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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed on January 30, 2026. Claims 1-2 have been amended. Claims 1-7 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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 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(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martini et al (US 6652173) in view of Nebashi et al (US 6964475).
RE 1, Martini discloses a roll paper printer (10, Fig 1, Fig 4) comprising: a cover (16) configured to pivot to open and close a case (12); a platen roller (42, 142) configured to pull out paper (24, 124) from a roll paper (22) stored in the case and convey the paper in a conveyance direction (col 3 ln 66- col 4 ln 8); a head (48, 148) configured to print on the paper at a position facing the platen roller (col 4 ln 14-16); a cutter (50, 150a/150b) configured to cut the paper at a position downstream of the head in the conveyance direction (col 4 ln 25-36, col 5 ln 10-20), the cutter comprising a first blade and a second blade (50, 150a, 150b); and a paper guide (40, 140) mounted on the cover (Fig 1), wherein the paper guide includes a first guide (60, 160) configured to guide a first surface of the paper, a roller (166) configured to guide a second surface opposite to the first surface of the paper at a position facing the first guide, and a support portion (163) configured to movably support a shaft (168) of the roller (col 4 ln 39-55, col 5ln 30-45).
Martini fails to disclose one of the first blade and the second blade being configured to move with the cover pivoting to open and close the case.
However, Nebashi teaches a roll printer with an automatic sheet cutting unit (30) near the discharge port (5), including a fixed blade (31) and a moving blade (32) fixed to the cover (4) by a moving frame (13) (col 6 ln 26-col 7 ln 13).
Given the teachings of Nebashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cutter of Martini with the cutter comprising a first blade and a second blade, one of the first blade and the second blade being configured to move with the cover pivoting to open and close the case.
By this structure, even if the first blade is brought into a disconnection state for some failure, that is, the stoppage is carried out in the crossing state of the first blade and the second blade, the cover can be moved and opened to separate the blades without them touching.
RE 2 Martini as modified by Nebashi teaches, further comprising a second guide (164/5) disposed on the opposite side of the first guide with respect to the roller, wherein the support portion is provided on the first guide or the second guide (col 5 ln 30-50).
RE 3 Martini as modified by Nebashi teaches wherein the support portion (163) has a groove or an elongated hole that has an arc shape (169) on a side of the first guide and has extending in a direction away from the first guide (col 5 ln 35-45).
Re 4 Martini as modified by Nebashi teaches, wherein the first guide is covered with a sheet having a smaller coefficient of friction than the paper (col 4 ln 39-50, col 5 ln 50-55).
RE 5 Martini as modified by Nebashi teaches, wherein when the roller comes into contact with the sheet, the shaft of the roller can be located at a position where the shaft does not come into contact with the support portion (col 5 ln 30-56).
RE 6 Martini as modified by Nebashi teaches, wherein the platen roller (42, 142) is capable of moving a second paper (T) that is cut by the cutter and positioned between the first guide and the roller, by conveying a first paper (24) before being cut by the cutter (col 5 ln 10-15, col 4 ln 3-59).
RE 7 Martini as modified by Nebashi teaches, wherein a paper discharge port (157) for discharging the paper is formed between the cover and the case when the cover is closed, and the paper guide (40, 140) has a first opening (157), through which the paper discharged from the paper discharge port can be inserted, a second opening (162), which communicates with the first opening and through which the paper can be discharged, and a third opening (154), through which the paper can be discharged in a direction different from that to the second opening.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christle I. Marshall whose telephone number is (571) 270-3086. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 7:30AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Paik can be reached on (571) 272-2404. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Christle I Marshall/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876