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, 5, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuchigami et al. JP 2000-238946 A (hereinafter “Fuchigami”).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Fuchigami, with reference to FIG. 5, discloses a system to monitor available media in a printer (FIG. 1), comprising:
a media holder that includes:
a support frame (8), and
a support member (7) that extends from the support frame, wherein the support member is configured to receive a media roll; and
an optical sensor (11) attached to the support frame of the media holder,
wherein the optical sensor is configured to include an axial end of the media roll within a field of view of the optical sensor,
wherein the field view of the optical sensor corresponds to a line of sight that is parallel to a support axis (horizontal axis of 7) of the support member,
wherein the optical sensor is configured to output sensor data (by warning) that indicates whether the media roll has available media according to a radius (“thickness”) of the axial end,
wherein the support frame includes a track (notice in Fig. 5, 11 is adjusted by vertical track of 9) that has a path with a longitudinal axis (vertical) that is perpendicular to the support axis (horizontal axis of 7),
wherein the optical sensor is attached to the support frame via a housing (notice outer housing of 11) of the optical sensor that is received within the track and is slidable along the longitudinal axis of the path (11 moves up and down and guided vertically by 9),
wherein a position of the optical sensor along the path defines an adjustable threshold for indicating a remaining quantity of the media roll, the adjustable threshold corresponding to a distance between the line of sight of the optical sensor and the support axis, and
wherein the sensor data is indicative of a remaining quantity of the media roll based on whether the radius of the axial end satisfies the adjustable threshold defined by the position of the optical sensor along the path.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the support member (7) extends from the support frame along a support axis, wherein the support axis is configured to be perpendicular to a plane of the axial end.
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 6, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami in view of Verdugo et al. US 2014/0367508 A1 (hereinafter “Verdugo”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Fuchigami teaches claimed invention except explicitly teaching a controller as claimed (instead teaches a light emitting diode is used as the warning means for running out of paper…However, the present invention is not limited to this, and a warning by a sound such as a buzzer may be used. Warning characters may be displayed on the display device).
Verdugo teaches the use of a controller (13 or printer controller) and an output component [0037]-[0048]) to indicate a small level remaining amount state of the paper roll.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fuchigami’s device with a controller and output component of Nonaka as a known alternative means of alerting a user the remaining quantity of the media roll to thereby prevent wasted print media before a job is started.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of references teaches the claimed invention, refer to rejections of claims 1 and 6 as a guide.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of references teaches the claimed invention, refer to rejections of claim 1, 5, 6, and 11 as guide.
Claim 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami in view of Verdugo, and further in view of Taki et al. JP 2012-188180 A (hereinafter “Taki”).
Regarding claim 7, Fuchigami teaches the claimed invention except wherein the optical sensor is an image sensor, and wherein the sensor data is image data associated with a depiction of the axial end, wherein the controller is configured to determine the radius based on processing the image data using an image processing technique.
Taki teaches the known concept of using an image sensor (40, CCD or CMOS) or a linear image sensor for improved accuracy for determining the remaining paper amount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Fuchigami’s optical sensor with the image sensor of Taki in order to achieve the predictable result for further enhancing the accuracy of detecting the remaining paper amount.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of references teaches the claimed invention, refer to rejections of claims 1, 6, and 7 and 11 as a guide.
Claims 8, 14, 16, 17 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami in view of Verdugo, and further in view of Oikawa JP 2008-273694 A (hereinafter “Oikawa”, cited in an IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Fuchigami teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly teaching wherein the optical sensor is a reflective sensor, and
wherein the sensor data is a binary indication of whether the media roll has available media at a radial distance along the radius of the axial end, wherein the radial distance is based on an angular direction of the field of view and a distance between the optical sensor and the support member.
Oikawa teaches the optical sensor is a reflective sensor and a binary indication (“low”), and also teaches wherein the radial distance is based on an angular direction of the field of view and a distance between the optical sensor and the support member (refer to FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Fuchigami s optical sensor with the reflective sensor of Oikawa as a known alternative means of detecting the dimensions of the paper roll in order to determine remaining amount of the paper roll.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of references teaches the claimed invention, refer to rejections of claims 1, 6, and 8, and 11 as a guide.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of references teaches the claimed invention, refer to rejections of claims 1, 6, and 8, and 11 as a guide.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of references teaches the claimed invention, refer to rejections of claims 1, 6, and 8, and 11 as a guide.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of references teaches the claimed invention, refer to rejections of claims 1, 6, 8-11 as a guide.
Claims 9 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami in view of Oikawa.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Fuchigami teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly wherein the sensor data includes a binary indication of whether the media roll has available media at a radial distance along the radius that is based on a distance between the optical sensor and the support member (claim 9), and the optical sensor comprises:
a light emitter that is configured to emit light toward the axial end; and a reflective sensor that is configured to generate the sensor data based on whether the optical sensor receives reflected light from the axial end of the media roll (claim 10).
Oikawa teaches the optical sensor is a reflective sensor that includes a binary indication (“low” level) of whether the media roll has available media at a radial distance along the radius that is based on a distance between the optical sensor and the support member (refer to FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Fuchigami’s optical sensor with the reflective sensor of Oikawa as a known alternative means of detecting the dimensions of the paper roll in order to determine remaining amount of the paper roll.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 of Remarks that Fuchigami does not teach a sensor housing that is received within a track and slidable along a longitudinal axis of a path in the track. In support, Applicant points out that Fuchigami teaches a rotationally actuated screw driven adjustment mechanism for the optical sensor 11.
In response, while I agree that Fuchigami teaches a rotationally actuated screw driven adjustment mechanism for the optical sensor 11, it appears that Applicant is misreading the reference of Fuchigami. The linear movement of the sensor housing (11) up and down along the vertical track (opening formed in stopper surface 9) qualifies the sensor housing as a slidable component. As best understood, the stopper surface (9) acts as a structural guide/track that constrains and supports the sensor housing as it moves.
Since the argument presented by Applicant is not persuasive, the claims stand finally rejected by the same art presented in the previous office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Another reference of Pei et al. CN 109969842 A appears to be another 102(a)(1) reference and/or a teaching of a sensor slidable within a perpendicular track (FIG. 2 shows sensor 422 and 421 slidable within perpendicular track 41 of support frame 3).
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
Prosecution Insights