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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected printing method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/23/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the first roller and the second roller in pressure contact with each other” should read “the first roller and the second roller are in pressure contact with each other”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “move, by a frictional force generated by the forward rotation of the second roller in, to a first position where a first braking force is applied” should read “move, by a frictional force generated by the forward rotation of the second roller
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the braking member includes a resin portion contacts the driven roller when the braking member is moved to the first position” should read “the braking member includes a resin portion that contacts the driven roller when the braking member is moved to the first position”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “wherein the when the platen roller comprises a resin portion,” should read “wherein .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “ wherein when the platen roller and the driven roller are rotated in the forward direction, the conveyance force applied from the platen roller to the backing sheet at a position where the driven roller faces the platen roller is less than the conveyance force applied from the platen roller to the label sheet at the position where the print head faces the platen roller” but the specification recites on page 10 “Therefore, according to the present embodiment, when printing is performed by conveying the label sheet 11 in the forward direction, the conveyance force applied from the platen roller 21 to the backing sheet 12 at the position where the peeling roller 24 faces the platen roller 21 can be made slightly larger than the conveyance force applied from the platen roller 21 to the label sheet 11 at the position where the print head 23 faces the platen roller 21” which states exactly the opposite of what is claimed. Furthermore, the specification does not elaborate on how the invention could perform the claimed action or offer any alternative species that could perform the claimed action. The applicant likely intended the claim to read “wherein when the platen roller and the driven roller are rotated in the reverse direction” to appropriately claim the subject matter found later on page 10 “According to the present embodiment, during back-feeding, the conveyance force applied from the platen roller 21 to the backing sheet 12 at the position where the peeling roller 24 faces the platen roller 21 can be reduced to be smaller than the reverse conveyance force applied from the platen roller 21 to the label sheet 11 at the position where the print head 23 faces the platen roller 21”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-9 and 11 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 terms “long” and “strip-shaped” in claim 2 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “long” and “strip-shaped” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What specific length of a backing sheet makes it long and similarly what specific dimensions make a backing sheet strip-shaped? As such the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "platen roller" and “driven roller” in lines 1 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant likely intended the “platen roller to read “the first roller” and the “driven roller” to read “the second roller” based on content of claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required
For the purposes of examination claim 11 is being interpreted as follows.
“The printer according to claim 1, wherein first roller comprises a resin portion, and an upper surface of the resin portion is pressed against an outer peripheral surface of the second roller.”
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.
(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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Itakura (US 20060056900 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Itakura teaches a conveyor including a first roller (Fig. 1 element 3) and a second roller (Fig.1 element 6) each configured to rotate in a forward direction and a reverse direction (Fig. 1 elements B and A and paragraphs [0041] and [0042]), the first roller and the second roller in pressure contact with each other (Fig. 1 elements 3b and 6b and paragraph [0028]) and a conveyance path for conveying a printing medium is interposed between the first roller and second roller (Fig. 1 element 1b), the conveyor is configured to apply a conveyance force to the printing medium by rotating each of the first roller and the second roller (paragraph [0027]); a print head disposed upstream of a position where the conveyor applies the conveyance force in a forward direction along the conveyance path (Fig. 1 element 4) the print head configured to print on the printing medium conveyed in the forward direction through the conveyance path (paragraph [0034]); and a braking member disposed in contact with the second roller (Fig. 1 element 8), the braking member configured to: move, by a frictional force generated by the forward rotation of the second roller in, to a first position where a first braking force is applied to the printing medium (paragraph [0029]), and move, by a frictional force generated by the reverse rotation of the second roller, to a second position where a second braking force larger than the first braking force is applied to the printing medium (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Itakura teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and this claim recites additional limitations with respect to details of the printing medium. However, it is noted that the printing medium is not a positively required element of the device and is afforded no patentable weight. Since, Itakura recites all the elements of claim 1 as stated above, Itakura is capable of printing on a printing medium being a label sheet obtained by pasting a plurality of labels to a long strip-shaped backing sheet, and the label sheet is conveyed through the conveyance path in a direction in which the labels face the print head.
Regarding claim 3, Itakura teaches all the elements of claim 2 as stated above and the first roller is a platen roller that faces the print head with the conveyance path interposed therebetween (Fig. 1 element 3 and paragraph [0027]), and the second roller is a driven roller that presses the backing sheet passed through the print head in the forward direction against the platen roller (Fig. 1 element 6 and paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 4, Itakura teaches all the elements of claim 3 as stated above and the printer further comprises a peeling guide configured to peel the labels from the backing sheet (Fig. 1 element 5 and paragraph [0027]), the peeling guide being disposed on a side of the conveyance path adjacent to the platen roller between a position where the print head is pressed against the platen roller and a position where the driven roller is pressed against the platen roller (Fig. 1 element 5).
Regarding claim 5, Itakura teaches all the elements of claim 3 as stated above and an elastic member configured to: support the braking member in a movable manner between the first position and the second position, and press the braking member against the driven roller (paragraph [0028]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itukura (US 20060056900 A1) in view of Tomita (JP 2015229256 A).
Regarding claim 10, Itukura teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and a peeler coupled to a case of the printer and defining a discharge port (Fig 1. element 5 and paragraph [0035]) but Itukura fails to teach the peeler comprising a label sensor configured to sense slack in a region adjacent to the discharge port. Tomita does teach a peeler (Fig. 5 element 50) comprising a label sensor configured to sense slack in a region adjacent to the discharge port “A sensor 74 is provided at a position close to the issue port 5” (page 5 and Fig. 5 element 74). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus of Itukura with the sensor of Tomita as a combination of 2 elements known in the art to yield the predictable result of a label printer that is able to sense the presence or lack of paper in the discharge port.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itukura (US 20060056900 A1) in view of Takahashi (WO 2012133247 A1).
Regarding claim 11, to the extent the claim is clear in scope and in view of the examiner’s interpretation above, Itukura teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above but fails to specifically teach wherein the first roller comprises a resin portion, and an upper surface of the resin portion is pressed against an outer peripheral surface of the second roller. It is noted that the portion of the first roller, found in Itukura, that is pressed against an outer peripheral of the driven roller is a gear (Fig. 1 elements 6b and 3b). Takahashi teaches forming gears out of resin in label printers “the gears are each formed of a synthetic resin” (page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to form the gears found in Itukura, that are means by which the first roller is pressed against an outer peripheral surface of the second roller, out of resin as taught by Takashi as a simple substitution of one material for another known in the art to decrease weight and cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all of the structure as recited, in combination with and particularly including; a conveyance guide configured to: press the backing sheet between the conveyance guide and the braking member, and apply the second braking force to the backing sheet by moving the braking member to the second position.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all of the structure as recited, in combination with and particularly including; the braking member includes a resin portion contacts the driven roller when the braking member is moved to the first position, and a rubber portion that contacts the driven roller when the braking member is moved to the second position.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all of the structure as recited, in combination with and particularly including; when the platen roller and the driven roller are rotated in the forward direction, the conveyance force applied from the platen roller to the backing sheet at a position where the driven roller faces the platen roller is greater than the conveyance force applied from the platen roller to the label sheet at the position where the print head faces the platen roller.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shirahama (JP 2007090765 A) and Hatakeyama (JP 2001010619 A) are cited as having structure similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853