DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 39 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claim is directed to a patentably distinct and properly restricted combination of the originally presented subcombination according to claim 21.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 39 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.’
Claims 21-24, 31 and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (2008/0310904) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (5,620,268) and Ueda et al. (4,558,965).
Regarding claim 21, Yamaguchi teaches a tape cassette comprising:
a cassette case (fig. 4, item 21) having a first end portion (fig. 4, rightmost end of case) and a second end portion (fig. 4, leftmost end of case) separated from the first end portion in a first direction (fig. 4, horizontal on page), the cassette case having a third end (fig. 4, bottommost portion of case) portion and a fourth end portion (fig. 4, topmost portion of case) separated from the third end portion in a second direction (fig. 4, vertical on page), and the cassette case having a supporting hole (fig. 3, item 41), the supporting hole positioned closer to the fourth end portion than to the third end portion in the second direction, and the supporting hole positioned closer to the second end portion than to the first end portion in the first direction (see figs. 3, 4);
a first spool (fig. 4, item 56) positioned in the cassette case, the first spool positioned closer to the third end portion of the cassette case than to the fourth end portion in the second direction, the first spool positioned closer to the second end portion than to the first end portion in the first direction (see figs. 3, 4);
a ribbon spool (fig. 4, item 55) positioned in the cassette case, the ribbon spool positioned closer to the fourth end portion than to the third end portion in the second direction (see fig. 4); and
a tape drive roller (fig. 4, item 63) rotatable about an axis extending in a third direction (fig. 4, into page), the tape drive roller configured to allow tape to be discharged from inside of the cassette case ([0192]), the tape drive roller positioned closer to the first end portion of the cassette case in the first direction than to the second end portion (see fig. 4), the tape drive roller positioned closer to the third end portion of the cassette case than the fourth end portion of the cassette case in the second direction (see fig. 4) and the tape drive roller including a second guide hole (see figs. 3, 4, note unlabeled guide hole corresponding to drive roller 63),
wherein the cassette case includes an arm (fig. 3, portion of cassette case separated from large portion of case 21 by space 22) positioned at the first end portion (see figs. 3, 4), the arm extending in the second direction (see figs. 3, 4, note that, as a three-dimensional object, the arm can be said to “extend in” any direction), the arm having a first outer surface (see fig. 6, note portion of smaller arm facing the bulk of the cassette case 21) facing a portion of the cassette case in the first direction (see figs. 3, 4, 6) and a second outer surface (figs. 3, 4, 6, surface of arm opposite first surface) facing away from the cassette case in the first direction (see figs. 3, 4, 6), and the arm has an exit (fig. 4, note unlabeled exit through which the tape exits the unlabeled arm) configured to allow ink ribbon to be discharged toward the tape drive roller from inside of the cassette case (see fig. 4),
wherein the second guide hole is positioned closer to the third end portion in the second direction than the arm to the third end portion in the second direction (see figs. 3, 4, note that if the bottommost portion of the case immediately proximate the drive roller 63 is taken to be the third end portion, the limitation is met), and wherein the second guide hole allows a second portion of the associated printer to be inserted (see figs. 3, 4, 6).
Yamaguchi ‘904 does not teach a first guide hole that allow a first portion of an associated printer to be inserted. Yamaguchi ‘268 teaches a first guide hole (Yamaguchi ‘268, fig. 4, Note first guide hole 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the first guide hole disclosed by Yamaguchi ‘268 to the cartridge of Yamaguchi ‘904 because doing so would allow for proper positioning of the cartridge when inserted into the printer.
Further, according to MPEP 2144.04, a rearrangement of parts is not patentable if such a rearrangement does not modify the operation of the prior art device. As such, Examiner maintains that locating the first guide hole disclosed by Yamaguchi ‘268 at any number of positions, including at a corner opposite the corner of the opening, along the cassette of Yamaguchi ‘904 would not have modified the operation of that guide hole.
Upon combination of Yamaguchi ‘904 with Yamaguchi ‘268, the resultant device would meet the limitations:
wherein a first line connects the first guide hole and the second guide hole,
wherein a distance between the first guide hole and the second guide hole along the first line is greater than a distance from the first spool to the first guide hole, and is greater than a distance from the first spool to the second guide hole
wherein the first guide hole is positioned closer to the second end portion of the cassette case in the first direction than to the first end portion, the first guide hole positioned closer to the fourth end portion of the cassette case than the third end portion of the cassette in the second direction, wherein the supporting hole is positioned between the first guide hole and the second guide hole. Yamaguchi ‘268 teaches a first guide hole meeting all of the claimed limitations (see illustration).
Further, Yamaguchi ‘904 teaches the apparatus according to claim 21. Yamaguchi ‘904 does not teach first and second indicators in a predetermined pattern, a position of the first indicator is different from a position of the second indicator in the second direction and the first direction.
Yamaguchi ‘268 teaches a tape cassette with indicator holes on an exterior of a case of the tape cassette (Yamaguchi ‘268, see fig. 5, Note indicator holes 71 at different positions in the first and second directions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the indicator holes disclosed by Yamaguchi ‘268 to the cassette of Yamaguchi ‘904 because doing so allow for identification of the type of cartridge by the greater device after cartridge installation.
(Note that “indicator” has not in itself been defined in any specified way. Yamaguchi ‘268 shows two components that could be said to be “indicators” on the second outer surface of its arm as shown in figure 8. Note pawl c2 and unlabeled opening in arm at different positions in the second and third directions. While this is not the asserted rejection, it should be noted that “indicator” itself could mean almost anything without further specification).
Yamaguchi ‘904 with Yamaguchi ‘268 does not teach wherein the indicator holes are arranged at the second outer surface, a position of the first indicator is different from a position of the second indicator in the second direction and the third direction. Ueda teaches indicator holes on a second outer surface part of an ink ribbon cartridge (Ueda, see figs. 4, 2, Note indicator holes 41 on arm portion 36 of cassette). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to position the indicator holes disclosed by Yamaguchi ‘268 on the second outer surface of the arm of Yamaguchi ‘904, as disclosed by Ueda, because doing so would amount to a simple substitute of one indicator positioning for another to obtain predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
798
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Yamaguchi ‘904 in view of Yamaguchi ‘268 and Ueda teaches the tape cassette according to claim 21, wherein the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction, and wherein the third direction is orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction (see claim 21 rejection).
Regarding claim 23, Yamaguchi ‘904 in view of Yamaguchi ‘268 and Ueda teaches the tape cassette according to claim 21, further comprising: a tape (Yamaguchi ‘904, fig. 4, item 53) wound around the first spool.
Regarding claim 24, Yamaguchi ‘904 in view of Yamaguchi ‘268 and Ueda teaches the tape cassette according to claim 22, further comprising: a tape wound (Yamaguchi ‘904, fig. 4, item 53) around the first spool.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Yamaguchi ‘904 in view of Yamaguchi ‘268 and Ueda teaches the apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the first indicator is a hole extending through the second outer surface, and wherein the second indicator is a hole extending through the second outer surface (see rejection of claim 21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 X. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853