DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are 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. The wording “detects presence…by detecting whether light is blocked by the tape going through the discharge roller” is unclear. While the intention of the language is understood, it is nonetheless indefinite. First the tape does not actually pass through the discharge roller but rather past a position of the discharge roller. Further, the tape moves the discharge roller, discharge roller moves the arm, and the arm causes light to be blocked at the position of the sensor. In other words, the language is imprecise.
Moreover, the claim recites wherein the second sensor is coupled to the rotating arm along a second direction. First, as shown in Figures 2, 3 of the present application, the sensor S2 does not appear to be coupled to arm 137. Further, even if the two are coupled to each other, two things cannot be coupled in a direction.
Because all other claims depend from claims 1 and 6, they are also rejected on this basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (2009/0002746) in view of Kato (5,373,762) and Ito (2022/0297964).
Regarding claim 1, Niwa teaches a tape end detection device and control method comprising:
a cutter (fig. 2, item 15) that is provided further in a first direction (fig. 2, downward on page) than is a feed roller (fig. 2, item 109) feeding a tape (see fig. 2, item 101) fed out of a tape roll (fig. 2, note unlabeled roll) in the first direction, and cuts the tape in a tape width direction (see fig. 2, note that this is necessarily the case);
a discharge roller (fig. 2, item 17) that is provided further in the first direction than is the cutter and feeds the tape in the first direction toward a tape discharge port (fig. 2, item 16);
a first sensor (fig. 2, item 19) that detects presence/absence of the tape at a first detection position just downstream of the cutter (see fig. 2);
a second sensor (fig. 2, item 18) that detects presence/absence of the tape at a second detection position located between the cutter and the tape discharge port (see fig. 2);
wherein the second sensor is an optical sensor, the second sensor detects presence or absence of the tape by detecting whether light is being blocked by the tape going through the discharge roller (see fig. 2, note that sensor 18 detects if the tape has passed the position in the conveyance direction of the discharge roller)
and
a control unit (fig. 10, item 200), wherein
the control unit detects, based on a detection result of the first sensor, that a specific position other than a terminal end of the tape passed through the first detection position (fig. 2, note that the sensor is sensing at all times, whether a terminal end is present, no tape is present, or a body of the tape is present),
detects, based on a detection result of the second sensor, that the tape cut by the cutter was discharged from the tape discharge port (see fig. 2, note that sensor 18 senses that the end of the tape is being ejected from the discharge port), and
detects, based on the detection results of the first sensor and the second sensor, a tape end indicating that the terminal end of the tape passed through the feed roller (see fig. 2, Note that any determination made by either or both sensors indicates that the tape has passed through the feed roller because both sensors are downstream of the feed roller. Note that “terminal end” and “tape end” could mean either end of the tape).
Niwa does not teach wherein the first detection position is located between the feed roller and the cutter. Kato teaches wherein a feed roller a cutting mark sensor and a cutter are arranged in that order in the downstream direction (Kato, fig. 1, Note roller 16, sensor 18 and cutter 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to move the first sensor disclosed by Niwa from just downstream of the cutter to just upstream of the cutter, as disclosed by Kato, because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known sensor/cutter arrangement for another to obtain predictable results. In other words, regardless of whether a cut mark was sensed by a sensor downstream of the cutter or upstream of the cutter, the system controller would know where the cut mark was in relation to the cutter and cut accordingly.
Niwa in view of Kato does not teach wherein the second sensor is coupled to a rotating arm along a second direction intersecting the first direction, the rotating arm being mechanically coupled to the discharge roller. Ito teaches this type of medium sensor (Ito, see figs. 10-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a media sensor of the type disclosed by Ito instead of one of the type disclosed Niwa in view of Kato because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known media sensor for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Niwa in view of Kato and Ito teaches the tape end detection device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit detects the tape end when absence of the tape is detected by the first sensor and presence of the tape is detected by the second sensor while the tape is being fed by the feed roller (Niwa, fig. 2, Note that if a tape is cut as determined by first sensor and detected at the second sensor after being fed, no tape is detected at the first sensor a tape end is detected in that the end of the previously cut tape has been fed).
Regarding claim 3, Niwa in view of Kato and Ito teaches the tape end detection device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit detects the tape end when presence of the tape is detected by the first sensor and absence of the tape is detected by the second sensor after a feeding amount of the tape from start of feeding of the tape by the feed roller exceeds a predetermined amount (Niwa, fig. 2, Note that when the leading tape end is detected by the first sensor and no tape is detected by the second sensor, the tape is detected. Also, note that all feed amounts can be said to be “predetermined”).
Regarding claim 4, Niwa in view of Kato and Ito teaches the tape end detection device according to claim 1, wherein the discharge roller includes a pair of rollers (Niwa, fig. 2, items 17) that pinch the tape to rotationally feed the tape, and the second sensor detects presence/absence of the tape by setting a position between the pair of rollers as the second detection position (Niwa, fig. 2, Note that second sensor 18 detects a position that has been between the pair of rollers).
Regarding claim 5, Niwa in view of Kato and Ito teaches a tape printing device comprising: the tape end detection device according to claim 1, and a print head that performs printing on the tape fed by the feed roller (Niwa, see fig. 2, item 10).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Niwa in view of Kato and Ito teaches a tape printing device, wherein the control unit determines, based on different combinations of the detection results of the first sensor and the second sensor, a device state among a plurality of device states including at least two of (i) a tape end indicating that the terminal end of the tape passed through the feed roller, (ii) the tape is being discharged or printed, (iii) the tape has a discharge error, (iv) the tape is being transported abnormally (see Niwa, note that the control device necessarily knows when the tape is being printed or when the tape is being discharged based at least partly on the readings of the sensors)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 X. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853