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.
Claim(s) 28-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). Regarding claim 28, AAPA discloses “a numbering unit (Applicant’s specification at paragraph 4) comprising: type wheels configured to apply a character string to a document (paragraph 7), wherein the type wheels are mounted rotatably about an axis of rotation (paragraph 14); and a catch assigned to a type wheel in order to prevent undesired rotation of the type wheel (paragraph 15), wherein the catch is displaceable along the axis of rotation of the type wheels (paragraph 18: implicitly, the catches will be moveable along the axis of rotation of the type wheels).” Regarding claim 29, AAPA further discloses “wherein the character string is printable on the document by the type wheels (paragraph 7).” Regarding claim 30, AAPA further discloses “wherein the type wheels are interchangeable (paragraph 18).” Regarding claim 31, AAPA further discloses “wherein the type wheels are arranged next to each other along the axis of rotation and form a type wheel set (paragraph 7).” Regarding claim 32, AAPA further discloses “further comprising a numbering mechanism (paragraph 14).”
Regarding claim 33, AAPA further discloses “wherein the numbering mechanism is configured such that a set character string on the type wheels is advanced by one unit after each printing operation at a desired digit of the set character string (paragraph 14).” Regarding claim 34, AAPA further discloses “wherein the catch is arranged between two adjacent type wheels (paragraph 18).” Regarding claim 35, AAPA further discloses “wherein the catch extends essentially tangentially onto an outside of the type wheel set, starting from a space between two adjacent type wheels (paragraphs 15 and 16, and Figures 1 and 2).” Examiner notes that Figure 2 shows a known prior art catch. Therefore, Figure 1, when using the prior art catch of Figure 2 will be a prior art arrangement. Regarding claim 36, AAPA further discloses “wherein the catch is mounted tiltably relative to the type wheel (paragraph 15, Figure 1).” Regarding claim 37, AAPA further discloses “wherein the catch is configured to engage with one end in a recess in the type wheel or between adjacent type wheels in order to prevent the undesired rotation of the type wheel (paragraph 15).” Regarding claim 38, AAPA further discloses “wherein the catch is configured to prevent the type wheel from turning back to a lower character by establishing a form closure (paragraph 16).”
Regarding claim 39, AAPA further discloses “wherein the catch is configured to exert a holding force on the type wheel, and wherein a numbering mechanism is configured to overcome the holding force in order to further rotate the type wheel (paragraph 16).” Regarding claim 40, AAPA further discloses “wherein the catch is configured such that, when the holding force is overcome, an end of the catch close to the type wheel swivels away upwards with respect to the type wheel and releases the further rotation of the type wheel (paragraph 16).” Regarding claim 41, AAPA further discloses “wherein the catch is removable from the numbering unit and replaceable with a further catch (paragraph 18).”
Regarding claim 42, AAPA further discloses “wherein the catch is adjustable to any type wheel width by displacement along the axis of rotation of the type wheels (paragraph 18).” Regarding claim 43, AAPA further discloses “wherein the catch is displaceably mounted on an axle, which extends parallel to the axis of rotation of the type wheels (item 22 of Figure 1. See also in the prior art catch of Figure 2 the hole through which the axle will go through).” Regarding claim 44, AAPA further discloses “wherein the axle simultaneously provides a tilting axis for the catch (Figure 1: see the axle which would go through the hole in the prior art catch of Figure 2).” Regarding claim 45, AAPA further discloses “wherein the catch is subjected to a spring force at an end facing away from the type wheel (see the spring of the prior art catch of Figure 2, paragraph 16), and wherein the spring force causes an end of the catch facing the type wheel to be pressed against the type wheel (paragraph 16, Figure 2).” Regarding claim 46, AAPA further discloses “further comprising a compression spring arranged between an end of the catch facing away from the type wheel and the numbering unit (see the spring in the prior art catch of Figure 2).” Regarding claim 47, AAP further discloses “wherein the compression spring is a spring-loaded pin (Figure 2).”
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.
Claim(s) 48-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA. Regarding claim 48, AAPA discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 28 above, except “wherein an end of the catch facing away from the type wheel is supported in a fork.” AAPA does disclose that the spring is attached to the catch (Figure 2). Examiner takes official notice that, at the time of the invention, it was known to use a clevis fork for attaching a spring to an object. It has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.06. 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 a clevis fork to attach the spring of AAPA to the catch because it was known in the art to be suitable for the intended 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).
Regarding claim 49, AAPA, as modified, further discloses “wherein the fork is formed or arranged at the end of a spring-loaded pin (Figure 2).” Regarding claim 50, AAPA, as modified, further discloses “wherein the spring-loaded pin is displaceable together with the catch along the axis of rotation of the type wheels (implicitly, the combination of the spring-loaded pin and the catch are ‘displaceable’ together along the axis of rotation of the type wheels).” Regarding claim 51, AAPA, as modified, further discloses “wherein one end of the spring-loaded pin facing the numbering unit is displaceably mounted in a groove or in a guide groove (Figure 2 in combination with Figure 1).”
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Schaede (US 7216583). Regarding claim 52, AAPA, as modified, discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 51 above, except “wherein two guide grooves are implemented by lying one above the other, and wherein adjacent spring-loaded pins are mounted in different guide grooves.” However, Schaede discloses having adjacent pins mounted differently (including one above the other) in order to allow different wheels to be moved quickly to any desired number (column 9, lines 43-50, Figure 5, pins 17 and 18, for example). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have at least two adjacent pins mounted in different guide grooves in order to allow for at least one wheel to be moved separately and/or quickly to another number.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the catch of AAPA is not displaceable along the axis of rotation of the type wheels is not persuasive. Clearly, in order to put the catches on the guide and put them in place with their respective type wheels, they must be moved along the axis of rotation of the type wheels. Additionally, the claims only require that the catch be “displaceable” along the axis; an axis is imaginary, and not a physical object. Moving the whole numbering unit along the direction of the axis of rotation of the type wheels results in the catches being displaced along the axis of the of rotation of the type wheels. Thus, it is still deemed that the catch of AAPA is “displaceable” along the axis of rotation of the type wheels.
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 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