DETAILED ACTION
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) 1, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH11124236 (hereafter ‘236) in view of Sato et al (US Pat No 9,027,920).
Regarding claim 1, ‘236 discloses a sheet feeding cassette comprising:
a feed tray (10); and
an extension tray (20) that extends a length of the feed tray in a sheet feeding direction, wherein;
a include a lock operator for fixing and locking a position of the extension tray at each of a plurality of locations, and
the lock operator includes two sides, each side with a groove (between engaging portions 24a,b) provided in the feed tray and a locking claw (17) provided at the extension tray,
the locking claws comprise a pair of arms (15) that is disposed at or near the sheet feeding cassette in a pull-out direction and is gripped with one hand (shown in figure 26a),
the extension tray further includes an upright wall (23) at or near the pair of arms, and
the upright wall has a handle shape on which a palm of the one hand is placeable, with the pair of arms being gripped with the one hand (e.g. capable of happening).
It is noted that ‘236 fails to disclose the lock operator being disposed on the extension tray. However, Sato discloses a similar sheet tray including a lock operator (8) wherein the lock operator is provided on an extension tray (3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of ‘236 to provide the lock operator on the extension tray rather than the feed tray to provide a device which works just as well with a simple rearrangement of parts.
Regarding claim 3, ‘236 discloses the pair of arms are disposed at a substantially central portion of the extension tray (shown in figures 1 and 6a).
Regarding claim 4, ‘236 discloses a dimension between the pair of arms when the pair of arms are pinched by fingers is less than a dimension between the pair of arms at attachment positions of the pair of arms (see fig. 6a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the office action equated handle 27 to the claimed arms; as noted in the previous office action, the rejection of claim 1 clearly provided the mapping of the locking operators and from the prior art depiction it was believed to be readily apparent that the associated structure had arms (corrected above). Figure 6a was merely referenced for the depiction of the lock operators being gripped with one hand, and the handle being the direction in which the extension tray the pulled out.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights