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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/25/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 newly requires that the optical sensor “provides data” and that the data “is configured with predetermined specifications of the image to be printed.” However, support in the specification for the term “data” could not be found. Additionally, support in the specification for the limitation that the optical sensor “provides configured data” could not be found.
Paragraph 43 of the specification does support subject matter where a vision sensor linked to software detects the position of the previously printed image and compares the position with predetermined specifications to determine alignment, and then sends feedback to a computer to make adjustments to print position.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 1-8, 10-15, and 18 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the data that is configured" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, the limitation starting at line 13 of claim 1 does not make grammatical sense. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that “is compared the previous alignment” reads “is compared with the previous alignment”.
For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the two new limitations of claim 1 require: predetermined specifications of the image to be printed are used in the previously recited “determination of whether the corresponding previously printed image is properly aligned”, the optical sensor detects the position of the printed image, the detected position is compared to the predetermined specifications to determine alignment with respect to the wireless communication device.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 14-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Armstrong et al. (US 2005/0160935).
Attention of Application is drawn to the 112 rejection above for how the claim is interpreted for purposes of rejection. Regarding claim 1, Armstrong et al. disclose “a printer system (item 20) comprising: a motor and driver assembly (Figure 2, paragraph 19) configured for adjusting a print position of a subsequent image on a substrate having a first side and a second side (item 10) and at least one wireless communication device (paragraph 18); a location sensor (item 30) configured to detect the wireless communication device (paragraph 18); and an optical sensor (paragraph 25, second item 30) configured to detect a position of a previously printed image printed on the substrate (paragraph 18), wherein adjustment (paragraph 16: correct anomaly, last limitation of claim 1) of the print position of the subsequent image is based on detection of the wireless communication device using the location sensor and a subsequent determination of whether the corresponding previously printed image is properly aligned with the wireless communication device using the optical sensor (paragraphs 18 and 20),” wherein the optical sensor detects the location of the printed image (paragraph 22), the alignment of the image is determined based upon predetermined specifications of the image to be printed (paragraph 18: ‘devices 30 are set up to recognize the same pattern’, claim 8: ‘comparing label data with a know[n] image pattern to identify the changes in pattern’). Examiner further notes that Armstrong et al. disclose ensuring the RFID tag is correctly aligned to the label (paragraph 20). Therefore, since the alignment of the image with respect to the label is determined by Armstrong et al., and since the RFID tag is in the correct position, the alignment or misalignment of the printed image with respect to the RFID tag is necessarily (indirectly) also determined. Regarding claim 2, Armstrong et al. further disclose “wherein the printed image is indicia comprising at least one word, a logo, a trademark, a design, a pattern (paragraph 18), a graphic, an artwork, or combinations thereof.” Regarding claim 4, Armstrong et al. further disclose “wherein the substrate comprises fabric, paper, cardboard, laminate, polypropylene, polyester, aluminum, plastic bags, wood, or combinations thereof (paragraph 29: Examiner asserts that the ‘print media’ of a thermal transfer printer implicitly includes one of paper, laminate, polypropylene, or polyester).” Regarding claim 5, Armstrong et al. further disclose “wherein the first side of the substrate is on a side opposite to that of the second side of the substrate (this is an implicit feature of a label).” Regarding claim 8, Armstrong et al. further disclose “wherein the location sensor comprises an optical sensor (paragraph 25).” Regarding claim 10, Armstrong et al. further disclose “wherein the wireless communication device comprises an RFID (radio frequency identification) device, a Near-Field Communication (NFC) device, a Bluetooth device, or combinations thereof (paragraph 18).” Regarding claim 14, Armstrong et al. further disclose “wherein the wireless communication device is integrated into the substrate (paragraph 20: Examiner interprets the fact that the RFID is part of the label 10 to mean that it is ‘integrated’ into the substrate).” Regarding claim 15, Armstrong et al. further disclose “wherein the sensor, the motor and driver assembly and the optical sensor are installed on a printer of the printer system (Figure 1).” Regarding claim 18, Armstrong et al. further disclose “wherein the motor and driver assembly aligns the image with the wireless communication device and within the print register based on the identification of off-centering of the image with respect to the wireless communication device (claims 1,8, and 13, paragraphs 18, 19, and 20).” Examiner notes that when both the image and the RFID tag are checked for correct alignment with the substrate (paragraphs 18 and 20, respectively), implicitly, alignment or misalignment between the two is determined.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et al. in view of Blanchard, JR. et al. (US 20090194588). Regarding claims 3 and 4, Armstrong et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “wherein the substrate is a fabric material.” However, Armstrong et al. generically teach that the print media is in the form of a roll of a web (Figure 1) of labels on a liner (paragraph 29), but do not disclose the specifics of the roll, leaving the choice up to one having ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Blanchard, JR. et al. disclose that rolls of labels similar to that of Armstrong et al. can be made of a web of paper or fabric (paragraph 38). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use labels which are in the form of a roll of a web of paper or fabric because they have been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et al. Regarding claims 6 and 7, Armstrong et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, including that the sensor can be any suitable sensor which can detect label position (paragraph 21), and exemplifies a CCD system (paragraph 25). Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of the filing of the invention, capacitive, photocell, and camera sensors were known in the art to be suitable sensors capable of determining the position of objects. It has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.06. It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to: use either a capacitive or a photocell sensor as the position sensor of Armstrong et al. because they were known to be suitable for the intended purpose; and/or use either a capacitive or a photocell sensor instead of the CCD sensor of Armstrong et al. because they were known in the art to be equivalents for the same purpose.
Since Applicant did not traverse that which was asserted as being common knowledge, that which was taken to be common knowledge is now considered to be admitted prior art. See MPEP §2144.03(c).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et al. in view of Blanchard, JR. et al. and Lai et al. (US 20110303751). Regarding claims 11 and 12, Armstrong et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 10 above, except “wherein the RFID device comprises one or more antennas including a booster antenna woven into the substrate.” However, Armstrong et al. generically teach that the print media is in the form of a roll of a web (Figure 1) of labels on a liner (paragraph 29), but do not disclose the specifics of the roll, leaving the choice up to one having ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Blanchard, JR. et al. disclose that rolls of labels similar to that of Armstrong et al. can be made of a web of paper or fabric (paragraph 38). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use labels which are in the form of a roll of a web of fabric because they have been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. However, Lai et al. disclose integrating an RFID chip and at least one antenna coupled (by sewing or weaving [paragraphs 8, 34]) to the RFID chip into a fabric label (abstract, paragraphs 33 and 34) in order to enable long range RFID read of RFID tags in clothing labels (paragraph 52). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the RFID chip and at least one antenna into the substrate by weaving in order to have a label which is able to be read from a long range. Regarding claim 14, since the RFID chip and the antenna are woven into the fabric, the “wireless communication device is integrated into the substrate.”
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et al. in view of Vleurinck et al. (US2009/0190987). Regarding claim 13, Armstrong et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “wherein the wireless communication device is at least partially attached to the back side of the substrate by an adhesive.” Armstrong et al. are silent as to how the RFID is attached to the label, leaving the choice up to one having ordinary skill in the art. Vleurinck et al. disclose labels with integrated RFID tags (paragraph 8) and teaches adhering the RFID tags to the underside of a label with an adhesive (paragraph 69). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to attach the RFID tags to the underside of the label of Armstrong et al. using an adhesive because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP §2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 08/25/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853