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 .
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive because it is too generic. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP § 606.01.
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.
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(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US # 10,642,543). With respect to claim 1, the Ishii reference discloses a printing method, comprising:
S1) a step of editing a print template at a printer (template, the step of editing is implicit, see column 2 lines 16 to 18, processing by printer, see Figure 4), the edited print template comprising at least one custom field (input object, see column 2 lines 16-23) and at least one variable field (output object, see column 2 lines 16-23), and
S11) a step of printing at least one of the at least one custom field (performing the printing on the print medium based on the template, see column 2 lines 24 to 25);
S2) a step of obtaining weighing data from a weighing instrument wherein the weighing data comprises at least one record (allocating the weight data received from the weight measuring apparatus, see column 2, lines 17 to 18);
S3) a step of obtaining the records of the at least one record that match with the variable fields of the at least one variable field (correspondence between input and output objects, see column 2 lines 12 to 22),
S31) a step of inserting each matching record or a field thereof in a position of the corresponding variable field on the edited print template, and a step of printing each variable field in which a matching record or a field thereof was inserted if a matching record or field thereof was inserted in each of the at least one variable field (correspondence between input and output objects, see column 2 lines 12 to 22);
S32) printing each variable field in which a matching record or a field thereof was inserted if a matching record or field thereof was inserted in each of the at least one variable field ((printing using the template with the two values allocated, see column 3 lines 1 to 12).
The Ishii reference does not disclose the steps of: S4) determining whether all weighing data is obtained from the weighing instrument, and if all weighing data is not obtained, returning to the step S2 of obtaining weighing data, or if all weighing data is obtained, or S5) of printing the custom fields of the at least one custom field not printed yet if there is still a custom field not printed in the edited print template. However, iterative processes, or loops, were a common computer programming technique to cause a computer to repeat a task until a specific condition was met; steps S4 and S5 appear to be a classic “Do-While loop” that repeats until all of the data stored in the data records was printed1. It would have been obvious to the ordinary programmer to modify the software of Ishii to contain a classic while loop to ensure that all of the stored data was printed on the label without relying on operator intervention to keep manually re-executing the printer program for each stored record.
With respect to claim 2, the exact number and arrangement of print areas on the page would have been an aesthetic design choice, and is simply nonfunctional printed material that does not that does not describe a functional relationship between the location of the printer matter and the function of the printed label2.
With respect to claim 3, entering custom text and setting the type of the text to be included in a custom field was old and well known in the art of label printing (and word processing)3, and would have been an obvious step to include to allow a user to customize labels to his liking.
With respect to claims 4 to 7, and 14, are known (see column 7, lines 43 to 57, Figure 3, the record position number being implicit in the use of tables).
With respect to claims 8 and 15 see figures 5A, 5B, and 6.
With respect to claim 9, see column 7 line 58 to column 8 line 10.
Claim 10 simply sets the default condition printer controller should do if there is no data; this step would have been necessary to prevent the controller of the printer from entering an infinite loop if data was not obtained, and would have been an obvious step for any programmer to include in the code for this reason.
Claim 11 is simply stating an exit condition for ending the “while loop”, and this step would have been necessary to prevent the controller of the printer from entering an infinite loop when the end of the data file was reached, and would have been an obvious step for any programmer to include in the code for this reason. See step S225 in Figure 10.
Claim 12 is simply stating an exit condition for ending the “while loop”, and this step would have been necessary to prevent the controller of the printer from entering an infinite loop when the end of the data file was reached, and would have been an obvious step for any programmer to include in the code for this reason. See step S225 in Figure 10.
With respect to claim 13, the Ishii reference discloses a printer (Fig. 2), comprising:
an editing module (element 4; Figs. 14 & 15) configured to edit a print template (the step of editing is implicit, see column 2 lines 16 to 18, processing by printer, see Figure 4), the edited print template comprising the edited print template comprising at least one custom field (input object, see column 2 lines 16-23) and at least one variable field (output object, see column 2 lines 16-23)
a storage module (element 24; Fig. 2) configured to obtain weighing data (Figs. 5A & 5B) from a weighing instrument (3), wherein the weighing data comprises at least one record (Step S210 in Fig. 10);
a data matching module (inherent to the controller 23) configured to obtain the records of the at least one record that match with the variable fields of the at least one variable field (correspondence between input and output objects, see column 2 lines 12 to 22) and to send
an instruction to the editing module (4) such that the editing module inserts each matching record or a field thereof in a position of the variable field on the edited print template (Fig. 10);
a printing module (2) configured to print data according to the edited print template.
It is unclear if the Ishii reference discloses a determining module configured to determine whether all weighing data is obtained, and if all weighing data is obtained, generate a print instruction. However, iterative processes, or loops, were a common computer programming technique to cause a computer to repeat a task until a specific condition was met; steps S4 and S5 appear to be a classic “Do-While loop” that repeats until all of the data stored in the data records was printed4. It would have been obvious to the ordinary programmer to modify the software of Ishii to contain a classic while loop to ensure that all of the stored data was printed on the label without relying on operator intervention to keep manually re-executing the printer program for each stored record.
Claim 14 is simply stating the format of the common data structure known as a “record”.5 The “variable identifier” mentioned in the claim is just a key field that allows the computer to quickly identify which specific record is being accessed (For example, Social Security Numbers are a variable identifier that the IRS uses to locate the financial record of a specific taxpayer in its database).
With respect to claim 15, it was common in computer science to store multiple records in an array6, and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to use a commonly used data structure to store data in the apparatus of Ishii motivated by its known suitability of its intended purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The other references cited show the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 See the “Loops in Programming” tutorial article from the “Geeks for Geeks” website at <Loops in Programming - GeeksforGeeks >, 23 July 2025.
See, also, MPEP § 2124 for the exception to the rule that a reference must be “prior art” to be used in a rejection.
2 See MPEP § 2111.05.
3 See the abstract of US # 5,105,355 (Yoshada et al), for example.
4 See the “Loops in Programming” tutorial article from the “Geeks for Geeks” website at <Loops in Programming - GeeksforGeeks >, 23 July 2025.
See, also, MPEP § 2124 for the exception to the rule that a reference must be “prior art” to be used in a rejection.
5 See “Data Structures: Records” from rom the BBC Bitesize website at <https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zfnny4j/revision/6 > (Year: 2026).
See, also, MPEP § 2124 for the exception to the rule that a reference must be “prior art” to be used in a rejection.
6 See “Implementation (data types and structures): Arrays of records” from rom the BBC Bitesize website at < Arrays of records - Implementation (data types and structures) - Higher Computing Science Revision - BBC Bitesize >
See, also, MPEP § 2124 for the exception to the rule that a reference must be “prior art” to be used in a rejection.
Prosecution Insights