Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/908,624

MEDIUM EJECTING APPARATUS INCLUDING MEDIUM REGULATING MEMBER PROVIDED SO AS TO SWING AND PIVOT

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 07, 2024
Examiner
SANDERS, HOWARD J
Art Unit
3653
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Pfu Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
692 granted / 857 resolved
+28.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
893
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
37.7%
-2.3% vs TC avg
§102
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§112
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 857 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 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 3, 5, and 8 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 3 recites the limitations "the engaging portions," “the holding member,” and “the engaged portions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the engaging portions." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the holding member." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. As best understood, claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi US 5,260,759 (“Kobayashi”). Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi disclosed a medium ejecting apparatus comprising: a housing (7); an ejection roller (25) to eject a medium; a tray (27) to load the medium ejected by the ejection roller; and a medium regulating member (32) provided with a load pressing portion (39) on a front-end side thereof to apply a load to the medium ejected on the tray; wherein the medium regulating member is accommodated in the housing (seen in Figure 1 in solid) and can be drawn out (seen in Figure 1 in phantom), and wherein at least a part of the front-end is exposed from the housing to be gripped, in a state where the medium regulating member is accommodated in the housing (as seen in Figure 1). Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi disclosed a holding member (31), wherein the medium regulating member is provided with an engaging portion (40) on a base portion side opposite to the front-end portion, wherein the holding member is provided with an engaged portion (41) to engage with the engaging portion, and wherein the holding member holds the medium regulating member in such a way that the medium regulating member can swing in a vertical direction with respect to an upper surface of the tray (see Figure 1), and pivot along a rotation axis in a direction from the base side toward the front-end portion side, according to the ejection of the medium (see at least Figure 2A and the first full paragraph of column 5). Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi disclosed the medium regulating member is provided with two of the load pressing portions (39) located apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to a medium ejecting direction (Figure 2A). Regarding claim 6, a distance between the two of the load pressing portions is less than the minimum medium width supported by the medium ejecting apparatus (Figure 2A). Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi disclosed the holding member is accommodated in the housing (Figures 1 and 2A) and is capable of being drawn out or removed. 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of JP 2011235970 (“JP ‘970”). Kobayashi disclosed the limitations of claim 1 but did not teach a rib as claimed. JP ‘970 teaches a tray that includes a rib (52) extending in a medium ejecting direction, to contact a load pressing portion (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of JP ‘970 within Kobayashi in order to correct sheet curl. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 07, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 03, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600586
DOCUMENT SHEET CONVEYING DEVICE, IMAGE READING APPARATUS, AND MULTIFUNCTION PERIPHERAL CAPABLE OF HOUSING DISCHARGE TRAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600588
DOCUMENT CONVEYING APPARATUS CAPABLE OF CORRECTING DOCUMENT SKEW
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12570488
PAPER FEED SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570492
PAPER FEED ROLL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565393
SHEET CONVEYING DEVICE, AUTOMATIC DOCUMENT FEEDER, AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+8.0%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 857 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month