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 Interpretation
The Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “an internal storage space for storing a paper leaf-shaped medium” and claim 12 recites “a conveyance section that conveys a medium having a sheet-like shape.” The Examiner understands “a paper leaf-shaped medium” and “a medium having a sheet-like shape” to both indicate the same sort of article to be stored. Specifically, it is understood as a thin flexible paper article.
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.
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: a first restriction member and a second restriction member both first appearing in claim 1. They are seen illustrated in at least Figure 5.
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 § 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) 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berendes US 2020/0364965 (“Berendes”).
Regarding claim 1, Berendes disclosed a medium storage comprising:
a casing (10) including an internal storage space for storing a paper leaf-shaped medium in a state stacked along a stacking direction;
a discharge section (at 38) for discharging the medium into the storage space;
a partition plate (52) that partitions an interior of the storage space into a first storage space at a first side thereof, the first side being a side opposite to the stacking direction, and a second storage space at a second side, which is a side of the stacking direction (see Figure 4), the partition plate being provided with a placement location for placing the medium on a placement face that is a surface on the second side thereof (see at least Figure 5);
a partition plate displacement section that displaces the partition plate between a first position (Figure 5) that causes the medium discharged from the discharge section to progress into the first storage space, and a second position (Figure 4) that is positioned further toward the first side than the first position and that causes the medium discharged from the discharge section to progress into the second storage space;
a rotating member (62) that includes one or more resiliently deformable resilient member (56, 58, 60) extending in a direction away from a center axis disposed along a width direction orthogonal to the stacking direction, and that rotates about the center axis so as to assist stacking of the medium discharged into the storage space;
a first restriction member (see the middle portion of the fingers 54 extending from element 52 and seen indicated in Figures 4 and 5) that is provided at the first side of the partition plate on the discharge section side of the placement location, and that restricts a movement range toward the discharge section side of the medium placed on the placement location; and
a second restriction member (see the end portion of the fingers 54 opposite to element 52 and adjacent to the discharge nip seen in Figures 4 and 5) that is provided at the first side of the partition plate further toward the discharge section side than the first restriction member, and that restricts a movement range toward the discharge section side of the medium placed on the placement location.
Regarding claim 2, Berendes disclosed the second restriction member is provided at a position separated in the stacking direction from the placement face, or from a plane that is a hypothetical extension of the placement face (see at least Figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Berendes disclosed the discharge section includes a pair of rollers (64, 65) that are each rotatable and are arranged so as to be adjacent to each other substantially along the stacking direction, and discharges the medium from between the pair of rollers as they are rotated; and
the second restriction member is positioned such that, in a state in which the partition plate has been displaced to the second position, an end portion on the second side of the second restriction member is positioned further toward the first side than a hypothetical plane tangential to the roller positioned at the first side and passing through an end portion on the second side of the first restriction member (as seen in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Berendes disclosed an angle formed between a first restriction surface that is the surface on the placement location side of the first restriction member and the placement face is greater than 90⁰ (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Berendes disclosed an angle formed between a plane of a hypothetical extension of a second restriction surface that is a surface on the placement location side of the second restriction member and a plane of a hypothetical extension of the placement face is less than 90° (seen in Figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Berendes disclosed a second restriction surface that is a surface on the placement location side of the second restriction member is formed along the stacking direction in a state in which the partition plate has been displaced to the second position (see the surface of 54 in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Berendes disclosed a position of the second restriction member in relation to the width direction is determined so as to limit a range of movement of the medium placed on the placement face of the partition plate to a range in which the medium does not interfere with the casing during the partition plate being displaced from the second position to the first position (as seen in at least Figures 3-5).
Regarding claim 9, Berendes disclosed in cases in which the partition plate is displaced to the first position, the partition plate displacement section positions the partition plate further to the second side than an imaginary line that the medium discharged from the discharge section to be progress along (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Berendes disclosed the partition plate displacement section displaces the partition plate to the first position or the second position by rotating the partition plate about a partition plate rotation shaft (74) disposed along the width direction and provided on an opposite side of the storage space to the displacement section.
Regarding claim 11, Berendes disclosed the discharge section includes:
a first roller (64) that rotates about the center axis; and
a second roller (65) that is disposed so as to be adjacent to the first roller at substantially the second side thereof and that rotates about a second center axis;
the discharge section discharges the medium from between an outer peripheral face of the first roller and an outer peripheral face of the second roller (Figure 4);
the resilient member is a flipper extended further out than the outer peripheral face of the first roller with respect to the center axis (Figure 4); and
the rotation member is a flipper roller that rotates about the center axis so as to pull the medium placed on the placement face of the partition plate toward the discharge section side (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Berendes disclosed a medium processing device comprising: a conveyance section that conveys a medium having a sheet-like shape; and the medium storage of claim 1 for storing the medium (see at least paragraph 0030 and Figure 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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. Fujimoto et al. US 4,753,431 teaches a similar storage arrangement with an analogous pivoting plate.
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