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. Priority The following claimed benefit is acknowledged: The instant application, filed on 06/28/2023 , claims foreign priority to GB Application No. 2209452.8 , filed on 06/28/2022 . Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements ( lDS ) submitted on 09/19/2023, 11/21/2023 and 03/13/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. 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 1-3, 6-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNestry (US20080219741A1) in view of Walker (US6322192B1) . Regarding claim 1 , McNestry discloses a printing apparatus (Figs. 1-2 ; ¶¶ 38, 45 ) including a printhead ( Fig. 1, printhead 5; ¶¶ 38, 45) and a monitoring device (Fig . 1, sensor 19 ; ¶¶ 19 , 51 ) , the monitoring device including an emitter ( ¶ 55 , LED ) , a receiver ( ¶¶ 51 , 55, CCD for image capture ) , and a processor ( ¶ 55 , microprocessor ) ; the emitter being operable to emit [ … ] towards a target surface ( ¶¶ 55-56 , light source illuminate tape 6 of Figs. 1-2 ) , and the receiver being operable to receive first data corresponding to a reflected portion of the first output (Fig. 2B, first image 22; ¶¶ 57-58) and data corresponding to a reflected portion of the second output (Fig. 2B, second image 23 ; ¶¶ 57-58) , each reflected portion having been reflected by the target surface, wherein each output emitted by the emitter is electromagnetic radiation ( ¶¶ 30, 57-58 , light reflection from tape 6 ) , and wherein the processor is operable to compare the data corresponding to the reflected portion of the first output and the data corresponding to the reflected portion of the second output to monitor a parameter of the target surface relative to the monitoring device ( ¶¶ 30, 51, 55, 57- 58, 60, comparison between the two images 22, 23 determines the relative amount the tape has moved) . McNestry does not disclose: [the emitter being operable to emit ] “ a first output and a second output . ” However, Walker teaches the limitation in Fig. 10, where the emitter outputs individual pulses 265 correspond ing to a respective photodetection time interval 266. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emitter of McNestry with the teachings of Walker with a reasonable expectation for success in order to increase the illumination intensity and resulting sensor signal while preventing emitter overheating , thereby providing for improved signal-to-noise without exceeding thermal limits ( Walker, Col. 4:35-40, Col. 16:3-7 , Col. 20:6 5 -21:5 ). Regarding claim 2 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the printing apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the parameter is at least one of position, displacement, speed and acceleration of the target surface ( McNestry , ¶¶ 30, 51, 55, 58, 60, tape displacement ) . Regarding claim 3 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the printing apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the monitoring device is an optical sensor ( McNestry , ¶¶ 51, 55, CCD for image capture) . Regarding claim 6 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the printing apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein at least a part of the monitoring device is housed substantially within a body of the printer, the body of the printer also housing the printhead (Walker, Col. 8:5-9 & Col. 10:10-11, enclosure 23 surrounds printer 20, which includes sensor 100 and printhead carrier 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the printing apparatus of McNestry in view of Walker with the further teachings of Walker since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). The skilled artisan would have recognized that adopting the enclosure of Walter would provide for the protection and integration of internal components . This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 7 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the printing apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein at least a part of the monitoring device is positioned on or adjacent the printhead (Walker, Col. 10:10-11, sensor mounted on the printhead carrier; 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 have modified the printing apparatus of McNestry in view of Walker with the further teachings of Walter since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). The skilled artisan would have recognized that adopting the teachings of Walker would reduce the need for separate mounting and cable routing, thereby providing for reduced packaging complexity and improved serviceability . This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 9 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the printing apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the target surface is a substrate to be printed or an inked ribbon ( McNestry , ¶¶ 4, 38) . Regarding claim 10 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the printing apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: including a plurality of monitoring devices, so as to enable monitoring of a plurality of parameters ( McNestry , ¶¶ 46, 72, multiple position sensors used for each motor) . Regarding claim 1 1 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the printing apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: including a controller ( McNestry , ¶ 5 5 , microprocessor) wherein the controller is operable to receive data indicative of one or more monitored parameters and to use the data indicative of the one or more monitored parameters to determine at least one of a speed of the target surface relative to the monitoring device, an acceleration of the target surface, and a diameter of a spool of inked ribbon ( McNestry , ¶ 58 , the comparison of the two images first determines how far the tape moved between captures, and using the elapsed time to determine velocity/speed; ¶ 5 4, calculation of change in position, speed and acceleration) . Regarding claim 12 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the printing apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: the printing apparatus being a thermal transfer printer ( McNestry , ¶¶ 3-4, 45, 79, thermal transfer printer) . Regarding claim 1 3 , McNestry discloses a method of monitoring a parameter in a printing apparatus (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 38, 45) , the method including: providing a monitoring device (Fig. 1, sensor 19; ¶¶ 19, 51) including an emitter ( ¶ 55, LED) , a receiver ( ¶¶ 51, 55, CCD for image capture) , and a processor ( ¶ 55, microprocessor) ; emitting a first output from the emitter towards a target surface at a first time ( ¶¶ 55-56, light source illuminate tape 6 of Figs. 1-2) ; receiving a reflected portion of the first output, which is reflected by the target surface, at the receiver (Fig. 2B, first image 22; ¶¶ 57-58) ; storing data representative of the reflected portion of the first output in the monitoring device ( ¶¶ 52, 54, 57-58, output is recorded) ; [1: …] , the second time being after the first time ( ¶ 57, second image capture) , wherein a difference between the first time and the second time is a first interval ( ¶ 57, “a predetermined time interval”) ; receiving a reflected portion of the second output, which is reflected by the target surface, at the receiver (Fig. 2B, second image 23; ¶¶ 57-58) ; wherein the first output [2: …] of the emitter includes electromagnetic radiation ( ¶¶ 30, 57-58, light reflection from tape 6) and the method includes comparing data representative of the reflected portion of the second output with the data representative of the reflected portion of the first output, using the processor of the monitoring device, to monitor a parameter of the target surface relative to the monitoring device during the first interval ( ¶¶ 30, 51, 55, 57- 58, 60, compariso n between the two images 22, 23 determines the relative amount the tape has moved). McNestry does not disclose: (1) “ emitting a second output from the emitter towards the target surface, at a second time ” ; (2) “ and the second output ” [ includes electromagnetic radiation ]. However, Walker teaches the limitation s in Fig. 10, where the emitter outputs individual light pulses 265 sequentially in between pauses, each pulse emission corresponding to a respective photodetection time interval 266. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of McNestry with the teachings of Walker with a reasonable expectation for success in order to increase the illumination intensity and resulting sensor signal while preventing emitter overheating, thereby providing for improved signal-to-noise without exceeding thermal limits ( Walker, Col. 4:35-40, Col. 16:3-7, Col. 20:65-21:5 ). Regarding claim 14 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the method of claim 1 3 , and further teaches: wherein the parameter is at least one of position and displacement of the target surface relative to the monitoring device ( McNestry , ¶¶ 30, 51, 55, 58, 60, tape displacement) . . Regarding claim 1 6 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the method of claim 1 3 , and further teaches: wherein the comparison of the reflected portions of the outputs enables monitoring of displacement of the target surface relative to the monitoring device in two dimensions ( McNestry , ¶¶ 30, 51, 55, 58, 60, monitoring tape displacement “in first and second orthogonal directions”) . Regarding claim 1 7 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the method of claim 1 3 , and further teaches: including receiving data indicative of the monitored parameter of the target surface at a controller of a printing apparatus ( McNestry , ¶ 55, microprocessor) , and using the monitored parameter to determine a further parameter of the target surface ( McNestry , ¶ 58, the comparison of the two images first determines how far the tape moved between captures, and using the elapsed time to determine velocity/speed; ¶ 54, calculation of change in position, speed and acceleration) . Regarding claim 1 8 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the method of claim 1 7 , and further teaches: wherein the further parameter is at least one of speed and acceleration ( McNestry , ¶ 58, speed) . Regarding claim 1 9 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the method of claim 1 3 , and further teaches: wherein the target surface is a substrate to be printed ( McNestry , ¶¶ 3-4, 45, 79 , thermal transfer printer paper) . Regarding claim 20 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the method of claim 1 7 , and further teaches: including using at least one of the monitored parameter and the further parameter to control an aspect of a printing operation of the printing apparatus ( McNestry , ¶¶ 60-61, 65 , generates control signal to adjust motor ) . Claims 4 - 5 , 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNestry in view of Walker further in view of Xie (US20060132523A1) . Regarding claim 4 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1 , however does not teach: wherein the emitter is a laser. However, Xie teaches a VCSEL in ¶¶ 13, 15, 17. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emitter of McNestry in view of Walker with the teachings of Xie with a reasonable expectation for success in order to generate higher contrast reflections, thereby enabling more accurate target tracking across a wider range of media types ( Xie , ¶¶ 4-6 & 14) . Regarding claim 5 , McNestry in view of Walker and Xie teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 4 , and further teaches : wherein the emitter is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (Xie, ¶¶ 13, 15, 17 ) . Regarding claim 8 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1 , however does not teach: wherein the emitter of the monitoring device is arranged such that the output of the emitter is emitted towards a position on the target surface which is substantially aligned with one or more printing elements of the printhead . However, Xie teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 16 & 23 and Figs. 2A-2B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the printing apparatus of McNestry in view of Walker with the teachings of Xie with a reasonable expectation for success in order maintain proper positional registration relative to the printhead, thereby offering more accurate feedback of actual media motion and enabling closed-loop compensation of paper/printhead error in order to maintain optical print quality ( Xie, ¶¶ 1, 3, 15, 23-24) . Regarding claim 15 , McNestry in view of Walker teaches the method of claim 14, and further teaches: emitting a series of […] electromagnetic radiation outputs (Walker, Fig. 10, series of light pulses 265, as previously combined) , there being a respective time interval between each output and a subsequent output in the series (Walker, Fig. 10, time interval between each pulse in series 265) ; receiving a corresponding reflected portion of each output of the series at the receiver ( McNestry , ¶¶ 52 & 54, series of image captures, up to 6400 images per second ; Walker, Fig. 10, 266 ); and determining a monitoring period between a first and last output of at least three outputs of the series ( McNestry , ¶¶ 52 & 54, “over a known period of time”); and comparing the respective reflected portions of the at least three outputs of the series, to monitor displacement of the target surface relative to the monitoring device during the monitoring period ( McNestry , ¶¶ 52 & 54, determine movement direction and magnitude for each pair of the sequentially acquired images) . McNestry in view of Walker does not teach: [e mitting] “c oherent ” [ electromagnetic radiation ] . However, Xie teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 13 & 17. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of McNestry in view of Walker with the teachings of Xie with a reasonable expectation for success in order to generate higher contrast reflections, thereby enabling more accurate target tracking across a wider range of media types ( Xie, ¶¶ 4-6 & 14) . Conclusion Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include: Pawlik (US20120069075A1) discloses an inject printer employing a light source and sensor for monitoring printer paper feed path and relative motion. Clayton (US5977533A) discloses a printer employing a pulse width modulated emitter and optical sensor for detection and positioning of print media. Kowdle (US20180350087A1) discloses pulsed illuminators employed for active stereo depth sensing. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1078 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT YUQING XIAO can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3603 . 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. /ZHENGQING QI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645