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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanagawa JP S6365631 U (hereinafter “Kanagawa”, cited in an IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kanagawa discloses a medium placement device comprising:
a placement section (46) configured to have a medium placed thereon;
an edge guide (15) configured to align an edge of the medium placed on the placement section; and
a guide shaft (12) configured to guide movement of the edge guide,
wherein the edge guide includes
a contact section (15, or equivalent 5 in FIG. 4) configured to contact the edge of the medium,
a first locker (16) in which is formed a first hole (19) through which the guide shaft (12) passes,
a second locker (20) in which is formed a second hole (23) through which the guide shaft passes, and
a first biasing section (28) configured to bias the first locker and the second locker and
the first locker and the second locker are biased by the first biasing section to tilt in different directions from each other.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the first biasing section is a spring positioned between the first locker and the second locker.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the edge guide further includes an operation section (21 or 25) configured to change posture of the first locker and of the second locker against biasing force of the first biasing section and the operation section is configured to change a tilted posture of the first locker in which an edge of the first hole contacts the guide shaft to a release posture in which the edge of the first hole is separated from the guide shaft and change a tilted posture of the second locker in which an edge of the second hole contacts the guide shaft to a release posture in which the edge of the second hole is separated from the guide shaft.
Regarding claim 10, wherein the operation section (by user grip) is configured to maintain the first locker and the second locker in the release posture.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the edge guide aligns an upstream edge (as best understood, locking mechanism is intended to be used in a rear edge guide 5 for an upstream edge as shown in FIG. 4 and a lateral guide 5a) of the medium in a feed direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 13, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa in view of Yoneda JP 2010-052886 A (hereinafter “Yoneda”).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Kanagawa teaches the claimed invention except for a second edge guide having a second contact section and an interlocking section, wherein the second contact section is configured to contact a third edge, which is opposite from the first edge in the width direction and the interlocking section moves the second edge guide in conjunction with the first edge guide moving along the guide shaft.
Yoneda teaches a similar guide locking mechanism (4) for a medium placement device, wherein the medium placement device also employs a conventional interlocking section (rack and pinion system, only a single rack 5 shown in FIG. 2 is shown) for sheet width guide members (3) to allow sheet guides (3) to move together in opposite directions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kanagawa’s medium placement device with a second edge guide (opposite the first edge guide) and an interlocking section as taught by Yoneda as an alternative design to reliably guide both edges of a sheets using two movable sheet width guides instead of a single width edge guide.
Regarding claim 14, while Kanagawa is silent to a front wall provided with a pull section, wherein a distance from the pull section to the first edge guide is shorter than a distance from the pull section to the second edge guide, Yoneda teaches the relationship in FIG. 1 (refer to handle of cassette as pull section and a second edge guide 3 is the more distant edge guide from the pull section).
Note: An alternative rejection includes Yoneda as the base reference and simply substituting the locking mechanism (4) of edge guide with the locking mechanism of Kanagawa.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19 are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3094. The examiner can normally be reached 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.
/LUIS A GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653