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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed limitations “RFID chip reader”, “receiver media type sensor”, “user input” means recited in claim 3; the claimed limitation “receiver media type sensor” recited in claim 4; the claimed limitation “providing an error message” means recited in claim 7; the claimed limitations “interface projections and cavities accessible by removing covers or moving hinged or sliding doors” recited in claim 8; the claimed limitations “sliding drawers”, “front access doors”, “front panels” recited in claim 9; the claimed limitations “user interface” recited in claim 13; and the claimed limitation “processing logic” recited in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 is rejected 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.
Regarding claim 4, given claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and claim 3 claims methods of identifying a receiver media type in the alternatives including by RFID chip reader and by user input. If one chooses the claimed method by user input and/or by RFID chip reader in claim 3, then claim 4 is rendered indefinite as the limitations in claim 4 do not further limit the limitation by user input and/or by RFID chip reader.
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, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al (US 2018/0201030).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki et al teaches a method of operating a modular dye-sublimation thermal printer system (figs.1-3,15), comprising:
mechanically and electrically connecting two or more modular dye-sublimation thermal printer units (printing unit 110, printing unit 120 figs. 1-3,15) in a vertically stacked arrangement (figs.1-3,15) wherein each unit is a simplex printer equipped with a computer processor (310,320 fig.3), communication means (312, 322 and/or the other communication means in 310,320 of fig.3), print media diverter (226,220 figs.2,15), alternative print media path (media path connecting 110 and 120 including 223), and lateral receiver media cutter (214,217 figs.2,15) (paragraphs 0069,0072,0073, 0083,0088,0110,0111,0112,0132).
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki et al further teaches further comprising:
selecting a duplex print mode with two printer units (110, 120 figs.1-3,15) vertically stacked and connected (two-side recording, paragraphs 0120,0121);
printing a first side of a duplex receiver media in a lower modular printer unit (figs.8,9);
positioning a diverter (226) in the lower modular printer unit in a second position (fig.14);
conveying the print media to an upper modular printer unit (204 figs.2,14) via the alternative receiver transport path (223) of the lower unit (110);
cutting the print media by the lower modular printer lateral print receiver media cutter (214 figs.2,11,14);
printing a second side of the duplex print media by the upper modular printer unit (120 figs.14,2);
positioning a diverter (220) in the upper modular printer unit in a first position (fig.14); and
transferring through the upper printer unit (120 figs.14,2) diverter to an exit slot (141) of the upper modular printer unit (see figs.8-14; paragraphs 0120-0121,0125, 0143-0145).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki et al further teaches automatically configuring the printer units to produce duplex and simplex prints when duplex print media is identified in the lower modular printer and simplex print media is identified in the upper modular unit (figs.4-14, paragraphs 0125,0128,0144,0145, 0169,0170,0173,0176,0259. Teaches duplex, simplex printing process. Also, medium suitable for duplex and simplex recording is loaded to the holding units during the printing).
Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki et al further teaches further comprising: automatically configuring the printer units to produce parallel simplex prints when simplex print media is identified in both the lower modular printer and the upper modular unit (figs.4-14, paragraphs 0125,0128,0144,0145, 0169,0170,0173,0176,0259. Teaches simplex printing process. Particularly paragraphs 0170 teach medium suitable for simplex recording can be also loaded to the bottom holding unit 201 for simplex printing).
Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki et al further teaches further comprising: accessing the modular printing units by sliding drawers, one or more front access doors, or removable front panels for maintenance, repair, jam clearing, and loading dye donor and receiver medias (130,140 figs.1,2; paragraphs 0044,0045,0211,0255).
Regarding claim 10, Yamazaki et al further teaches wherein print the media diverter (media diverter 226,220 figs.2,15) and/or alternative print media path (media path connecting 110 and 120 including 223) comprise low friction surfaces to prevent scratches on printed and unprinted receiver media surfaces (figs.2,15).
Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki et al further teaches wherein the print media diverter selectively redirects the print media to a media supply path, alternative print media path, or print media exit slot (media diverter 226,220 figs.2,8-15).
Regarding claim 13, Yamazaki et al further teaches wherein print output options, operational workflows, and user interface is modified based on a dye donor and receiver print media types loaded into the printer modules (simplex and duplex printing process figs.4-14; 300,315,313,312,322,325,323 fig.3; 211, 210 fig.2, paragraphs 0169,0170,0173,0176).
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 3, 4, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al (US 2018/0201030) in view of Nishitani (US 2012/0154470) and/or Keeton et al. (US 2009/0108994).
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki et al further teaches receiver media sensors (318,319,328-330 fig.3).
Yamazaki et al does not teaches the inclusion of identifying a receiver media type by a RFID chip reader, receiver media type sensor, or by user input; and wherein a receiver media comprises an alphanumeric human readable code, machine-readable code, or RFID chip.
However, Nishitani teaches similar printer and printing method including identifying a receiver media type by a RFID chip reader, receiver media type sensor, or by user input; and wherein a receiver media comprises an alphanumeric human readable code, machine-readable code, or RFID chip (input part 17 in fig.1, obtaining part 104 in fig.2; paragraphs 0030,0033,0034. Teaches the user input the type of paper by using input part 17. The obtaining part 104 obtains the type of paper by reading the identification information from the sheet of paper).
Similarly, Keeton et al teaches similar printer and printing method including identifying a receiver media type by a RFID chip reader, receiver media type sensor, or by user input; and wherein a receiver media comprises an alphanumeric human readable code, machine-readable code, or RFID chip (sensor 80, RFID reader 71, encoder 70 in figs.1A-1D; paragraphs 0015,0032,0033,0035,0036. Teaches sensor 80 detects various attributes of the media such as sense marks, preprinted information, location of RFID. Encoder 70 can also locate and read the RFID. RFID reader 71 reads RFID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include such type of paper identifying means such as reader, sensor, or user input means in the printer/method of Yamazaki et al based on the teachings of Nishitani and/or Keeton et al for instance to better configure the printing process such as ink discharge amounts based on the characteristics of the paper being used to improve print quality.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki et al as modified by Nishitani and/or Keeton et al further teaches wherein the receiver media type sensor determines the receiver media type by analyzing the receiver media using optoelectrical, electrical resistance, or acoustic detection means (paragraph 0079-0081,0085,0088 of Yamazaki et al; paragraphs 033, 0034 of Nishitani; paragraphs 0022,0027,0032,0033,0035 of Keeton et al).
Regarding claim 7, Yamazaki et al as modified by Nishitani and/or Keeton et al further teaches further comprising: automatically providing an error message when duplex print media is identified in the upper modular unit (318,319,328-330 fig.3, paragraphs 0169,0170,0173,0176 of Yamazaki et al; input part 17 in fig.1, obtaining part 104 in fig.2, paragraphs 0030,0033,0034 of Nishitani; sensor 80, RFID reader 71, encoder 70 in figs.1A-1D; paragraphs 0015,0022,0027,0032,0033,0035,0036 of Keeton et al. These means of identifying a receiver media type/attribute as applied above detects the type/attribute of the medias loaded and it is obvious to know when non-suitable media for duplex media is loaded on the upper holder).
Regarding claim 11, Yamazaki et al as modified by Nishitani and/or Keeton et al further teaches wherein print the media diverters and alternative print media paths comprise optoelectrical, electrical resistance, or acoustic receiver media position sensors (318,319,328-330 fig.3, paragraphs 0169,0170,0173,0176 of Yamazaki et al; input part 17 in fig.1, obtaining part 104 in fig.2, paragraphs 0030,0033,0034 of Nishitani; sensor 80, RFID reader 71, encoder 70 in figs.1A-1D; paragraphs 0015,0022,0027,0032,0033,0035,0036 of Keeton et al).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al (US 2018/0201030) in view of Kim et al. (US 2005/0100362).
Regarding claim 8, Yamazaki et al substantially teaches the claimed inventions including mechanically and electrically connected two or more modular thermal printer units in a vertically stacked arrangement (printing unit 110, printing unit 120 figs.1-3,15).
Yamazaki et al does not explicitly shows mechanically and electrically connecting means comprising interface projections and cavities accessible by removing covers or moving hinged or sliding doors.
However, Kim et al teaches similar printing system (figs.2-4) including mechanically and electrically connecting means comprising interface projections (pluralities of projections such 64,72 on units 20,10,30,40 in figs.3,4) and cavities (pluralities of corresponding cavities such 63,73,74 on units 20,10,30,40 in figs.3,4) accessible by removing (units 40,30,20, or 10).
Therefore, in the alternatives, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include such interface projections and cavities in the printing system of Yamazaki et al based on the teachings of Kim et al in order to quickly and detachably secure the two or more printer units stacked vertically.
Claims 6, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yamazaki et al (US 2018/0201030) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamazaki et al (US 2018/0201030) in view of Horie et al. (US 5,208,640).
Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki et al further teaches further comprising: automatically configuring the printer units to produce parallel simplex prints when simplex print media is identified in both the lower modular printer and the upper modular unit (figs.4-14, paragraphs 0125,0128,0144,0145, 0169,0170,0173,0176,0259. Teaches simplex printing process. Particularly paragraphs 0170 teach medium suitable for simplex recording can also be loaded on the bottom holding unit 201 for simplex printing).
In case applicant argued that Yamazaki et al do not teach automatically configuring the printer units to produce parallel simplex prints when simplex print media is identified in both the lower modular printer and the upper modular unit.
However, in the alternatives Horie et al teaches printer and printing method including automatically configuring the printer units to produce parallel simplex prints when simplex print media is identified in both the lower modular printer and the upper modular unit (figs.7a-7c,10a-10c; col.10 lines 7-60, col.12 lines 1-12).
Therefore, in the alternatives, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the printing units of Yamazaki et al as such to print simplex recording based on the teachings of Horie et al for instance to increase throughput of the printer especially when there is not duplex printing job.
Regarding claim 14, Yamazaki et al as alternatively modified by Horie et al further teaches a method of operating a modular dye-sublimation thermal printer system (figs.1-3,15 of Yamazaki et al), comprising:
mechanically and electrically connecting three or more modular dye-sublimation thermal printer units (printing units 110 and 120 shown in figs.1-3,15 of Yamazaki et al and paragraphs 0175-0178 of Yamazaki et al teaches stacking three or more printing units; figs.3,7,13 of Horie et al also teaches stacking three or more printing units) in a vertically stacked arrangement wherein each unit is a simplex printer equipped with a computer processor (310,320 fig.3 of Yamazaki et al), communication means (312, 322 and/or the other communication means in 310,320 of fig.3), print media diverter (226,220 figs.2,15), alternative print media path (media path connecting 110 and 120 including 223), lateral receiver media cutter (214,217 figs.2,15), and processing logic (311 fig.3, paragraph 0110); and
automatically configuring the operation of the printer system and print output options based on the number of units that are mechanically and electrically connected in a vertically stacked arrangement (110,120 figs.1-3,15, paragraphs 0175-0178 of Yamazaki et al; figs.3,7,13 of Horie et al) and types of donor and receiver medias installed in each unit (figs.4-14; 211, 210 fig.2, paragraphs 0169,0170,0173,0176 of Yamazaki et al; figs.7-10 of Horie et al).
Regarding claim 15, Yamazaki et al as alternatively modified by Horie et al further teaches wherein the print receiver media types comprise simplex, duplex, adhesive backed, magnetic backed, in-line pre-scored, in-line pre-perforated, foil-backed, or pre-printed (figs.1-3,15; paragraphs 0169,0170,0173,0176 of Yamazaki et al teaches recording mediums suitable for two-side recording and recording mediums for one-side recording; figs.7-10 of Horie et al also teaches simplex and duplex printing).
Regarding claim 16, Yamazaki et al as alternatively modified by Horie et al further teaches wherein the donor types comprise different patch size formats and configurations, four color patch (cyan, magenta, yellow, and clear overcoat), two patch (monochrome dye and clear overcoat), and metal foil (paragraphs 0004,0069-0071, 0133,0134,0171,0177,0187,0204).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENOK D LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1615. The examiner can normally be reached General Schedule 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, IFP.
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 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.
/HENOK D LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853