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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/3/2024 and 12/01/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamitani et al. (US 20150298472 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kamitani teaches a printer (Figure 1 displays a “duplex printer 10”) comprising:
a roll paper housing (Figure 1 displays a “substrate supply section 42”) that houses roll paper (Figure 1 displays a “continuous substrate 41”);
a sheet paper housing (Figure 1 displays a “sheet-like substrate supply section 25”) that houses sheet paper (Figure 1 displays “sheet-like substrate 1”);
a print portion that prints on the roll paper and the sheet paper (Figure 1 displays a “thermal head 12”); and
a flip portion that flips a side of the sheet paper to be printed on by the print portion (Figure 1 displays a “reversing mechanism 20” described in paragraphs [0029]-[0035]),
wherein the flip portion includes at least a portion and at least another portion, the portion being provided in front of the roll paper housing and overlapping with the roll paper housing when viewed in a front and back direction (Figure 1 displays the “reverse mechanism 20” having a portion that is provided against the “roller 16” and is high enough to overlap the “substrate supply section 42” when viewed in a front and back direction.), and the another portion being provided below the roll paper housing and overlapping with the roll paper housing when viewed in a height direction (Figure 1 displays the rest of the “reverse mechanism 20” having a portion that is below the “substrate mechanism 20” and overlaps the “sheet-like substrate supply section 25” when looked at the top view.).
Regarding claim 2, Kamitani teaches the printer according to in claim 1, Kamitani further discloses wherein at least the portion of the flip portion is an upwardly convex curved portion of a carrying path that reverses a carrying direction of the sheet paper from upward to downward (Figure 1 displays the “reverse mechanism 20” that has a convex curved part that helps the paper moves between an upward or downward direction through the “looped reversing transport path 20a”.).
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) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamitani et al. (US 20150298472 A1) in view of Takei et al. (US 20210260898 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kamitani teaches the printer according to claim 1,
Kamitani fails to teach wherein the flip portion is provided in a drawer capable of being drawn forward to a case body together with the roll paper housing.
However, Takei teaches wherein the flip portion is provided in a drawer capable of being drawn forward to a case body together with the roll paper housing. (Figures 2 and 3 display the “roll paper accommodating unit 40” being exposed when “outer wall 82” is removed and can be moved forward out of the “printing apparatus 11” at a “movement range of L1”. Combining the “reverse mechanism 20” from Kamitani with the exposure and moving of the “roll paper accommodating unit 40” taught by Takei would allow the “reverse mechanism 20” to be shown and moved out of the printer.)
Kamitani and Takei are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a printer apparatus. 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 printer apparatus taught by Kamitani so that the flip portion is provided in a drawer capable of being drawn forward to a case body together with the roll paper housing as taught by Takei. This would have been done for the purpose of preventing the issues of increasing the printer apparatus size and the needed installation space for installing the printing apparatus (Takei, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, Kamitani teaches a printer (Figure 1 displays a “duplex printer 10”) comprising:
a roll paper housing (Figure 1 displays a “substrate supply section 42”) that houses roll paper (Figure displays a “continuous substrate 41”);
a sheet paper housing (Figure 1 displays a “sheet-like substrate supply section 25”) that houses sheet paper (Figure 1 displays “sheet-like substrate 1”);
a print portion that prints on the roll paper and the sheet paper (Figure 1 displays a “thermal head 12”); and
a flip portion that flips a side of the sheet paper to be printed on by the print portion (Figure 1 displays a “reversing mechanism 20” described in paragraphs [000029]-[0035]),
Kamitani fails to teach wherein the flip portion is provided, integrally with the roll paper housing, in a drawer capable of being drawn forward to a case body.
However, Takei teaches wherein the flip portion is provided, integrally with the roll paper housing, in a drawer capable of being drawn forward to a case body. (Figures 2 and 3 display the “roll paper accommodating unit 40” being exposed when “outer wall 82” is removed and can be moved forward out of the “printing apparatus 11” at a “movement range of L1”. Combining the “reverse mechanism 20” from Kamitani with the exposure and moving of the “roll paper accommodating unit 40” taught by Takei would allow the “reverse mechanism 20” to be shown and moved out of the printer.)
Kamitani and Takei are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a printer apparatus. 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 printer apparatus taught by Kamitani to also apply wherein the flip portion is provided in a drawer capable of being drawn forward to a case body together with the roll paper housing taught by Takei. This would have been done for the purpose of preventing the issues of increasing the printer apparatus size and the needed installation space for installing the printing apparatus (Takei, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Kamitani teaches the printer according to claim 1,
Kamitani fails to teach wherein a portion of the flip portion is exposed outside with a front of the roll paper housing open.
However, Takei teaches wherein a portion of the flip portion is exposed outside with a front of the roll paper housing open (Figures 2 and 3 display the “roll paper accommodating unit 40” being exposed when “outer wall 82”, which is a part of the “cutting waste accommodating unit 80”, is removed and can be moved forward out of the “printing apparatus 11” at a “movement range of L1” described in paragraphs [0031]-[0032] and [0028]. Combining the structure of Kamitani’s “reverse mechanism 20” that overlaps the “substrate supply section 42” with Takei’s “outer wall 82” removal would also expose a portion of the “reverse mechanism 20”.).
Kamitani and Takei are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a printer apparatus. 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 printer apparatus taught by Kamitani to also apply wherein a portion of the flip portion is exposed outside with a front of the roll paper housing open taught by Takei. This would have been done for the purpose of preventing the issues of increasing the printer apparatus size and the needed installation space for installing the printing apparatus (Takei, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, Kamitani teaches the printer according to claim 1, Kamitani further discloses comprising a cutter that cuts at least a portion of the sheet paper (Figure 1 displays a “cutter 29” that cuts the “continuous substrate 41”); and
Kamitani fails to teach a waste box that is removably attached in front of the roll paper housing, and houses pieces of paper cut and separated by the cutter, wherein a portion of the flip portion is exposed outside with the waste box removed.
However, Takei teaches a waste box that is removably attached in front of the roll paper housing, and houses pieces of paper cut and separated by the cutter (Figures 2 and 3 display the “cutting waste accommodating unit 80” in front of the “roll paper accommodating unit 40” described in paragraph [0031].), wherein a portion of the flip portion is exposed outside with the waste box removed. (Figures 2 and 3 display the “roll paper accommodating unit 40” being exposed when “outer wall 82”, which is a part of the “cutting waste accommodating unit 80”, is removed and can be moved forward out of the “printing apparatus 11” at a “movement range of L1” described in paragraphs [0031]-[0032] and [0028]. Combining the structure of Kamitani’s “reverse mechanism 20” that overlaps the “substrate supply section 42” with Takei’s “outer wall 82” removal would also expose a portion of the “reverse mechanism 20”.)
Kamitani and Takei are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving printer apparatus. 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 printer apparatus taught by Kamitani to also apply a waste box that is removably attached in front of the roll paper housing, and houses pieces of paper cut and separated by the cutter, wherein a portion of the flip portion is exposed outside with the waste box removed taught by Takei. This would have been done for the purpose of improving work efficiency and user easy access to discard cutting waste (Takei, paragraph [0049]-[0050]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamitani et al. (US 20150298472 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshinori (JP 2013018201 A).
Regarding claim 7, Kamitani teaches the printer according to claim 1,
Kamitani fails to teach wherein a radius of curvature of a curved portion that is a portion of the flip portion is 20 mm or more.
However, Yoshinori teaches wherein a radius of curvature of a curved portion that is a portion of the flip portion is 20 mm or more (Paragraph [0017] describes how the “conveyance path 33” the “paper P” follows to allow for double sided printing is made of a large curvature, and is further explained that the larger the curvature is better for preventing issues. Though Yoshinori does not explicitly give numerical ranges on the curvature, it is obvious that the size of curvature from Yoshinori would overlap the given range within the claim.).
Kamitani and Yoshinori are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving printer apparatus. 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 printer apparatus taught by Kamitani to also apply wherein a radius of curvature of a curved portion that is a portion of the flip portion is 20 mm or more taught by Yoshinori. This would have been done for the purpose of reducing the risk of jamming the paper (Yoshinori, paragraph [0006]).
Conclusion
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, Douglas 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.
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853