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 07/16/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-2 and 4-5 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.
Regarding claim 1 recites the limitation "the medium" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "about one-half of a length of the flange" renders the claim indefinite because the examiner is unsure what applicant means by “about one-half”. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the limitation(s) allow the length to be greater or lesser than one-half the length of the flange. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 4-5 recites the limitation "the medium" in line 2 for each claim respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oaki et al. (JP2014117881A).
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 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 central axis of the rotation shaft is rearward of a front end of the supporting table (Figure 3 displays how the “support shaft 22a” is behind the “support member 60” in the Y-direction.); and
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).
Regarding claim 2, Oaki 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 about 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, Oaki 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
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art alone or i9n 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 arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ryoya et al. (JP 2011110708A) discloses a printer apparatus that comprises of a rolled medium that extends the medium rearward and is supported by a medium holder. The medium holder also includes a central axis (loading portion) that is inserted into the core tube of the recording medium and a flange on either side of the rolled recording medium.
Takei et al. (US 20210260898 A1) discloses a printer apparatus that comprises of a rolled medium that extends the medium rearward and is supported by a medium holder. The medium holder also includes a support shaft that is inserted into the core tube of the recording medium.
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
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853