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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
3. The examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 12/20/2023 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks, filed on 04/28/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 11 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Nakano et al. (CN 109310534).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2003-191554), in view of Nakano et al. (CN 109310534).
8. Regarding independent claim 1: Suzuki disclosed a media processing device ([0023], line 1; also see Fig. 1, reference 1) comprising:
a printhead ([0030], line 3; also see Fig. 1, reference 17);
a platen roller opposing spaced from the printhead to form a nip, the platen roller configured to rotate at a platen speed to feed media of a media roll along a media path ([0030], lines 5-8; also see Fig. 1, reference 18);
a media supply spindle configured to support the media roll, the spindle configured to rotate at a payout speed ([0024], lines 1-6; also see Fig. 1, reference 3);
a dancer arm ([0027], line 1; also see Fig. 2, reference 11) having a roller configured to engage the media along the media path between the media roll and the platen roller ([0026], lines 1-3; also see Figs. 1 and 2, reference 10);
a sensor configured to detect a position of the dancer arm and output a signal corresponding to the position of the dancer arm ([0027], lines 4-6 and [0016], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 2, reference 13); and
a logic circuit configured to receive the signal ([0032], lines 1-3 and [0034], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 1, reference 9), determine that the position of the dancer arm has changed based on the signal, and adjust the payout speed of the media supply spindle ([0035], lines 5-11; adjusting the rotation speed of the platen roller 18, adjusts the payout speed of the media supply spindle 3).
Suzuki is silent about controlling the payout speed of the media supply spindle individually and determining that the position of the dancer arm has changed based on the signal from the sensor, and adjusting the payout speed of the media supply spindle while the platen speed is fixed.
Nakano et al. disclosed a media processing device (Fig. 2, reference 100), comprising a media supply unit (Page 6, line 33; also see Fig. 2, reference 22), a sensor for detecting a position of a dancer arm/roller (Page 7, lines 3-4 (sensor not shown)), and a controller (Page 7, line 25; also see Fig. 2, reference 34), configured to control a payout speed of the media supply unit independently of the downstream conveying rollers (see Fig. 2) and determine that the position of the dancer arm/roller has changed based on a signal from the sensor, and adjust the payout speed of the media supply unit independently of the speed of the downstream conveying rollers (Page 7, lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nakano et al. with those of Suzuki by adjusting the payout speed of the media supply unit based on the position of the dancer arm detected by the sensor, in order to stabilize the tension of the sheet as disclosed by Nakano et al. on Page 7, line 4.
9. Regarding claim 2: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the media processing device of claim 1, wherein the platen roller rotates at the platen speed to pull media from the media roll in a downstream direction along the media path and the media supply spindle rotates at the payout speed to dispense the media from the media roll in the downstream direction along the media path (Suzuki [0030], lines 5-8 and [0024], lines 1-6).
10. Regarding claim 3: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the media processing device of claim 1, wherein a distal end of the dancer arm includes the roller (Suzuki Fig. 2, the roller 10 is provided at the distal end of the dancer arm 11) and a proximal end of the dancer arm is moveably mounted (Suzuki Fig. 2, the proximal end of the dancer arm 11 is moveably mounted to the swing shaft 14) such that the dancer arm moves in response to a change in tension on the media (Suzuki [0029], lines 1-2 and [0035], lines 5-7).
11. Regarding claim 4: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the media processing device of claim 3, wherein the proximal end of the dancer arm is rotatably mounted such that the dancer arm rotates about an axis of rotation (Suzuki [0027], line 1; also see Fig. 2, reference 14).
12. Regarding claim 5: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the media processing device of claim 3, wherein the media supply spindle rotates about the axis of rotation such that the media supply spindle and the dancer arm are disposed coaxially relative to the axis of rotation (Suzuki; see Figs. 1 and 2).
13. Regarding claim 6: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the media processing device of claim 5, wherein the dancer arm rotates independently relative to the media supply spindle (Suzuki [0027], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 2, the swing arm 11 rotates independently relatively to the media supply spindle 3).
14. Regarding claim 10: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the media processing device of claim 1, wherein, in response to the logic circuit adjusting the payout speed of the media supply spindle, a tension of the media along the media path is increased or decreased and the position of the dancer arm moves to a specified position that indicates the tension on the media satisfies a target tension for the media (Suzuki [0035], lines 5-15).
15. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2003-191554), in view of Nakano et al. (CN 109310534) as applied to claims 1-6 and 10 above, and further in view of Tanami (JP 2015-214397).
16. Regarding claim 7: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the media processing device of claim 1.
The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. is silent about further comprising: a motor; and a drive train, wherein the motor is operatively coupled to the media supply spindle via the drive train and the logic circuit is configured to control a motor speed and a motor torque based on information about consumption of the media from the media roll.
Tanami disclosed a media processing device (Fig. 1b, reference 1) comprising a printing unit (Fig. 1b, reference 11), a media supply spindle (Fig. 1b, reference 32) configured to supply media in the form of a roll (Fig. 1b, reference R), and further comprising a motor ([0030], line 5; also see Fig. 3, reference 34), and a drive train ([0030], lines 5-6; also see Fig. 3, references 35, 36 and 37), wherein the motor is operatively coupled to the media supply spindle via the drive train (see Fig. 3, the spindle 32 is coupled to the motor 34 via the drive train 35, 36 and 37) and a logic circuit (controller (not shown)) is configured to control a motor speed and a motor torque based on information about consumption of the media from the media roll ([0003], lines 4-5 and [0066], lines 8-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tanami with those of the combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. by controlling a motor speed and motor torque of the spindle based on information about the consumption of the media from the roll in order to stabilize the conveyance and prevent excessive slacking in the medium as disclosed by Tanami in paragraphs [0002] and [0066].
17. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2003-191554), in view of Nakano et al. (CN 109310534) as applied to claims 1-6 and 10 above, and further in view of Naoi et al. (U.S. Pub. No 2023/0373231).
18. Regarding claim 8: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the media processing device of claim 1.
The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. is silent about further comprising: a media take-up spindle, the media take-up spindle configured to rotate at a take-up speed to wind the media or a liner of the media about the media take-up spindle; and a further dancer arm having a further roller configured to engage the media along the media path between the platen roller and the media take-up spindle.
Naoi et al. disclosed a media processing device (Fig. 1, reference 1) comprising a spindle (Fig. 1, reference 82) for supplying a roll of media (Fig. 1, reference 81), a printing unit (Fig. 1, reference 40) a dancer arm having a roller configured to engage a surface of the media between the spindle and the printing unit (Fig. 1, reference 83c), and further comprising a media take-up spindle (Fig. 1, reference 72), the media take-up spindle configured to rotate at a take-up speed to wind the media or a liner of the media about the media take-up spindle (Fig. 1, reference 71); and a further dancer arm having a further roller configured to engage the media along the media path between the printing unit and the media take-up spindle (Fig. 1, reference 73c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Naoi et al. with those of the combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. by providing a second dancer arm/roller downstream of the printing unit in order to better control the tension exerted on the printing media during printing and improve the image quality.
19. Claims 11-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2003-191554), in view of Nakano et al. (CN 109310534).
20. Regarding independent claim 11: Suzuki disclosed a method comprising:
driving a platen roller, via a motor (Fig. 1, reference 19), to a platen speed ([0030], lines 5-8; also see Fig. 1, reference 18);
driving a media supply spindle, via the motor or a different motor, to a payout speed ([0024], lines 1-6; also see Fig. 1, reference 3; the platen roller 18 and the spindle 3 are driven at payout speed by the motor 19);
determining whether to adjust a tension of the media along a supply path between the media supply spindle and the platen roller in response to an output ([0034], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 1, reference 9) of a sensor configured to detect a position of a dancer arm operatively engaging the media ([0027], lines 4-6 and [0016], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 2, reference 13); and
adjusting the payout speed of the media supply spindle to adjust the tension of the media based on the output of the sensor ([0035], lines 5-11).
Suzuki is silent about adjusting the payout speed of the media supply spindle separately from the platen speed.
Nakano et al. disclosed a media processing device (Fig. 2, reference 100), comprising a media supply unit (Page 6, line 33; also see Fig. 2, reference 22), a sensor for detecting a position of a dancer arm/roller (Page 7, lines 3-4 (sensor not shown)), and a controller (Page 7, line 25; also see Fig. 2, reference 34), configured to adjust the payout speed of the media supply unit independently of the speed of the downstream conveying rollers (Page 7, lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nakano et al. with those of Suzuki by adjusting the payout speed of the media supply unit independently of the speed of the downstream conveying rollers, in order to stabilize the tension of the sheet as disclosed by Nakano et al. on Page 7, line 4.
21. Regarding claim 12: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the method of claim 11, wherein a distal end of the dancer arm includes the roller that engages the media (Suzuki Fig. 2, the roller 10 that engages the media L is provided at the distal end of the dancer arm 11) and a proximal end of the dancer arm is rotatably mounted such that the dancer arm rotates about an axis of rotation (Suzuki Fig. 2, the proximal end of the dancer arm 11 is moveably mounted to the swing shaft 14).
22. Regarding claim 13: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the method of claim 12, wherein driving the media supply spindle comprises driving the media supply spindle to rotate about the axis of rotation such that the media supply spindle and the dancer arm of disposed coaxially relative to the axis of rotation (Suzuki, see Figs. 1 and 2).
23. Regarding claim 14: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the method of claim 13, wherein the dancer arm rotates independently relative to the media supply spindle (Suzuki [0027], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 2, the swing arm 11 rotates independently relatively to the media supply spindle 3).
24. Regarding claim 18: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the method of claim 11, wherein adjusting the payout speed of the media supply spindle, increases or decreases the tension of the media along the media path and the position of the dancer arm moves to a specified position that indicates the tension on the media satisfies a target tension for the media (Suzuki [0035], lines 5-15).
25. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2003-191554), in view of Nakano et al. (CN 109310534) as applied to claims 11-14 and 18 above, and further in view of Naoi et al. (U.S. Pub. No 2023/0373231).
26. Regarding claim 15: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the method of claim 11.
The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. is silent about further comprising: driving a media take-up spindle to a take-up speed to wind media or a liner of the about the media take-up spindle; and engaging the media with a further roller of a further dancer arm along the media path between the platen roller and the media take-up spindle.
Naoi et al. disclosed a media processing device (Fig. 1, reference 1) comprising a spindle (Fig. 1, reference 82) for supplying a roll of media (Fig. 1, reference 81), a printing unit (Fig. 1, reference 40) a dancer arm having a roller configured to engage a surface of the media between the spindle and the printing unit (Fig. 1, reference 83c), and further comprising a media take-up spindle (Fig. 1, reference 72), the media take-up spindle configured to rotate at a take-up speed to wind the media or a liner of the media about the media take-up spindle (Fig. 1, reference 71); and a further dancer arm having a further roller configured to engage the media along the media path between the printing unit and the media take-up spindle (Fig. 1, reference 73c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Naoi et al. with those of the combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. by providing a second dancer arm/roller downstream of the printing unit in order to better control the tension exerted on the printing media during printing and improve the image quality.
27. Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2003-191554), in view of Nakano et al. (CN 109310534).
28. Regarding independent claim 19: Suzuki disclosed a media processing device ([0023], line 1; also see Fig. 1, reference 1) comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions ([0033], lines 1-4);
a logic circuit configured to execute the instructions ([0032], lines 1-3 and [0034], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 1, reference 9) to:
drive a platen roller via a motor (Fig. 1, reference 19) to a platen speed ([0030], lines 5-8; also see Fig. 1, reference 18);
drive a media supply spindle via the motor or a different motor to a payout speed ([0024], lines 1-6; also see Fig. 1, reference 3; the platen roller 18 and the spindle 3 are driven at payout speed by the motor 19);
determine whether to adjust a tension of the media along a supply path between the media supply spindle and the platen roller ([0034], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 1, reference 9) in response to a position of a dancer arm ([0027], lines 4-6 and [0016], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 2, reference 13); and
adjust the payout speed of the media supply spindle to adjust the tension based on the position of the dancer arm ([0035], lines 5-11).
Suzuki is silent about adjusting the payout speed of the media supply spindle separately from the platen speed.
Nakano et al. disclosed a media processing device (Fig. 2, reference 100), comprising a media supply unit (Page 6, line 33; also see Fig. 2, reference 22), a sensor for detecting a position of a dancer arm/roller (Page 7, lines 3-4 (sensor not shown)), and a controller (Page 7, line 25; also see Fig. 2, reference 34), configured to adjust the payout speed of the media supply unit independently of the speed of the downstream conveying rollers (Page 7, lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nakano et al. with those of Suzuki by adjusting the payout speed of the media supply unit independently of the speed of the downstream conveying rollers, in order to stabilize the tension of the sheet as disclosed by Nakano et al. on Page 7, line 4.
29. Regarding claim 20: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the media processing device of claim 19, further comprising: a sensor configured to detect a position of the dancer arm (Suzuki [0027], lines 4-6 and [0016], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 2, reference 13) and output a signal to the logic circuit that is indicative of the position of the dancer arm (Suzuki [0032], lines 1-3 and [0034], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 1, reference 9).
30. Regarding claim 21: The combination of Suzuki and Nakano et al. disclosed the media processing device of claim 19, wherein, in response to the logic circuit adjusting the payout speed of the media supply spindle, the tension of the media along the media path is increased or decreased and the position of the dancer arm moves to a specified position that indicates the tension on the media satisfies a target tension for the media (Suzuki [0035], lines 5-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
31. Claims 9 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOVI M. AMEH whose telephone number is (571)272-4578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
33. 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.
34. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at (571)272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
35. 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.
/YAOVI M AMEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights