Patent Application 18174384 - STACKING APPARATUS STACKING METHOD AND STACKING - Rejection

Patent Application 18174384 - STACKING APPARATUS STACKING METHOD AND STACKING

Title: STACKING APPARATUS, STACKING METHOD, AND STACKING SYSTEM

Application Information

• Invention Title: STACKING APPARATUS, STACKING METHOD, AND STACKING SYSTEM
• Application Number: 18174384
• Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-02-24T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-02-24T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 271
• National Sub-Class: 210000
• Examiner Employee Number: 81944
• Art Unit: 1759
• Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    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 .
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 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.  
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection.  Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.  Applicant's submission filed on 6 May 2025 has been entered.
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.


Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blair (US 3,391,929 A).
Regarding claim 1, Blair discloses a stacking apparatus comprising: a stacking table including a stacking surface 3 on which sheets are sequentially stacked; a first guide member 63 provided to stand on a first side of the stacking table, the first guide member restricting position of edges in a first width direction of the sheets stacked on the stacking table; a second guide member 63 provided to stand on a second side of the stacking table, the second guide member restricting position of edges in a second width direction of the sheets stacked on the stacking table, the second width direction intersecting with the first width direction; and a vibrator 4 provided to at least one of the first guide member and the second guide member and configured to apply micro-vibration to the first guide member and the second guide member, wherein a surface on an upper edge side of each of the first guide member and the second guide member in a direction in which the sheets are stacked is positioned on an equal level to or on an upper side than an uppermost surface of a pile of the sheets stacked in the direction in which the sheets are stacked; and a surface on a bottom edge side of each of the first guide member and the second guide member in the direction in which the sheets are stacked is positioned on an equal level to or on a lower side than a bottom surface of the pile of the sheets stacked in the direction in which the sheets are stacked. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 2, Blair discloses the stacking apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the vibrator 4 is configured to start applying the micro-vibration before stacking of the sheets on the stacking table 3 is started, and keep applying the micro-vibration during a period in which the sheets are being stacked on the stacking table.  
Regarding claim 3, Blair discloses the stacking apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first guide member 63 includes a pair of third guide members disposed with a distance from each other in the first width direction, and the second guide member 63 includes a pair of fourth guide members disposed with a distance from each other in the second width direction. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, Blair discloses the stacking apparatus according to claim 3, wherein a facing distance between at least one pair out of the pair of third guide members 63 and the pair of fourth guide members 63 is set to a first distance, the first distance being in a range: equal to or more than a maximum width of a pile of the sheets stacked on the stacking table in a direction in which the corresponding one pair out of the pair of third guide members and the pair of fourth guide members face each other, and equal to or less than an added width that is a maximum permissible error added to the maximum width.  
Regarding claim 5, Blair discloses the stacking apparatus according to claim 4, wherein a facing distance between at least one pair out of the pair of third guide members 63 and the pair of fourth guide members 63 in a range from the stacking table to a first height is set to the first distance, the first height being equal to or more than a height of a pile of the sheets stacked to a maximum level, and a facing distance between at least one pair out of the pair of third guide members and the pair of fourth guide members increases in a direction from the first height toward the second height, in a range from the first height to a second height in the direction moving away from the stacking table 3.  
Regarding claim 6, Blair discloses the stacking apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the vibrator 54 is configured to apply micro-vibration to at the pair of third guide members 63 and the pair of fourth guide members 63.  
Regarding claim 7, Blair discloses the stacking apparatus according to claim 3, wherein at least one of the pair of third guide members 63 and/or at least one of the pair of fourth guide members 63 are disposed to be separated into a plurality of separate members in a direction intersecting with the direction in which the sheets are stacked, in such a manner that at least part of the facing surface facing the sheets stacked on the stacking table is opened. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 8, Blair discloses the stacking apparatus according to claim 7, wherein, in the plurality of separate members making up at least one of the pair of third guide members 63 and/or at least one of the pair of fourth guide members 63, the opening on the facing surface facing the sheets stacked on the stacking table is provided at a position corresponding to a center between vertex of a corresponding side of a rectangular principal surface of the sheet, and the separate members are disposed at positions nearer to the respective vertex than to the center. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 9, Blair discloses the stacking apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of separate members making up each one of at least one of the pair of third guide members 63 and the pair of fourth guide members 63 are connected through a side surface of the stacking table 3.  
Regarding claim 11, Blair discloses the stacking apparatus according to claim 1. Further, the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to apparatus claims. See MPEP § 2115.  
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.

Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair.
Regarding claim 10, Blair discloses everything claimed, except Blair lacks the explicit disclosure of the plurality of separate members making up each of at least one of the pair of third guide members and the pair of fourth guide members being molded integrally with the stacking table and connected through the stacking table. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the plurality of separate members making up each of at least one of the pair of third guide members and the pair of fourth guide members being molded integrally with the stacking table as a matter of design choice, in order to improve ease of manufacture of the device. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B).
Regarding claim 15, Blair discloses a stacking apparatus comprising, a stacking table including a stacking surface 3 on which sheets are sequentially stacked; a first guide member 63 provided to stand on a first side of the stacking table, the first guide member restricting position of edges in a first width direction of the sheets stacked on the stacking table; a second guide member 63 provided to stand on a second side of the stacking table, the second guide member restricting position of edges in a second width direction of the sheets stacked on the stacking table, the second width direction intersecting with the first width direction; and a vibrator 4 provided to at least one of the first guide member and the second guide member and configured to apply micro-vibration to at least one of the first guide member and the second guide member. Blair does not disclose wherein the micro-vibration is vibration whose amplitude is ±10 µm or smaller and vibration frequency is 50 Hz or higher. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the micro-vibration in the device of Blair be vibration whose amplitude is ±10 µm or smaller and vibration frequency is 50 Hz or higher, as a matter of routine optimization in the art, in order to properly align the sheets without damaging them. Further, no evidence of criticality of this claimed range has been demonstrated by Applicant.

Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair in view of Tanaka (US 8,757,791 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Blair discloses a stacking system comprising the stacking apparatus according to claim 1, and a guiding apparatus including at least one conveyor 75 that conveys sheets toward the stacking apparatus and configured to guide the sheets onto the stacking table of the stacking apparatus. Blair lacks the explicit disclosure of the sheets being conveyed from a supplying unit. Tanaka teaches the use of a supplying unit 42 in order to feed sheets into a sheet feeding system. See Tanaka, col. 4, lines 21-26. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add a supplying unit to the device of Blair, as taught by Tanaka, in order to feed sheets into the device.

Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair in view of Tanaka and Nakamura (US 4,593,896 A).
Regarding claim 13, the device of Blair as modified by Tanaka comprises everything claimed, except wherein the guiding apparatus includes an impeller and a restricting member that supply the sheets to the stacking table, the sheets having been conveyed from a conveying mechanism serving to convey the sheets, the impeller includes a plurality of vanes, and the impeller is configured to supply the sheets sequentially to the stacking table by collecting each of the conveyed sheets between the vanes, rotating the collected sheet while holding the collected sheet to carry the sheet up to a release position of the stacking table, causing the restricting member to release the sheet held between the vanes at the release position, and causing the sheet to fall toward the stacking table. Nakamura discloses a guiding apparatus including an impeller 9a and a restricting member 2c that supply the sheets to the stacking table, the sheets having been conveyed from a conveying mechanism serving to convey the sheets, the impeller including a plurality of vanes 10, and the impeller being configured to supply the sheets sequentially to the stacking table by collecting each of the conveyed sheets between the vanes, rotating the collected sheet while holding the collected sheet to carry the sheet up to a release position of the stacking table, causing the restricting member to release the sheet held between the vanes at the release position, and causing the sheet to fall toward the stacking table, in order to stack sheet-like objects reliably at high speed. See Nakamura, col. 1, line 67 – col. 2, line 24. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add a guiding apparatus including an impeller and a restricting member that supply the sheets to the stacking table, the sheets having been conveyed from a conveying mechanism serving to convey the sheets, the impeller includes a plurality of vanes, and the impeller being configured to supply the sheets sequentially to the stacking table by collecting each of the conveyed sheets between the vanes, rotating the collected sheet while holding the collected sheet to carry the sheet up to a release position of the stacking table, causing the restricting member to release the sheet held between the vanes at the release position, and causing the sheet to fall toward the stacking table, to the device of Blair as modified by Tanaka, as taught by Nakamura, in order to stack the sheets reliably at high speed.

Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair in view of Tanaka and Roth (US 7,887,040 B2).
Regarding claim 14, the apparatus of Blair as modified by Tanaka comprises everything claimed, except wherein the guiding apparatus includes a holding mechanism, the holding mechanism including a suction unit capable of switching between keeping a sheet suctioned and releasing the sheet from being suctioned and configured to stack the sheets sequentially to the stacking table by holding, with suction and by the suction unit, the sheet conveyed from the conveying mechanism and releasing, by the suction unit, the held sheet at a release position of the stacking table. Roth discloses a holding mechanism, the holding mechanism including a suction unit 60,70 capable of switching between keeping a sheet suctioned and releasing the sheet from being suctioned and configured to stack the sheets sequentially to the stacking table by holding, with suction and by the suction unit, the sheet conveyed from the conveying mechanism and releasing, by the suction unit, the held sheet at a release position of the stacking table, in order to deliver sheets to a stack. See Roth, col. 9, lines 15-21. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add a holding mechanism, the holding mechanism including a suction unit capable of switching between keeping a sheet suctioned and releasing the sheet from being suctioned and configured to stack the sheets sequentially to the stacking table by holding, with suction and by the suction unit, the sheet conveyed from the conveying mechanism and releasing, by the suction unit, the held sheet at a release position of the stacking table, to the device of Blair as modified by Tanaka, as taught by Roth, in order to deliver sheets to the stack.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 May 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Blair fails to disclose the claimed 
vibrator provided to at least one of the first guide member and the second guide member and configured to apply micro-vibration to at least one of the first guide member and the second guide member
because the rocker arms of Blair apply vibrations to the jogging table itself, rather than the guide members. See Applicant’s Remarks, p. 10-11. The Examiner agrees with Applicant that the rocker arms 54 of Blair are not “provided to” the guides 63. However, element 4 of Blair can be considered a vibrator, as it transmits vibrations to guides 63, and it further has a relationship with guides 63 such that element 4 can be considered “provided to” guides 63. 
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeremy R. Severson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2209.  The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Duane Smith, can be reached at (571) 272-1166.  The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.  Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.  Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.  For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.






/JEREMY R SEVERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759