Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/598,578

SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO DETECT IMPROPER MEDIA LOADING

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Mar 07, 2024
Examiner
ARMSTRONG, JONATHAN D
Art Unit
3645
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hand Held Products Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
54%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
218 granted / 415 resolved
+0.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
63 currently pending
Career history
478
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
§103
55.6%
+15.6% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 415 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2, 4, 9, 12-13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 2021/0163245 A1). Regarding claims 1 and 12, Yamada teaches a system comprising: a media holder configured to hold a media within a printer, the media holder comprising [[0027] a core material holder 111 that holds the core material 1A, and supplies the sheet 1 to the inside of the apparatus by rotating the core material holder 111]: at first media sensor [[abstract] ultrasonic apparatus includes a first ultrasonic sensor that transmits an ultrasonic wave to an object and receives the ultrasonic wave reflected by the object, a second ultrasonic sensor that transmits an ultrasonic wave to the object and receives the ultrasonic wave reflected by the object; [0007] printing apparatus according to a third aspect includes a detection apparatus], the first media sensor being configured to determine information related to an angle [[0064] signal A2 is a received signal when the first angle θ formed between the normal line of the first protective surface 251A and the Z direction is 10°. A signal A3 is a received signal when the first angle θ formed between the normal line of the first protective surface 251A and the Z direction is 20°] of at least one arm that rotates in a predefined path when the media holder receives the media [[0027] sheet 1 wound around a core material 1A to the inside of the apparatus. The supplier 110 includes, for example, a core material holder 111 that holds the core material 1A, and supplies the sheet 1 to the inside of the apparatus by rotating the core material holder 111; [0028] transporter 120 constitutes a transport mechanism and transports the sheet 1 supplied from the supplier 110 along a transport path 10; [0055] ultrasonic waves reflected by the sheet 1 need to be received by the first ultrasonic sensor 210 and the second ultrasonic sensor 220 again]; and a second media sensor [[0040] first ultrasonic sensor 210 and the second ultrasonic sensor 220 are sensors that transmit ultrasonic waves toward the sheet 1 and receive ultrasonic waves reflected by the sheet 1] positioned at a base of the printer and beneath the media when the media holder receives the media [[0063] reflection of ultrasonic waves on the first holder 261 and the second holder 262 and the reflection on the bottom surface portion 330 can be suppressed], wherein the second media sensor is configured to determine a distance between the media and the second media sensor [[0049] first control circuit 241 calculates a first distance, which is the distance between the first ultrasonic sensor 210 and the sheet 1, based on the time from the transmission timing of ultrasonic waves to the reception timing of ultrasonic waves in the first ultrasonic sensor 210]; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the first media sensor and the second media sensor, [[0076] controller 160 includes an arithmetic portion 161 configured by a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and the like, and a storage portion 162 configured by a recording circuit such as a memory. The controller 160 is coupled to the supplier 110, the transporter 120, the heater 130, the printer 141, the movement mechanism 150, and the ultrasonic apparatus 200, and controls the overall operation of the printing apparatus 100], the at least one processor configured to: receive the determined information related to the angle or the distance between the media and the second media sensor, from the first media sensor and the second media sensor [[0003] change in the inclination angle of the sheet caused by the wrinkles of the sheet is detected by using a phase shift; [0005] outputs an error signal when the difference between a first distance between the first ultrasonic sensor and the object calculated based on ultrasonic wave transmission and reception processing using the first ultrasonic sensor and a second distance between the second ultrasonic sensor]; compare the determined information with a predefined threshold value range associated with the angle of the at least one arm or the distance between the media and the second media sensor [[0051] first distance calculated by the first control circuit 241 and the second distance calculated by the second control circuit is within a predetermined threshold value. Then, the determination circuit 243 outputs an error signal to the controller 160 when the difference between the first distance and the second distance exceeds the threshold value. That is, when the difference between the first distance and the second distance is large, there is a possibility that an abnormality such as wrinkles has occurred in the sheet 1]; and determine improper loading of the media within the printer based at least on the comparison [[0003] known a detection apparatus that detects an abnormality such as wrinkles in a sheet by using ultrasonic waves (see, for example, JP-A-2002-211797). The detection apparatus described in JP-A-2002-211797 transmits ultrasonic waves to a sheet from an ultrasonic transmission apparatus, and receives the ultrasonic waves that passed through the sheet by an ultrasonic reception apparatus]. (claim 12 appears to be a method form of claim 1 which is a system claim and is therefore rejected for failing to remedy the same issues) Regarding claims 2 and 13, Yamada teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first media sensor comprises at least one of an angular sensor [[0003] change in the inclination angle of the sheet caused by the wrinkles of the sheet is detected by using a phase shift], and wherein the second media sensor comprises a proximity sensor [[0130] part of the ultrasonic waves reflected by the first protective surface and the second protective surface is reflected toward the second side surface portion opposite to the first side surface portion where the circuit board is disposed in close proximity. With such a configuration, it is possible to suppress the disadvantage that part of the ultrasonic waves reflected by the first protective surface and the second protective surface is multiply reflected in the shield and returns to the ultrasonic sensor]. Regarding claims 4 and 15, Yamada teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the proximity sensor emits one or more rays and receives reflected one or more rays from the media to determine the distance between the proximity sensor and the media, and wherein the one or more rays corresponds to at least one of one or more infrared waves (IR) or ultrasonic sound waves (UV) [[classifications] G01B17/00 Measuring arrangements [characterized] by the use of infrasonic, sonic or ultrasonic vibrations; [abstract] ultrasonic wave transmission and reception processing; [0005] a ultrasonic wave to an object and receives the ultrasonic wave reflected by the object, a second ultrasonic sensor that transmits an ultrasonic wave to the object and receives the ultrasonic wave reflected by the object; [prior art claim 1] first distance between the first ultrasonic sensor and the object calculated based on ultrasonic wave transmission and reception processing using the first ultrasonic sensor and a second distance between the second ultrasonic sensor and the object calculated based on ultrasonic wave transmission and reception processing]. Regarding claims 9 and 19, Yamada teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the determined distance between the media and the proximity sensor below or above the predefined threshold value range corresponds to the improper loading of the media within the printer [[0003] change in the inclination angle of the sheet caused by the wrinkles of the sheet is detected by using a phase shift; [0051] when the difference between the first distance and the second distance is large, there is a possibility that an abnormality such as wrinkles has occurred in the sheet 1]. 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, 5-8, 10-11, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2021/0163245 A1) and Koike (JPH06179564A; ids). Regarding claims 3 and 14, Yamada does not explicitly teach and yet Koike teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the angular sensor has the at least one arm, and is configured to determine the angle of the at least one arm [[0024] such rotation of the feeler causes the switch pieces 125 and 126 extending from the upper end of the feeler at different inclination angles to swing. accordingly, various combinations of on and off states of the paper top detection sensor 125S and paper bottom detection sensor 126S are obtained, and the state of the loaded paper surface relative to the carriage 111 can be determined from these states.]. It would have been obvious to combine the paper detection sensor as taught by Yamada, with the rotation feeler switch paper detection sensors as taught by Koike so that the state of the paper being loaded can be detected [[0024]]. Regarding claim 5, Yamada does not explicitly teach and yet Koike the system of claim 3, wherein the at least one arm of the angular sensor is positioned on the media holder and is configured to be abutting a periphery of the media [[0024] such rotation of the feeler causes the switch pieces 125 and 126 extending from the upper end of the feeler at different inclination angles to swing.], and the proximity sensor is positioned at the base of the printer and underneath to the media when the media holder receives the media [[0025] when the carriage 111 is in the middle position in the vertical direction, the lower end of the filler is in contact with the paper surface, and the movement of the carriage 111 is controlled so that the paper surface above detection sensor 125S and the paper surface below detection sensor 126S are positioned within the range of inclination surrounded by switch pieces 125 and 126 (see Figures 10 and 11).]. It would have been obvious to combine the paper detection sensor as taught by Yamada, with the rotation feeler switch paper detection sensors as taught by Koike so that the state of the paper being full can be detected [[0024]]. Regarding claims 6 and 16, Yamada does not explicitly teach and yet Koike teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the predefined path of the at least one arm defines a first end and a second end, and wherein the at least one arm positioned at the first end of the predefined path indicates an empty media condition and the at least one arm positioned at the second end of the predefined path indicates a full media condition [[0104] the maximum discharge capacity is the number of discharged sheets when the upper limit detection sensor 116 is turned on and the paper surface detection sensor 125S detects that the tray is full of paper. In this way, the image forming operation is stopped when the discharge tray is full.]. It would have been obvious to combine the paper detection sensor as taught by Yamada, with the rotation feeler switch paper detection sensors as taught by Koike so that the state of the paper being full can be detected [[0024]]. Regarding claims 7 and 17, Yamada does not explicitly teach and yet Koike teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the media pushes the at least one arm towards the second end of the predefined path that corresponds to the proper loading of the media within the printer. It would have been obvious to combine the paper detection sensor as taught by Yamada, with the rotation feeler switch paper detection sensors as taught by Koike so that the state of the paper being full can be detected [[0024]]. Regarding claims 8 and 18, Yamada does not explicitly teach and yet Koike teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the determined angle of the at least one arm below or above the predefined threshold value range corresponds to the improper loading of the media within the printer [[0104] detects that the tray is full of paper]. It would have been obvious to combine the paper detection sensor as taught by Yamada, with the rotation feeler switch paper detection sensors as taught by Koike so that the state of the paper being full can be detected [[0024]]. Regarding claim 10, Yamada does not explicitly teach and yet Koike teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate one or more notifications upon determining the improper loading of the media within the printer [[0014] sheet presence/absence detection means no longer detects the presence of a sheet, a warning means is provided to notify that a carriage movement operation will be performed when a predetermined operation is performed a certain time after the sheet presence detection means no longer detects the presence of a sheet, so that the distance between the top surface of the stacked sheets and the carriage becomes a predetermined distance (claim 8).; [0028] control performed by the CPU]. It would have been obvious to combine the paper detection sensor as taught by Yamada, with the rotation feeler switch paper detection sensors as taught by Koike so that the state of the paper being present/absent can be notified to a user [[0014]]. Regarding claim 11, Yamada does not explicitly teach and yet Koike teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the one or more notifications are displayed to a user over a display device communicatively coupled to the at least one processor [[0034] warning urging the user to remove the sheet is displayed on the LCD display]. It would have been obvious to combine the paper detection sensor as taught by Yamada, with the rotation feeler switch paper detection sensors as taught by Koike so that the state of the paper being present/absent can be notified to a user [[0014]]. Regarding claim 20, Yamada does not explicitly teach and yet Koike teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: generating, via the at least one processor, one or more notifications upon determining the improper loading of the media within the printer, and displaying, via at least one display device communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the one or more notifications to a user [[0014; 0028; 0034]]. It would have been obvious to combine the paper detection sensor as taught by Yamada, with the rotation feeler switch paper detection sensors as taught by Koike so that the state of the paper being present/absent can be notified to a user [[0014]]. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The . In summary, it appears that nearly any two sensors which detect a piece of installed media (e.g., a paper sheet) could be said to read on these limitations at present. 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 JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-5pm. 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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. /JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 03, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12566264
ENHANCED RESOLUTION SPLIT APERTURE USING BEAM SEGMENTATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12535001
DOWNHOLE ACOUSTIC SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING A RATE OF PENETRATION OF A DRILL STRING AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12510644
Ultrasonic Microscope and Carrier for carrying an acoustic Pulse Transducer
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12504525
OBJECT DETECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12495789
ULTRASONIC GENERATOR AND METHOD FOR REPELLING MOSQUITO IN VEHICLE USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
54%
With Interview (+1.5%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 415 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month