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, 4-7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonami et al. (US Pub No. 2025/0100839 A1) in view of Koyama (US Pub No. 2023/0122113 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tonami et al. discloses
a first sheet stacking portion (21, Fig. 3) on which a sheet is stacked;
a second sheet stacking portion (comprising 22 and 23) provided in a detachably attachable manner (i.e. is capable of being detached since it is not integral with 21) upstream of the first sheet stacking portion (i.e. upwards along 25 in Fig. 3) in a sheet feeding direction (i.e. downwards along 25 in Fig. 3) and on which the sheet is stacked; and
an indication portion provided on the second sheet stacking portion (i.e. the ribs/lines shown on 22 in Fig. 3, since the claim does not define the indication portion to be any specific structure, marking, scale or pattern with any numbers or letters), and extending along a width direction (i.e. where each line has a width and the collection of lines together span a width, in a direction parallel to 24 in Fig. 3) crossing the sheet feeding direction, the indication portion indicating positions of both side ends of the sheet in the width direction (i.e. the ribs/lines provide reference lines relative to which the positions of the side ends of the sheet can be seen), and
Tonami et al. depicts sheet side end restricting portions on 21 in Fig. 3 and Fig. 10 but does not explicitly disclose them.
Koyama discloses sheet side end restricting portions (410, 450) that restrict side ends of the sheet stacked on the first sheet stacking portion (300), for the purpose of aligning and guiding sheets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tonami et al. by explicitly including the sheet side end restricting portion as disclosed by Koyama, for the purpose of aligning and guiding sheets. It is noted that by this modification, the positions of the side ends of the sheet would be indicated in the state where the side end of the sheet is restricted by the sheet side end restricting portion, particularly in symmetry due to the pinion.
Regarding Claim 3, Tonami et al. does not disclose the indication portion to be engraved.
Koyama discloses indication portion (760) is engraved ([0140]) on a stacking surface (i.e. upper surface) of the second stacking portion (700) on which the sheet is stacked, for the purpose of reliably marking the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tonami et al. by including an engraved marking as disclosed by Koyama, for the purpose of reliably marking the surface.
Regarding Claim 4, Tonami et al. discloses the side end of the sheet stacked on the second sheet stacking portion is not restricted on the second sheet stacking portion (i.e. 22 and 23 do not have side end restricting portions).
Regarding Claim 5, Tonami et al. discloses
the second sheet stacking portion is comprised of a third sheet stacking portion (22) and a fourth sheet stacking portion (23) provided upstream of the third sheet stacking portion in the sheet feeding direction (Fig. 3).
Tonami et al. does not disclose the third to be made from resin or the fourth to be made from metal.
However, since the specification is silent as to any criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tonami et al. and Koyama by making the third sheet stacking portion from resin, and the fourth sheet stacking portion from metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is noted this can be arrived at by routine experimentation given a finite choice of suitable materials.
Regarding Claim 6, Tonami et al. discloses
the indication portion is provided on the third stacking portion (i.e. per Claim 1 above, the ribs/lines are shown on 22 in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation of a sheet longer than 458.3 mm is directed towards the material worked upon (see MPEP 2115).
Regarding Claim 10, Tonami et al. discloses
an image forming portion (i.e. printer, [0101]) configured to form an image on the sheet fed by the sheet feeding apparatus; and
an apparatus main body (1) of the image forming apparatus that accommodates the image forming portion (i.e. with [0101]),
wherein the first sheet stacking portion (21) is rotatably provided (via 24) on a side portion of the apparatus main body ([0039]).
Regarding Claim 11, Tonami et al. discloses
the second sheet stacking portion (22 and 23) includes an attaching portion (i.e. the rail/surface of 22/23 along which it slides along 21) configured to be detachably attached to the first sheet stacking portion (i.e. 22 and 23 are capable of being detached from their attached configuration to 21, wherein the attaching portion by being included in 22/23 is also capable of such).
Regarding Claim 12, Tonami et al. discloses
the indication portion includes index (i.e. indicator, that leads one to a conclusion, see attached definition 3b) markings provided on a sheet stacking surface (i.e. its upper surface) of the second sheet stacking portion, the index markings indicating positions of both side ends of sheets (i.e. the ribs/lines provide reference lines relative to which the positions of the side ends of the sheet can be seen).
Regarding Claim 13, Tonami et al. discloses
the index markings are arranged so as to correspond to the regulating position of the sheet side end restriction portion (i.e. ‘correspond’ does not require any specific correlation, wherein the markings being parallel to the regulating positions satisfies the claim requirement).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonami et al. (US Pub No. 2025/0100839 A1) in view of Koyama (US Pub No. 2023/0122113 A1) in view of Di Fulvio et al. (US Patent No. 3,715,117).
Regarding Claim 2, Tonami et al. and Koyama do not disclose indication of a distance.
Di Fulvio et al. discloses an indication portion (52) indicates a distance (i.e. its lines are indicative of a distance) from a conveying center (i.e. approximate location of numeral '16' in Fig. 2) in a width direction (i.e. up/down in Fig. 2) perpendicular to the sheet feeding direction (i.e. left/right in Fig. 2) together with a number (i.e. "5, 6, 7, 8", Fig. 2), for the purpose of determining sheet width.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tonami et al. and Koyama by including the distance indication and number as disclosed by Di Fulvio et al, for the purpose of determining sheet width. It is noted the claim does not specify any units/measure of distance.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonami et al. (US Pub No. 2025/0100839 A1) in view of Koyama (US Pub No. 2023/0122113 A1) in view of Morita et al. (JP 2662839).
Regarding Claim 8, Tonami et al. discloses
the indication portion is provided on the first sheet stacking portion in addition to the second sheet stacking portion (i.e. see the markings on the upstream end of 21, on either side of 22, in Fig. 3), but does not disclose indicating sheet size.
Morita et al. discloses wherein the indication portion (16) provided on the first sheet stacking portion (10) indicates a size of the sheet in the width direction perpendicular to the sheet feeding direction ("On the upstream side of the guide plate 13 on the front side of the tray main body 10, a size label is attached as a first display section 16 for displaying the paper size."), for the purpose of displaying paper size.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tonami et al. and Koyama by including displaying paper size as disclosed by Morita et al, for the purpose of displaying paper size.
Regarding Claim 9, Tonami et al. does not disclose the indication portion on the first sheet stacking portion located as claimed.
Morita et al. discloses the indication portion (16) provided on the first sheet stacking portion (10) is provided between the sheet side end restricting portion (13) and the indication portion (22) provided on the second sheet stacking portion (11) in the sheet feeding direction, for the purpose of displaying sheet size of longer sheets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tonami et al. and Koyama by including the indication portion to be located as disclosed by Morita et al, for the purpose of displaying sheet size of longer sheets.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the first media-tray extension 22 and second media-tray extension 23 of Tonami are telescoping members supported so as to be slidable relative to the media tray body 21 or the first media-tray extension 22. Thus, Tonami's first and second media-tray extensions 22 and 23 do not disclose second sheet stacking portions that are detachably mounted to the first sheet stacking portion”, it is noted that while 22 and 23 are telescoping with respect to 21, they are also detachably attached (i.e. fully capable of being detached and are not integral, molded or permanently attached to 21 in such a way that would prevent the detachment).
In response to Applicant’s argument that “ribs or linear features on the first media-tray extension 22 shown in Fig. 3 of Tonami are understood to be structural irregularities or reinforcing features of the media tray. There is no description indicating that they serve as an "indication portion" for indicating the positions of both side edges of the media”, it is noted that these features do serve as indicators to an observer for indicating positions of the side edges of media. The claims do not require them to have any specific structure, dimension, marking, scale or pattern with any numbers or letters and the indication function as recited is also intended use.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Furthermore, even when combining Tonami and Koyama, modified Tonami's telescopic media tray extension 22, 23 would be provided in a detachably attachable manner at the upstream of the first sheet stacking portion, but there is no motivation to change to the second sheet stacking portion.”, it is unclear what is intended by ‘change to the second sheet stacking portion’. In Claim 1, Koyama is relied upon for explicitly teaching the sheet side end restricting portions on a first sheet stacking portion (wherein this is also already implied in Tonami).
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/26 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.
Takahashi et al. (US Pub No. 2016/0244284) discloses scale lines 71/72 on tray 40 in Fig. 11.
Sawai (US Pub No. 2015/0301493) discloses a sheet supporting portion 26 made of steel wire.
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 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights