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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/10/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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, 6-12, and 21-24 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) and Cummings et al (US 8,096,471).
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 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 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 language double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the indicated vote selections is 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.
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).
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 filled-in vote selection to be double-sided in Chaum based on the teachings of Cummings et al for instance to facilitate double sided printing operations.
Note: The following claim languages “for enabling a user to indicate vote selections” in lines 3-4; “double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the indicated vote selections” in line 11 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 “for enabling a user to indicate vote selections”, “double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the indicated vote selections” have not been given patentable weight. Manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Chaum as modified by Sekino 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 by Sekino et al 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 12, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al further teaches wherein the thermal ballot (the functional language ballot is not given patentable weight) printer ( figs.33,34 of chaum; figs.1-2,8 of Sekino et al) is configured to communicate with software, the software for receiving a voter's intent (the functional language for receiving a voter's intent is not given patentable weight) via one or more of a touchscreen and an assistive input device, and for rendering a printed ballot (the functional language ballot is not given patentable weight) image (figs.2,4,11,15,19,21,33-35,37;paragraphs 0162,0166,0270 of Chaum).
Regarding claim 21, Chaum teaches a method (figs.2,4,11,12,15,16d,33,34) comprising:
receiving vote selections via a user-operated touchscreen device or an assistive input device (figs.2; paragraphs 0054,0162,0166,0270, teaches touchscreen used by voter to make a choice of candidates);
printing a first page of 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) on a first side of a roll-fed thermal print medium (3300) (figs.33a-33c, paragraphs 0054,0138, 0144,0166,0172,0249-0252 teaches filling of voter choose of candidates through touch screen and printing) (see the note below, the functional language double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the vote selections is not given patentable weight in structure claim);
printing a second page of the filled-in double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the vote selections using a second thermal print head (for instance 3312 fig.33b; 3322 fig.33c) on a second side of the roll-fed thermal print medium (3300) (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 language double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the vote selections is 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 cutting the filled-in double-sided full-face ballot from the roll-fed thermal print medium. 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.
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) configured to cut from the roll-fed thermal print medium. 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).
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 filled-in vote selection to be double-sided in Chaum based on the teachings of Cummings et al for instance to facilitate double sided printing operations.
Note: The following claim languages “double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the vote selections”, “full-face ballot” in lines 4-5,7-8,10 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 “double-sided full-face ballot reflecting the vote selections”, “full-face ballot” have not been given patentable weight. Manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.
Regarding claim 22, Chaum as modified by Sekino 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 by Sekino et al 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 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 24, Chaum as modified by Sekino et al further teaches wherein the vote selections are received via the assistive input device, the assistive input device being a keypad, a rocker paddle, or a sip and puff device (figs.2; paragraphs 0054, 0162,0166,0270 teaches touchscreen or the like input device) (note that, the functional language vote selections is not given patentable weight in structure claim).
Chaum as modified by Sekino et al do not explicitly teaches wherein the assistive input device being a keypad, a rocker paddle, or a sip and puff device.
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 choose any one of the assistive input devices such as a keypad, a rocker paddle, or a sip and puff device, since it was known in the art to use for instance a keypad to use less costly input device or to use a rocker paddle for instance where easy manipulation of the input device is required.
Claim 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaum as modified by Sekino et al and Cummings 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 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 by Sekino et al 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 by Sekino et al 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 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 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 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed to the above rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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