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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that the reference Sodeyama fails to cure the deficiencies of the primary reference Ishimoto. The applicant argues that the “first direction” of both Ishimoto and Sodeyama do not match since the reference Figures 5A and 5B of Sodeyama display the “upper case 152” opening and closing with respect to the “lower case 150” in a direction equivalent to the “Y direction” in Figure 6 of Ishimoto. The applicant’s argument has been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, the claims only acknowledge the directions as a “first direction” and a “second direction” that is perpendicular to the first direction and does not further explain the direction. Secondly, the reference Ishimoto discloses the directions that someone of ordinary skill will follow. While the reference Sodeyama was introduced to teach the cartridge structure limitation of how the cartridge case closes in regards to the tape path. When combined, the reference Sodeyama would teach the cartridge structure limitation using the directions of the reference of Ishimoto since there are not any directions displayed within the figures of Sodeyama.
The examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Simon,174 USPQ 114 (CCPA 1972); In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding the amendments of claim 1, the applicant argues that the references do not disclose the limitations amended to claim 1. The applicant’s argument has been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Ishimoto does disclose how the second B case portion (ribbon-part upper case 233), with respect to the second A case portion (tape-retention-part upper case 235), is positioned in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (Figure 5 displays the “ribbon-part case 233” is provided above the “tape-retention-part upper case 235” in the “+Y direction” which is perpendicular to the first direction “Z”.).
Furthermore, the applicant argues that the references do not disclose the amendment to claim 1 regarding the tape inlet that is provided in the second direction. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Ishimoto does disclose the tape inlet (cartridge-side tape introduction port 259) to be facing a second direction as shown in Figure 5.
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) 1- 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over lshimoto et al. (US 20200207128 Al) in view of Sodeyama et al. (US 20160361930 Al).
Regarding claim 1, lshimoto teaches a ribbon cartridge ( Figure 5, displayed at the end of the "35 U.S.C. 103 rejection", displays the "ribbon cartridge 201" described in paragraph [0053].) configured to be mounted on a tape printing apparatus (Figure 3, displayed at the end of the "35 U.S.C. 103 rejection", displays the "ribbon cartridge 201" mounted to a "tape printing device 1" described in paragraph [0040] .) the ribbon cartridge comprising:
an ink ribbon (Figure 5 displays the "second cartridge case 211" that includes a "second ink ribbon 205" described in paragraph [0053].)
a cartridge case that accommodates the ink ribbon (Figure 5, the "second cartridge case 211" accommodates the "second ink ribbon 205" described in paragraph [0053].)
wherein the cartridge case includes a first case portion (Figures 6, displayed at the end of the "35 U .S.C. 103 rejection", display the "second cartridge case 211" made from two parts including the "second lower case 237" as one half of the "second cartridge case 211" described in paragraph [0056] .)
a second case portion provided in a first direction with respect to the first case portion, and combined with the first case portion (Paragraph [0056] describes how the "second cartridge case 211" including the second case portion represented as the uppercase. Similarly to the claimed invention drawings, lshimoto displays the upper case connecting to the "second lower case 237" in the Z direction in Figure 6.)
the second case portion includes a second A case portion (Figure 6 displays the upper case is divided into two parts, with one being the "tape-retention-part upper case 235" described in paragraph [0056] .),
a second B case portion ( Figure 6 displays the upper case is divided into two parts, where one portion is the "ribbon-part upper case 233" described in paragraph [0056] .) made of a member different from a member of the second A case portion (Paragraph [0056] describes the materials used for the case parts but also emphasize on how the materials and manufacturing methods of each case part are not limited.)
the second B case portion being provided in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction with respect to the second A case portion (Figure 5 displays the “ribbon-part case 233” is provided above the “tape-retention-part upper case 235” in the “+Y direction” which is perpendicular to the first direction “Z”.).
the cartridge case is provided with a tape inlet that is provided between, in the second direction, the second A case portion and the second B case portion (Figure 6 displays the "cartridge-side tape introduction port 259", which is opened and follows the a second direction that is perpendicular to the first “Z” direction, and is described to be one end of the "second tape path 257" that is between the "ribbon-part upper case 233" and the "tape-retention-part upper case 235" in paragraphs [0070]-[0071]), and introduces a tape from an outside of the cartridge case into the cartridge case (Paragraph [0072] describes how the "cartridge-side tape introduction port 259" introduces the "second printing tape 403" into the "second cartridge case 211" from the "device-side tape introduction port 9", shown in Figures 3 and 4 displayed at the end of the "35 U.S.C. 103 rejection".)
a tape outlet that discharges the tape introduced into the cartridge case to the outside of the cartridge case (Paragraph [0071] describes how the "second path 257" is connected between the "cartridge-side tape introduction port 259" and the "cartridge side tape ejection port 261".)
a tape path from the tape inlet to the tape outlet (Figure 6 displays the "second tape path 257" is described to be in between the "cartridge-side tape introduction port 259" and the "cartridge-side tape ejection port 261" in paragraph [0071].)
lshimoto fails to teach the second A case portion is configured to open and close a first path from the tape inlet to a middle of the tape path, in the first direction.
However, Sodeyama teaches the second A case portion is configured to open and close a first path from the tape inlet to a middle of the tape path, in the first direction (Sodeyama, Figures 5a-b display the "upper case 152" and the "lower case 150" of the "cartridge case 130", where the "upper case 152" covers the "tape feed path 196". It would be obvious for someone of ordinary skill to combine the cartridge case structures from both lshimoto and Sodeyama to have modified the second A case portion taught by lshimoto to extend and cover at least the first path of the tape path as taught by Sodeyama).
lshimoto and Sodeyama are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a cartridge mounted to a tape printing device. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ribbon cartridge taught by lshimoto to also apply the first path of the tape path to be opened and closed by the second A case portion taught by Sodeyama for thepurpose of having a shell structure (Sodeyama, paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, lshimoto and Sodeyama teaches the ribbon cartridge according to claim 1, Ishimoto further discloses wherein the first path has a length equal to or longer than half the tape path. (Given the claimed invention describes the first path to stretch from the tape inlet to the middle of the tape path in the first claim, Figure 6 displays the "second tape path 257" where the distance between the middle of the tape path and the "cartridge-side tape introduction port 259" would at least be equal to half of the total length of the "second tape path 257".)
Regarding claim 3, lshimoto and Sodeyama teaches the ribbon cartridge according to claim 1, lshimoto further discloses:
a platen roller that feeds the tape (Figure 6 displays a "second platen roller 203" described in paragraph [0079]),
wherein the second case portion includes a second C case portion made of a member different from the member of the second A case portion and the member of the second B case portion (Figure 6 displays the "slide plate 313" as a sectioned part of the "upper case" located between the "tape-retention-part upper case 235" and the "ribbon-part upper case 233".),
the first case portion and the second C case portion form an outer shell of a platen roller accommodating portion in which the platen roller is accommodated (Paragraph [0059] describes how the other side of the "second platen roller 203" is accommodated by the outer shell of a "tape-retention-mechanism accommodation part 255" shown in Figure 5.)
a case opening through which the tape passes when the tape is inserted in a second direction opposite to the first direction with respect to the tape path is provided between the second B case portion and the second C case portion (Figure 18, displayed at the end of the "35 U .S.C. 103 rejection", displays the "opening/closing region 260" that opens when the user sets the "second printing tape 403" in the "second tape path 257".)
Regarding claim 5, lshimoto and Sodeyama teaches the ribbon cartridge according to claim 2, lshimoto further discloses:
a tape pressing portion that presses the tape introduced into the cartridge case against the first case portion ( Figure 10, displayed at the end of the "35 U .S.C. 103 rejection", displays the "tape retention part 305" described in paragraph [0093]),
wherein the first case portion and the second A case portion form an outer shell of a tape presser accommodating portion in which the tape pressing portion is accommodated (Figure 10 displays the "tape retention part 305" mounted on the "second lower case 237" of the "ribbon cartridge 201" and while Figure 6 displays the "tape retention part 305" covered by the "tape-retention-part upper wall part 243" of the "tape-retention-part upper case 235".)
the second A case portion is configured to open and close the tape presser accommodating portion in the first direction (Figures 18 and 19, displayed at the end of the "35 U.S.C. 103 rejection", display the progression of the "slide plate 313" being in the opening position to allow the "tape-retention-side upper case 235" and the "slide plate 313" to be removed and show the "tape retention part 305".).
Regarding claim 6, lshimoto and Sodeyama teaches the ribbon cartridge according to claim 5, lshimoto further discloses wherein the tape pressing portion is movable between a pressing position for pressing the tape against the first case portion and a separation position spaced apart from the tape (Paragraph [0096] describes how the "arm part 309" of the "tape retention part 305", shown in Figures 10 and 19, is rotatable between a closed position where the "tip end 209" holds the "second printing tape 403" and a separate position where the "tip end 209" separates and does not hold the "second printing tape 403". ).
Regarding claim 7, lshimoto and Sodeyama teaches the ribbon cartridge according to claim 6, lshimoto further discloses wherein the second A case portion is detachably combined with the first case portion and is detached from the first case portion to open the tape presser accommodating portion in the first direction (Figures 18 and 19 display the progression of the "slide plate 313" being moved to the opening position to allow the "tape-retention-side upper case 235" and the "slide plate 313" to be removed and show the "tape retention part 305".).
Regarding claim 10, lshimoto and Sodeyama teaches the ribbon cartridge according to claim 7, lshimoto further discloses wherein the tape pressing portion is provided with a pressing projection portion on which a user hooks a finger when the user moves the tape pressing portion (Figure 14, displayed at the end of the "35 U.S.C. 103 rejection", displays an "arm-side hooking part 381" that is projected out of the "arm body 377" of the "arm part 309".)
Regarding claim 13, lshimoto and Sodeyama teaches the ribbon cartridge according to claim 6, lshimoto further discloses further comprising: an elastic member that applies a force to the tape pressing portion toward the pressing position (Figure 19 displays the "tape retention spring 315" described in paragraph [0097] to apply force to the "arm part 309" towards the close position.).
Regarding claim 14, lshimoto and Sodeyama teaches the ribbon cartridge according to claim 6, lshimoto further discloses
wherein the first case portion is provided with a tape pressing support shaft that rotatably supports the tape pressing portion between the pressing position and the separation position (Figure 10 displays the "tape retention part 305" including an "arm supporting shaft 307" described in paragraph [0094] to protrude from the "second lower case 237" that was designated as the representing first case portion.)
the tape pressing portion includes an arm portion rotatably supported by the tape pressing support shaft (Figure 10 displays the "tape retention part 305" including an "arm supporting shaft 307" connected to a rotatable "arm part 309" described in paragraphs [0093]-[0096].)
a tape contact portion that is provided at the arm portion, and comes into contact with the tape when the tape pressing portion is located at the pressing position (Figure 19 displays the "retention tip end 209" described in paragraph [0098] to hold the "second printing tape 403".).
Regarding claim 15, lshimoto and Sodeyama teaches the ribbon cartridge according to claim 14, lshimoto further discloses wherein the first case portion is provided with a first projection portion projecting in the first direction, and the arm portion is slid with the first projection portion while rotating (Figure 19 displays a projection portion, that is not labeled, that allows the "engagement pin 311").
Claim(s) 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of lshimoto et al. (US 20200207128 Al) in view of Sodeyama (US 20160136984 Al) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakayama et al. (US 9550382 B2)
Regarding claim 4, lshimoto and Sodeyama teaches the ribbon cartridge according to claim 3.
Modified lshimoto fails to teach the second A case portion is provided with two finger hook portions on which a user hooks fingers when the user operates the second A case portion such that the first path is opened in the first direction.
However, Nakayama teaches the second A case portion is provided with two finger hook portions on which a user hooks fingers when the user operates the second A case portion such that the first path is opened in the first direction (Column 3, lines 35-43 describes how the opening of the hinged tape cartridge may be used as a "finger hook port" to allow the cartridge size to remain in a compact state without impairing the easiness of closing or opening the cartridge to load or remove the tape. It would be obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to include the "finger hook port" structure taught by Nakayama to the ribbon cartridge second A case taught by lshimoto for easy access to the ribbon and tape when loading or removal.).
Modified lshimoto and Nakayama are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a cartridge and tape printing device. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ribbon cartridge taught by lshimoto to also apply finger hook portions to be included to the second A case portion to allow it to be opened taught by Nakayama for the purpose of easy access to load/remove the tape cartridge without effecting the size of the cartridge (Nakayama, Column 3, lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 11, lshimoto and Sodeyama teaches the ribbon cartridge according to claim 6.
Modified lshimoto fails to teach the second A case portion is connected to the first case portion via a hinge portion and is rotated around the hinge portion with respect to the first case portion to open the tape presser accommodating portion in the first direction.
However, Nakayama teaches the second A case portion is connected to the first case portion via a hinge portion and is rotated around the hinge portion with respect to the first case portion to open the tape presser accommodating portion in the first direction. (Figure 3 shows the "device case" being opened by a "lid 3" that is opened through a "hinge 17" described in column 7, lines 27-35 to allow the load/removal of the tape.)
Modified lshimoto and Nakayama are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a cartridge and tape printing device. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ribbon cartridge taught by modified lshimoto to also apply the second A case portion connected to the first case portion via a hinge portion and rotated around the hinge portion with respect to the first case portion to open the tape presser accommodating portion in the first direction taught by Nakayama for the purpose of not increasing the number of components (Nakayama, column 4 lines 9-12).
PNG
media_image1.png
637
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
848
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
584
691
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
668
832
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
661
714
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
671
570
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
566
615
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
522
570
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 12 and 16 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.
Claim 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for allowance of claim 8 is the inclusion the first case portion is provided with a holding portion configured to hold the tape pressing portion at the separation position when the second A case portion is detached from the first case portion. It is this limitation found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Claim 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for allowance of claim 9 is the inclusion the second A case portion is provided with a release portion that releases the holding of the tape pressing portion by the holding portion, by engaging with the tape pressing portion when the second A case portion is mounted on the first case portion. It is this limitation found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Claim 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for allowance of claim 12 is the inclusion the ribbon cartridge according to claim 11, further comprising: a connecting portion that connects the tape pressing portion and the second A case portion, wherein when the second A case portion is rotated in a direction in which the tape presser accommodating portion is opened in the first direction, the tape pressing portion is moved to the separation position in conjunction with the rotation of the second A case portion, and when the second A case portion is rotated in a direction in which the tape presser accommodating portion is closed in the first direction, the tape pressing portion is moved to the pressing position in conjunction with the rotation of the second A case portion. It is this limitation found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Claim 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for allowance of claim 16 is the inclusion the second A case portion is provided with a second projection portion projecting in a second direction opposite to the first direction, and the arm portion is slid with the second projection portion while rotating. It is this limitation found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, 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.
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.
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853