollers. Thus, it is the angle of the internal green rollers (and not the discharge rollers) that are changed in order to reduce scratching of the media.
In contrast, the structure of Claim 1 changes the angle to affect how the discharged media align on the discharge placement tray, a completely different reason for changing the angle of the rollers. It does not appear that Tsuru teaches changing angles of the discharge rollers pair 15 for any reason. In case there is doubt as to what can be considered “discharge” rollers, Claim 1 is amended to recite that the discharge roller pair is “a final roller pair to contact the medium being placed on the placement surface”. Again, there is no teaching that the discharge roller pair 15 of Tsuru teaches that the discharge angle is changed in accordance with a discharge speed. Hammen also does not teach this
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). Applicant initially focuses arguments on the secondary Tsuru reference by saying that this reference does not teach discharge rollers that change angle according to the discharge speed of the medium being discharged. Applicant then makes an argument that a third reference (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0127447 (Hammen)) also does not teach this limitation. However, applicant did not consider the combination of JP’845 in view of Tsuru to teach all of the limitations of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6, as outlined above. Moreover, the third reference (Hammen) is not even relied upon for the rejections of claims 1-6. Rather, Hammen is relied upon to teach limitations in dependent claim 7.
The primary reference JP’845 is relied upon to teach a discharge roller pair (24A and 24B) that discharges a medium so as to be placed on a placement surface (upper surface of 27), with the discharge roller pair (24A and 24B) being a final roller pair to contact the medium being placed on the placement surface (upper surface of 27).
Then, the secondary Tsuru reference provides a general teaching that it is well-known in the art to change an angle (theta = d1 or d2) of a roller pair (31A and 31B) in accordance with a speed of a medium. The secondary Tsuru reference is not even required to teach a discharge roller pair at all, because the primary JP’845 reference already teaches the claimed discharge roller pair. In any event, the secondary Tsuru reference does teach a discharge roller pair that changes angles in accordance with a discharge speed of a medium. In particular, numbered paragraph [0068] of Tsuru explains that a “sheet conveyance unit” is an ADU and then Fig. 3 of Tsuru shows a dotted-line area labeled “ADU”. Figures 3 and 5 of Tsuru also show that the roller pair (31A and 31B) is a discharge roller pair for the ADU, because roller pair (31A and 31B) is a final roller pair to contact a medium discharged from the ADU dotted-line area. While another roller pair (151) is also shown in Fig. 3, this roller pair is outside of the ADU away from the medium already discharged from the ADU in the dotted-line area in Fig. 3. JP’845 in view of Tsuru teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as now amended.
The rejections of dependent claims 2-7 are also outlined above.
Conclusion
5. 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.
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