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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that Figure 3 of the reference Oaki fails to teach “a central axis of the rotation shaft is rearward of a front end of the supporting table” as the figure illustrates the central axis of the “support shaft 22a” is forward of the front end of the “support member 60”. The applicant’s argument have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is made in view of Figure 7 of the reference Nakaoka (JP 2009233860 A) which clearly depicts the “core roller 21” is behind the front end of the “platen 34”. Applicant’s reliance on MPEP § 2125(II) is not persuasive with respect to Reference Nakaoka as “drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928).” See MPEP 2125(I). Although MPEP 2125(II) describes how patent drawings that are not specified as being to scale should not be relied on for precise proportions or measurements, the rejection using Figure 7 of reference Nakaoka is not relied upon for precise dimension or measurements. Rather, Figure 7 is relied upon only to show the relative positional relationship between the “central axis of the rotation shaft” and the “front end of the supporting table”, which is clearly depicted and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oaki et al. (JP 2014117881 A) in view of Nakaoka (JP 2009233860 A).
Regarding claim 1, Oaki teaches a printer (Figure 1 displays a “liquid ejecting apparatus 11” described in paragraph [0018]) comprising:
a rolled medium holder (Figure 2 displays the “medium holding unit 22” described in paragraph [0021]) to hold a rolled medium that is a band-shaped medium wound into a cylindrical form (Figure 2 displays the “medium holding unit 22” holding the “roll body R” that is described as a “roll-shaped medium in which a long sheet S as an example of a medium is wound in a cylindrical shape” in paragraph [0021]); and
a supporting table to support the band-shaped medium (Figure 3 displays the “support member 60” that supports the “sheet S” that is rolled out from the “roll body R” described in paragraph [0036]) pulled out rearward from the rolled medium holder (Figure 3 displays how the “sheet S” is being rolled out and towards the back of the printer away from the “front cover 17” in the “feeding path” as described in paragraphs [0023]-[0024].);
wherein the rolled medium holder includes: a rotation shaft extending in a right-left direction and inserted into or through the rolled medium (Figure 3 displays the “support shaft 22a” that rotatably holds the “roll body R” in the X direction (left to right direction)); and
a flange provided on at least one end portion of the rotation shaft (Figure 3 displays the “flange 22b” which are a pair that sandwich the “roll body R”);
a front end of the flange is forward of the front end of the supporting table (Figure 3 displays how the “flange 22b” extends toward the front further than the “support
member 60” in the Y-direction).
Oaki fails to disclose a central axis of the rotation shaft is rearward of a front end of the supporting table.
However, Nakaoka depicts a central axis of the rotation shaft is rearward of a front end of the supporting table (Figure 7 displays how the “core roller 21” is behind the front end of the “platen 34” as the “discharge tray 5” of the “case 6” is described, in paragraph [0021], to be the front of the “ink jet printer A”. See Figure below.).
Oaki and Nakaoka are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a method of printing and the use of a printer. 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 taught by Oaki to also apply a central axis of the rotation shaft is rearward of a front end of the supporting table depicted by Nakaoka. This would have been done for the purpose of implementing a known alternative arrangement of the “supporting table” and “rotation shaft” while maintaining the intended function of both the “supporting table” and “rotation shaft”, as the position of the “rotation shaft” is a matter of mechanical design.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Oaki and Nakaoka teaches the printer according to claim 1. As best understood, Oaki further discloses further comprising a partition between the rolled medium holder and the supporting table and extending in a front-rear direction (Figure 3 displays a partition, shown below highlighted in blue, that is part of the “housing part 12” and is between the “support member 60” and the “medium holding unit 22”); wherein a work space is defined between the partition and the flange in a side view (Figure 3 displays the space between the partition of the “housing part 12” and the “flange 22b” from the “width direction x” point of view shown below as the leftmost green line in the figure below.); and an up-down space length of the work space in an up-down direction between the partition and an uppermost position of the flange in the up-down direction is longer than one-half of a length of the flange in the up-down direction (Figure 3 displays the space between the partition of the “housing part 12” and the “flange 22b” from the “width direction x” point of view, labeled in green. It is demonstrated in the figure below how the space is about one-half of the size of the “flange 22b”, that is also labeled in green in the figure below.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Oaki and Nakaoka teaches the printer according to claim 2. Oaki further discloses wherein the up-down space length of the work space is shorter than the length of the flange in the up-down direction (Figure 3 displays how the size of the “flange 22b” is larger than the distance between the partition that separates the “first storage unit 13” and the “second storage unit 14” and the top of the “flange 22b”.).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
480
757
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art alone or in combination does not reasonable teach or suggests a printer “wherein a distance in an up-down direction between the floor surface and a portion of the flange closest to the floor surface is longer than a distance in a front-rear direction between the front end of the supporting table and the central axis of the rotation shaft.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagashima et al. (US 20140375738 A1) describes a printer with a rolled medium and would be considered pertinent to teach the following limitations of “ a central axis of the rotation shaft is rearward of a front end of the supporting table.”
Nagashima discloses in paragraph [0051] how the “roll containing part 4”, which includes the “roll 3” and its “center O”, is at the rear of the “internal space of the housing 2” as shown in Figure 10B. While the “platen roller 66” is disposed on an “upper side of a front end of the housing 2” as described in paragraph [0045] and displayed in Figure 10B.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights