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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/30/2026, 06/03/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-11, 30 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, claim 1 recites “a user” in line 2 and “election administrator” in line 13. It is not clear how the two operators of the claimed touchscreen device are different from each other. The claim does not structurally differentiate between the two operators when it comes to selecting/inputting instructions/selections by touching the touchscreen.
Regarding claims 2-11,30, claims 2-11,30 are similarly rejected at least for inheriting the above discussed issue due to their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-11, 21-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaum (US 2003/0158775) in view of Sekino et al (US 2008/0003039), Cummings et al (US 8,096,471), and Poulos et al.(US 2005/0247783).
Regarding claim 1, Chaum teaches a system (figs.2,4,11,12,15,16d,33,34) comprising:
a user-operated touchscreen device or assistive input device for enabling a user to indicate vote selections (figs.2; paragraphs 0054,0162,0166,0270, teaches touchscreen used by voter to make a choice of candidates); (see the note below, the functional language for enabling a user to indicate “vote selections” is not given patentable weight in structure claim)
a first thermal print head (for instance 3311 fig.33b; 3321 fig.33c) disposed on a first side of a print path (path of 3300), the print path being configured to receive an end of a roll-fed thermal print medium (3300);
a second thermal print head (for instance 3312 fig.33b; 3322 fig.33c) disposed on a second side of the print path (path of 3300) opposite the first side;
at least one processor (controller controlling the print operation, paragraphs 0195,0201,0254, 0271; figs.15,33,34) configured, responsive to the vote selections indicated on the touchscreen device or assistive input device, to direct the first thermal print head (for instance 3311 fig.33b; 3321 fig.33c) and the second thermal print head (for instance 3312 fig.33b; 3322 fig.33c) in conjunction with at least one roller (3313,3314 fig.33b; 3323,3324 fig.33c) to print a first ballot, the first ballot being a filled-in double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the indicated vote selections (figs.33a-33c, paragraphs 0054,0138,0144,0166,0249-0252 teaches filling of voter choose of candidates through touch screen and printing on both sides/double sided printing/)(see the note below, the functional languages “vote selections” and “first ballot, the first ballot being a filled-in double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the indicated vote selections” are not given patentable weight in structure claim);
the processor (controller controlling the print operation, paragraphs 0195,0201,0254, 0271; figs.15,33,34) further being configured, responsive to operation of the touchscreen device by an election administrator, to print a second ballot, the second ballot being a blank ballot for hand-marked voting using the first thermal print head (for instance 3311 fig.33b; 3321 fig.33c) and the second thermal print head (for instance 3312 fig.33b; 3322 fig.33c) in conjunction with the roller (3313,3314 fig.33b; 3323,3324 fig.33c)(figs.5,33a-33c, paragraphs 0054,0079,0138,0144,0146,0148, 0166,0249-0252 teaches printing on both sides/double sided printing/ of ballot. For instance, fig.5, paragraphs 0169,0170 teaches when ballot style is not at hand or depleted, printing mark-up ballot/blank/unmarked ballot on the spot to be used later by a voter to mark the choices of candidates) (see the note below, the functional languages “operation of the touchscreen device by an election administrator” and “a second ballot, the second ballot being a blank ballot for hand-marked voting” are not given patentable weight in structure claim);
Chaum does not explicitly shows wherein the thermal print medium is a roll-fed type thermal print medium and a cutter disposed on the first side of the print path configured to cut printed sheets. In case applicant argued Chaum does not explicitly states that the filled-in vote selection to be printed is not double-sided i.e. the filled in vote selection is not on the front and back side of the medium/ballot. Also, in case applicant argued Chaum does not explicitly teaches printing a blank ballot.
However, Sekino et al teaches similar thermal printer including a roll-fed type thermal print medium (108 figs.1-4,8,14; 17 fig.3) and a cutter (113 figs.1,2; 23 figs.3,4; 233 fig.8) disposed on the first side of the print path configured to cut printed sheets. Sekino et al further teaches thermal printer including: a first thermal print head (104 figs.1-2; 221 fig.8); a second thermal print head (102 figs.1-2; 242 fig.8); processor (controller in figs.1-2; 272 fig.8) containing instructions for directing the first thermal print head and the second thermal print head in conjunction with at least one roller (126,127) to print double-sided image on the medium (paragraphs 0006,0086,0086,0106,0107).
In the alternative, Cummings et al teaches similar system including a user-operated touchscreen device or assistive input device (34 in figs.1,9; 304,312 in figs.19-25) for enabling a user to indicate vote selections; and a filled-in double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the indicated vote selections (col.20 lines 5-14 teaches “The voter enters candidate selections using the touch screen menu or audio menu. Those selections are marked on the front and back sides of the unmarked preprinted ballot by filling in preprinted marking spaces corresponding to the selected candidates”). Cummings et al further teaches plurality of print heads (marking/print heads 94,95,107,108 figs.3,4); and at least one processor (90 fig.3A, 86,82 fig.10) configured to direct the plurality of print heads in conjunction with rollers (65,66,70,71 figs.3,4) to print a filled-in double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the indicated vote selections (col.8 lines 9-20; col.20 lines 5-14).
In the alternative, Poulos et al teaches similar system including printing unmarked ballots on-demand locally (fig.1a; 17 fig.3; paragraph 0051). Poulos et al also teaches a user-operated touchscreen device or assistive input device (34 figs.2,5, paragraph 0089) and double-sided printing (paragraph 0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use such roll-fed type thermal print medium and cutter in the thermal printer of Chaum based on the teachings of Sekino et al to provide a printer capable of printing with minimal interruption and capable of dispensing printed image/receipt by cutting the printed recording media and in the alternative to enable double-sided printing of ballots based on instruction/selection by a user in Chaum based on the teachings of Cummings et al and Poulos et al for instance to facilitate double sided printing operations based on demand.
Note: The following claim languages “for enabling a user to indicate vote selections” in lines 3-4; “vote selections” in line 8; “a first ballot, the first ballot being a filled-in double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the indicated vote selections” in lines 10-11; “operation of the touchscreen device by an election administrator” in lines 12-13; and “a second ballot, the second ballot being a blank ballot for hand-marked voting” in lines 13-14 have been construed as functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch&Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the claim languages discussed above have not been given patentable weight. Note that manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al substantially teaches the claimed invention including the print path is configured to accept a roll-fed thermal print medium with predetermined width (108 figs.1-4,8,14).
Chaum as modified above do not explicitly discloses wherein the roll-fed thermal print medium width is between 7″ and 9″.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the type of print medium with required optimum width for a given print job, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further teaches wherein the thermal ballot printer is electrically coupled to a battery system (paragraph 0195 of Chaum) equipped to provide one or both of battery backup power or battery operating power to the thermal ballot (the functional language ballot is not given patentable weight) printer.
Regarding claim 7, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further teaches further comprising a digital interface for receiving a ballot (the functional language ballot is not given patentable weight) printer description file of two or more pages in length and a processor for assigning a first page of the received ballot (the functional language ballot is not given patentable weight) printer description file to the first thermal print head and for assigning a second page of the received ballot printer description file to the second thermal print head (figs.2,4,11,15,19,21,33-35,37;paragraphs 0162,0166,0270 of Chaum).
Regarding claim 8, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further teaches wherein the first thermal print head (for instance 3311 fig.33b; 3321 fig.33c of chaum) is disposed opposite a first roller platen (for instance 3313 fig.33b; 3323 fig.33c of chaum) on the second side of the print path and wherein the second thermal print head (for instance 3312 fig.33b; 3322 fig.33c) is disposed opposite a second roller platen (for instance 3314 fig.33b; 3324 fig.33c) on the first side of the print path (see also figs. figs.1-4,8,14 of Sekino et al).
Regarding claim 9, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further teaches further comprising a firmware (controller controlling the print operation, paragraphs 0195,0201,0254, 0271; figs.15,33,34 of chaum) configured to receive instructions to heat the first thermal print head (for instance 3311 fig.33b; 3321 fig.33c of chaum) to a first state change temperature during operation and the second thermal print head (for instance 3312 fig.33b; 3322 fig.33c) to a second state change temperature during operation (see also figs. figs.1-4,8,14 of Sekino et al).
Regarding claim 10, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further teaches wherein the first state change temperature and the second state change temperature are configured to enable printing of double-sided ballots (the functional language ballot is not given patentable weight) in synchronized fashion (figs.33 of chaum; figs. figs.1-4,8,14 of Sekino et al).
Regarding claim 11, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further teaches wherein the first thermal print head (for instance 3311 fig.33b; 3321 fig.33c of chaum; 104 figs.1-2; 221 fig.8 of Sekino et al) and the second thermal print head (for instance 3312 fig.33b; 3322 fig.33c of chaum; 102 figs.1-2; 242 fig.8 of Sekino et al) are direct thermal print heads.
Regarding claim 21, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al teaches a method (figs.2,4,11,12,15,16d,33,34 of Chaum) comprising:
receiving vote selections via a user-operated touchscreen device or an assistive input device (figs.2; paragraphs 0054,0162,0166,0270 of Chaum, teaches touchscreen used by voter to make a choice of candidates);
printing a first page of a first ballot, the first ballot being a filled-in double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the vote selections using a first thermal print head (for instance 3311 fig.33b; 3321 fig.33c of Chaum) on a first side of a roll-fed (108 figs.1-4,8,14; 17 fig.3 of Sekino et al) thermal print medium (figs.33a-33c, paragraphs 0054,0138,0144, 0166,0249-0252 teaches filling of voter choose of candidates through touch screen and printing on both sides/double sided printing/ of Chaum; col.8 lines 9-20; col.20 lines 5-14, col.20 lines 5-14 of Cummings et al);
printing a second page of the first ballot reflecting the vote selections using a second thermal print head (for instance 3312 fig.33b; 3322 fig.33c of Chaum) on a second side of the roll-fed (108 figs.1-4,8,14; 17 fig.3 of Sekino et al) thermal print medium (figs.33a-33c, paragraphs 0054,0138,0144,0166,0249-0252 of Chaum);
cutting the first ballot from the roll-fed thermal print medium (roll-feed 108, cutter 113 figs.1-4; 23 figs.3,4; 233 fig.8 of Sekino et al as applied above);
printing a first page of a second ballot, the second ballot being a blank ballot for hand- marked voting using the first thermal print head on the first side of the roll-fed thermal print medium) (figs.5,33a-33c, paragraphs 0054,0079,0138,0144,0146,0148, 0166,0249-0252 teaches printing on both sides/double sided printing/ of ballot. For instance, fig.5, paragraphs 0169,0170 of Chaum teaches when ballot style is not at hand or depleted, printing mark-up ballot/blank/unmarked ballot on the spot to be used later by a voter to mark the choices of candidates; fig.1a; 17 fig.3; paragraph 0051 of Poulos et al);
printing a second page of the second ballot using the second thermal print head on the second side of the roll-fed thermal print medium (figs.5,33a-33c, paragraphs 0054,0079,0138,0144,0146,0148, 0166,0249-0252 of Chaum; col.8 lines 9-20; col.20 lines 5-14, col.20 lines 5-14 of Cummings et al); and
cutting the second ballot from the roll-fed thermal print medium (roll-feed 108, cutter 113 figs.1-4; 23 figs.3,4; 233 fig.8 of Sekino et al as applied above).
Note: The following claim languages “vote selections” in line 2; “a first ballot, the first ballot being a filled-in double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the vote selections” in lines 4-5; “a second ballot, the second ballot being a blank ballot for hand-marked voting” in lines 12-13 have been construed as functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch&Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the claim languages discussed above have not been given patentable weight. Note that manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.
Regarding claim 22, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further substantially teaches the claimed invention including the print path is configured to accept a roll-fed thermal print medium with predetermined width (108 figs.1-4,8,14).
Chaum as modified do not explicitly discloses wherein the roll-fed thermal print medium width is between 7″ and 9″.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the type of print medium with required optimum width for a given print job, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 23, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further teaches wherein the vote selections are received via the user- operated touchscreen device (figs.2; paragraphs 0054,0162,0166,0270, teaches touchscreen used by voter to make a choice of candidates) (note that, the functional language vote selections is not given patentable weight in structure claim).
Regarding claim 25, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further teaches further comprising tabulating the first ballot and the second ballot (figs.2,5,34, paragraphs 0106, 0177 of Chaum; figs.1,14-18, 22 of Cummings et al; figs.1-2, paragraphs 0104,0105 of Poulos et al).
Regarding claim 26, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further teaches wherein the second ballot is hand-marked before being tabulated (figs.2,5, paragraphs 0170 of Chaum; abstract, paragraph 0004,0008,0012 figs.1,6 of Cummings et al; figs.1-4 paragraph 0020,0054, of Poulos et al).
Regarding claim 27, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al teaches a method (figs.2,4,11,12,15,16d,33,34 of Chaum) comprising:
receiving, at a thermal ballot printer, first instructions to print a first ballot, the first ballot being a filled-in double-sided full-face ballot reflecting vote selections of a voter (figs.2; paragraphs 0054,0162,0166,0270 of Chaum, teaches touchscreen used by voter to make a choice of candidates);
in response to the first instructions, operating a first thermal print head (for instance 3311 fig.33b; 3321 fig.33c of Chaum) of the thermal ballot printer to print, on a roll-fed (108 figs.1-4,8,14; 17 fig.3 of Sekino et al) thermal print medium, a first side of the filled-in double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the vote selections, and operating a second thermal print head (for instance 3312 fig.33b; 3322 fig.33c of Chaum) of the thermal ballot printer to print, on the roll-fed (108 figs.1-4,8,14; 17 fig.3 of Sekino et al) thermal print medium, a second side of the filled-in double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the vote selections (figs.33a-33c, paragraphs 0054,0138,0144, 0166,0249-0252 teaches filling of voter choose of candidates through touch screen and printing on both sides/double sided printing/ of Chaum; col.8 lines 9-20; col.20 lines 5-14, col.20 lines 5-14 of Cummings et al);
receiving, at a thermal ballot printer, second instructions to print a second ballot, the second ballot being a blank double-sided ballot for hand-marked voting (figs.5,33a-33c, paragraphs 0054,0079,0138,0144,0146,0148, 0166,0249-0252 teaches printing on both sides/double sided printing/ of ballot. For instance, fig.5, paragraphs 0169,0170 of Chaum teaches when ballot style is not at hand or depleted, printing mark-up ballot/blank/unmarked ballot on the spot to be used later by a voter to mark the choices of candidates; fig.1a; 17 fig.3; paragraph 0051 of Poulos et al);
in response to the second instructions, operating the first thermal print head of the thermal ballot printer to print a first side of the blank ballot for hand-marked voting on the roll-fed thermal print medium, and operating the second thermal print head of the thermal ballot printer to print a second side of the blank ballot for hand-marked voting on the roll-fed thermal print medium (figs.5,33a-33c, paragraphs 0054,0079,0138,0144, 0146,0148,0166,0249-0252 of Chaum; col.8 lines 9-20; col.20 lines 5-14, col.20 lines 5-14 of Cummings et al); and
tabulating the first ballot and the second ballot (figs.2,5,34, paragraphs 0106, 0177 of Chaum; figs.1,14-18, 22 of Cummings et al; figs.1-2, paragraphs 0104,0105 of Poulos et al).
Note: The following claim languages “a first ballot, the first ballot being a filled-in double-sided full-face ballot reflecting vote selections” in lines 2-3; “a second ballot, the second ballot being a blank ballot double-sided ballot for hand-marked voting” in lines 9-10 have been construed as functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch&Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the claim languages discussed above have not been given patentable weight. Note that manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.
Regarding claim 28, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further teaches wherein the first ballot and the second ballot have the same content and layout (figs.2,5 of Chaum; figs.1,6 of Cummings et al; figs.1-4 of Poulos et al) (note that the limitations in this claim are functional limitations and printing the identical content does not differentiate the claim from the prior art).
Regarding claim 29, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further teaches wherein the second ballot is hand-marked before being tabulated (figs.2,5, paragraphs 0170 of Chaum; abstract, paragraph 0004,0008,0012 figs.1,6 of Cummings et al; figs.1-4 paragraph 0020,0054, of Poulos et al).
Regarding claim 30, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al further teaches further comprising tabulation software configured to tabulate the first ballot and the second ballot (figs.2-5, paragraphs 0214 of Chaum; software in the processor 90 figs.1-3,6,9 of Cummings et al; figs.1 paragraph 0080, 0112 of Poulos et al).
Claim 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al and further in view of Kaminaka (US 2009/0272838) and/or Zhou (CN 111348460).
Regarding claim 3, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al substantially teaches the claimed invention including a paper brake (fig.14; paragraphs 0136,0137 of Sekino et al) and a roll of thermal paper (108 figs.1-4,8,14 of Sekino et al) in a first configuration suitable for use by the printer in an operational mode.
Chaum as modified do not explicitly teaches a paper roll brake configured to hold a roll of thermal paper in a first configuration suitable for use by the printer in an operational mode; and in a second locked configuration suitable for secure transport of the roll of thermal paper while mounted to the locking paper roll holder.
However, Kaminaka teaches a paper roll brake (17,17A, 17B, 21,22,23 figs.4-8; 70,71,72 figs.11-15) configured to hold a roll of thermal paper in a first configuration suitable for use by the printer in an operational mode; and in a second locked configuration suitable for secure transport of the roll of thermal paper while mounted to the locking paper roll holder (figs.4-8,11-15).
Similarly, Zhou teaches a paper roll brake (33,3,5,12 figs.1-3) configured to hold a roll paper (2) in a first configuration suitable for use by the printer in an operational mode (i.e. in a free/released state); and in a second locked configuration suitable for secure transport of the roll of thermal paper while mounted to the locking paper roll holder (in a locked mode) (figs.1-3,5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include such toll brake in the thermal printer of Chaum as modified based on the teachings of Kaminaka and/or Zhou to provide a printer improving the efficacy of controlling the roll paper movement by including a braking system.
Regarding claim 4, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al, and Kaminaka and/or Zhou further teaches further comprising a paper roll brake (17,17A, 17B, 21,22,23 figs.4-8; 70,71,72 figs.11-15 of Kaminaka as applied above; 33,3,5,12 figs.1-3 of Zhou as applied above) configured to make contact with paper on a roll of thermal paper to prevent the roll of thermal paper from rotating.
Regarding claim 5, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al, Cummings et al, and/or and Poulos et al, and Kaminaka and/or Zhou further teaches further comprising a paper roll axle hold-down configured to maintain physical coupling between a mounting axle for a roll of thermal paper with the thermal ballot (the functional language ballot is not given patentable weight) printer while permitting rotation for the roll of thermal paper during operation of the thermal ballot printer (17,17A, 17B, 21,22,23 figs.4-8; 70,71,72 figs.11-15 of Kaminaka as applied above; 33,3,5,12 figs.1-3 of Zhou as applied above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the above rejection. Applicant’s attention is directed to the above rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENOK D LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1615. The examiner can normally be reached General Schedule 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, IFP.
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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571)431-0716. 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.
/HENOK D LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights