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: “a protruding member” in claim 1. This corresponds to ‘13’ in Applicant’s disclosure.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a cover rib provided opposite the guide rail” (Claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Guide rail 22 and cover rib 23 are generally shown in Fig. 5 for example. However, it is not clear how these are opposite to each other, as the details of 22 at the upper end of the figure are blurry and the reference number 22 appears to point to a void.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-5 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.
Regarding Claim 1, “and positioned” is recited at the end of the last line. It is unclear what this refers to. Should it refer to the protruding member being positioned? It appears it may merely be a typo, however it creates some confusion. If a typo, these words may be deleted.
Claims 2-5 are 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al. (JP 2021-020809).
Regarding Claim 1, Okada et al. discloses
a pair of discharging rollers (31, 33) discharging a sheet through a discharge port (9);
a stacking tray (11) disposed downstream of the pair of discharging rollers with respect to a discharging direction (i.e. right to left in Fig. 3) of the sheet, the stacking tray having stacked thereon the sheet discharged by the pair of discharging rollers;
a protruding member (13) supported so as to be reciprocatable between a protrusion position (P2, Fig. 5) where the protruding member protrudes from the discharge port to above the stacking tray and where the protruding member brings, into contact with a top surface thereof, a leading edge of the sheet discharged by the pair of discharging rollers to guide the sheet in the discharging direction, and a retraction position (P1, Fig. 3) where the protruding member is retracted from above the stacking tray; and
a moving mechanism (51, 70) having a supporting holder (51) movably holding the protruding member, the moving mechanism making the protruding member move between the protrusion position and the retraction position,
wherein
the sheet discharging device further comprises a sensing portion (53) sensing whether the protruding member is in the retraction position,
the sensing portion is disposed in the supporting holder (see Fig. 3) the supporting holder has:
a guide rail (51U) extending along a movement direction of the protruding member; and
a cover rib (51Lo, since the rib is not further defined, it may be taken as extending from the right wall of 51) provided opposite the guide rail,
the moving mechanism is configured to include:
a rack gear (71) having a plurality of gear teeth in a row along the movement direction of the protruding member; and
a pinion gear (73) that meshes with the rack gear to constitute a rack-and-pinion mechanism, and
the sensing portion is disposed on a lower end part of the guide rail (i.e. 53 is at a lower right end of 51U, Fig. 5) and senses presence of the protruding member before the protruding member makes contact with a positioning protrusion (i.e. the right/short wall of 51, since the protrusion is not further defined, it may be taken as protruding from 51U) in the retraction position and positioned. It is noted that in the absence of a claimed controller, the protruding member is at least capable of being driven by 73 such as to positively contact the right/short wall.
Regarding Claim 2, Okada et al. discloses
the sensing portion is an optical sensor (i.e. "a photo interrupter") including a light emitting portion and a light receiving portion disposed opposite each other and senses, when the protruding member enters or retracts from an optical path of the optical sensor (i.e. "the movable guide 13 is detected by blocking the optical path"), whether the protruding member is in the retraction position.
Regarding Claim 3, Okada et al. discloses
the optical sensor is disposed at a downstream end part of the protruding member in a retraction direction (i.e. at the right end, in the left to right direction, Fig. 3) thereof, and
the sensing portion senses, when the protruding member enters the optical path of the optical sensor, presence of the protruding member in the retraction position (i.e. "the movable guide 13 is detected by blocking the optical path").
Regarding Claim 4, Okada et al. discloses
a post-processing mechanism (21) performing predetermined post-processing (i.e. stapling) on the sheet and conveying the post-processed sheet to the sheet discharging device.
Regarding Claim 5, Okada et al. discloses
an image forming apparatus forming an image on the sheet and conveying the sheet having the image formed thereon to the sheet post-processing apparatus (i.e. "An image forming device for forming an image of a sheet and a post-processing device for performing post-processing such as stapling and drilling on a sheet on which an image is formed").
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments appear more generic (i.e. do not specifically argue where Okada does not disclose the newly claimed features), wherein “These claimed features and effects are of no concern and not mentioned or suggested in Okada. Thus amended claim 1 recites the features (i) to (iii) integrated together and is novel over Okada.”, it is noted that Okada discloses the newly claimed features, mapped as per the Claim 1 rejection above.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/26 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.
Nakano et al. (US Pub No. 2017/0068202) discloses retraction sensor 99 but its location is not shown to be on the downstream end or to be mounted on the supporting holder.
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 July 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights