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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Kako et al. (US 20170182804 A1) and Onoguchi (US 20230205465 A1) to not teach the new elements added to independent claim 1 including;
Continuous printing of a plurality of label images on a continuous tape;
Determining an initial value of a re-start number while excluding a label image that was being printed at the time of interruption from the count of completed label images; and
Displaying the initial value of the re-start number and receiving input of a re-start number, from a user, rather than selecting preview images of pages or sheets.
Regarding the first amendment, the limitation that printing is performed upon labels on a continuous tape is intended use for an apparatus and does not hold any patentable weight according to MPEP 2115 “"[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)”. This fact remains true for the other amendments to claim 1 and the later claims.
Regarding the second amendment, Onoguchi does teach this element in Fig. 16 and “Examples of the method of displaying “Number of Printed Pages” includes a method involving displaying, for each piece of page data, the total number of pages set to be printed, and the number of successfully printed pages out of the total number of pages set to be printed” (paragraph [0106]) and “In this way, the user can recognize up to what page the printing has been done out of the number of pages set to be printed (i.e., progress)” (paragraph [0107]). As can be seen in Fig. 16 the display shows that 7/10 pages of “Text 5” have been printed and in paragraph [0106] it is stated that an error occurred during the printing of the 8th page. As can be clearly seen by these examples, Onoguchi does display an initial value of restart (that being 7/10) that excludes images where an error occurred. Again, the limitation of labels being the target of printing are intended use.
Regarding the third amendment, as seen in Fig. 16, Onoguchi does display an initial value of restart that being 7/10 and 0/10 for the pages that have not started being printed yet. Furthermore, a user is able to select a restart number via the various buttons found at the bottom of Fig. 16 or the check marks next to the text as later stated by paragraph [0075] and [0112]. While these selections are associated with a preview image, the numbers at the bottom of each element of text are the restart number which is the user is able to modify via the checkmarks (See Fig. 12 and 13 and paragraphs [0092]-[0099] for more detail regarding the operation of the checkmarks), whether they want only some or all of the remaining text printed. For example, if the user selected the check mark to the left of “Text 5” then only 70 of the remaining 73 pages left to be printed would be printed or by selecting the checkmark next to “Text 10” then only 63 of the remaining 73 pages would be printed. So, via this screen a user is effectively shown an initial value and is able to select a value via a restart screen.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kako et al. (US 20170182804 A1) in view of Onoguchi (US 20230205465 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kako et al. teaches a print head (Fig. 3 element 51 and paragraph [0031]), a roller configured to convey a continuous tape (Fig. 3 element 81 and paragraph [0031]), a display (paragraph [0114]), a processor configured to execute continuous printing processing including of driving the print head and the roller based on print data to perform continuous printing of images on the tape (paragraph [0048] and [0049]), and print re-start processing of driving the print head and the roller based on the print data to re-start the continuous printing from the re-start number (paragraph [0110]).
However, Kako et al. fails to teach re-start number reception processing of, when re-starting the continuous printing subsequent to interruption of the continuous printing processing, displaying, on the display, a value corresponding to a number of printed copies already printed at the time of interruption, as an initial value of a re-start number, and receiving input of the re-start number.
Onoguchi teaches a printer that detects errors (paragraph [0079]) and re-start number reception processing when re-starting the continuous printing subsequent to interruption of the continuous printing processing, identifying a count, constituting an identified count, of completed images that were printed on the continuous tape prior to the interruption (Fig. 16, paragraphs [0107] and [0106] the above response to arguments) displaying, on the display, a value determined based the identified count of completed images as an initial value of a re-start number wherein an image that was in the process of being printed at the time of the interruption is excluded from the identified count (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0106] and [0107] and the response to arguments above), and receiving a user input that sets the re-start number (Fig. 8 element S804, Fig. 16, paragraphs [0106] and [0107] and the above response to arguments)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the printing structure of Kako et al. with the displaying method of Onoguchi as an application of a known technique of displaying the remaining pages to be printed after an error to the known device of a tape printer to yield the predictable results of allowing a user to better know the status of their print job after an error occurs.
The examiner notes that the limitations that the printing occurs on a plurality of labels is intended use according to MPEP 2115 (see the above response to arguments).
Regarding claim 2, Kako et al. and Onoguchi teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Kako et al. teaches the processor is further configured to execute, interruption processing including interrupting the continuous printing processing when a remaining charge of a battery supplying power to the label printer falls below a threshold value during the continuous printing processing (paragraph [0058] and [0059]).
Regarding claim 14, , Kako et al. and Onoguchi teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Onoguchi teaches the receiving user input that sets the re-start number including accepting a first input from the user or a second input from the user and the processor configured to: (a) accept the first input from the user that confirms the initial re-start value of the re-start number and, in response to such a first input from the user, assign the re-start number a value that corresponds to the initial value of the re-start number (Fig. 16, Fig. 7 and paragraph [0075] wherein when presented with the third setting screen if the user select OK the printer will use the initial re-start value). (b) accept the second input from the user that includes a user set value and, in response to such second input from the user, assign the re-start number a value that corresponds to the user set value (Fig. 16, Fig. 7 and paragraph [0075] wherein when presented with the third setting screen if the user selects some of the check marks they can increase or decrease the number of pages printed which will then be printed).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kako et al. (US 20170182804 A1) and Onoguchi (US 20230205465 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiroike (US 20110205277 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kako et al. and Onoguchi teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Kako et al. teaches a cutting blade configured to cut the tape (Fig. 3 element 57 and paragraph [0034]) but they fail to specifically teach interruption processing including interrupting the continuous printing processing when operation of the cutting blade is detected.
However, Hiroike does teach a printer with a blade to cut tape (Fig. 2 element 35 and paragraphs [0035] and [0036]) wherein interruption processing including interrupting the continuous printing processing when operation of the cutting blade is detected (paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the printing apparatus of Kako et al. and Onoguchi with the additional functionality of Hiroike as an application of a known technique to stop printing when the blade is being operated to a known device of a printer that interrupts printing due to stimuli to allow for the predictable result of more reliable printing without jamming.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kako et al. (US 20170182804 A1) and Onoguchi (US 20230205465 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagar (US 5684931 A).
Regarding claim 4, Kako et al. and Onoguchi teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Kako et al. teaches a cassette compartment configured to support a cassette in an attachable and detachable manner (Fig. 3 element 80 and paragraph [0027]) and the tape is housed in the cassette attachable to and detachable from the cassette compartment (paragraph [0030]).
However, they fail to teach a cassette sensor configured to detect the cassette installed in the cassette compartment and an interruption processing including interrupting the continuous printing processing when the cassette sensor no longer detects the cassette during the continuous printing.
Hagar does teach a tape printer with a cassette (Fig. 2 element 111 and Col. 1, lines 6-21) and cassette sensor configured to detect the cassette installed in the cassette compartment (Fig. 3 element 121 and Col. 8, lines 8-20) and the processor is further configured to execute: interruption processing including interrupting the continuous printing processing when the cassette sensor no longer detects the cassette during the continuous printing (Col. 8, lines 21 -27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the printing apparatus of Kako et al. and Onoguchi with the additional functionality of Hagar as an application of a known technique to stop printing when a detector fails to detect a cassette to a known device of a printer that interrupts printing due to stimuli and displays the number of pages left to print to allow for the predictable result of stopping printing when there is no cassette and displaying relevant information to the user.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kako et al. (US 20170182804 A1) and Onoguchi (US 20230205465 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Espasa et al. (US 20060203027 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kako et al. and Onoguchi teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above but they fail to teach a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of the print head, wherein the processor is further configured to execute and interruption processing including interrupting the continuous printing processing when the temperature detected by the temperature sensor during the continuous printing exceeds a threshold value.
Espasa et al. does teach a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of the print head (Fig. 1 element 26 and paragraph [0018]), wherein the processor is further configured to execute interruption processing including interrupting the continuous printing processing when the temperature detected by the temperature sensor during the continuous printing exceeds a threshold value (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the printing apparatus of Kako et al. and Onoguchi with the additional functionality of Espasa as an application of a known technique to stop printing when the temperature gets too high to a known device of a printer that interrupts printing due to stimuli and displays the number of pages left to print to yield the predictable result of displaying pertinent information to a user regarding their print job in the event of heat exceeding a threshold value.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kako et al. (US 20170182804 A1) and Onoguchi (US 20230205465 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsukuda (US 20220314640 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kako et al. and Onoguchi teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above but they fail to teach the processor is further configured to execute interruption processing including interrupting the continuous printing processing when a remaining amount of the tape falls below a threshold value during the continuous printing processing.
Tsukuda does teach a printer that interrupts printing, wherein interrupting the continuous printing processing when a remaining amount of the tape falls below a threshold value during the continuous printing processing (paragraphs [0127] and [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the printing apparatus of Kako et al. and Onoguchi with the additional functionality of Tsukuda as an application of a known technique to stop printing when tape is low to a known device of a printer that interrupts printing due to stimuli and displays the number of pages left to print to yield the predictable result displaying pertinent information to a user regarding their print job in the event the printer runs out of tape.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kako et al. (US 20170182804 A1) and Onoguchi (US 20230205465 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takayanagi (JP H0624105 A).
Regarding claim 7, Kako et al. and Onoguchi teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Onoguchi teaches storage control processing when the continuous printing processing is interrupted, storing at least one selected from a group of the number of printed copies and the initial value, together with the print data, as interruption information (paragraph [0082]).
But they fail to teach a nonvolatile memory and storing the claimed data within nonvolatile memory and the re-start number reception processing based on the interruption information stored in the non-volatile memory.
Takayanagi does teach a printer that responds to malfunctions (paragraph [0013]) and a nonvolatile memory (paragraph [0005]) and storing the claimed data within nonvolatile memory (paragraphs [0005] and [0015]) and the re-start number reception processing based on the interruption information stored in the non-volatile memory (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus of Kako et al. and Onoguchi with the additional functionality of Takayanagi as an application of a known technique of in the art to save data to non-volatile memory in response to a malfunction to a known device of a printer that displays information related to interruptions to allow a user to access print data in the event that an interruption causes a printer to fully turn off.
Regarding claim 8, Kako et al., and Onoguchi teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Onoguchi teaches the processor is further configured to execute: storage control processing when the continuous printing processing is interrupted, storing at least one selected from a group of the number of printed copies and the initial value, together with the print data, and with print settings, as interruption information (paragraph [0082]), the re-start number reception processing based on the interruption information stored and the print re-start processing includes driving the print head and the roller based on the print data, and re-starting the continuous printing from the re-start number using the print settings stored (paragraph [0083]).
But they fail to teach storing the interruption information in nonvolatile memory and restarting based on the data stored within nonvolatile memory.
Takayanagi teaches a printer that responds to malfunctions (paragraph [0013]) that stores interruption information in nonvolatile memory (paragraphs [0005] and [0015]) and restarting based on the data stored within nonvolatile memory (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus of Kako et al. and Onoguchi with the additional functionality of Takayanagi as an application of a known technique in the art to save data to nonvolatile memory in response to a malfunction to a known device of a printer that displays information related to interruptions and prints based off that information to allow a user to access print data in the event that an interruption causes a printer to fully turn off.
Regarding claim 9, Kako et al., Onoguchi and Takayanagi teach all the elements of claim 8 as stated above and Onoguchi teaches the processor is further configured to execute, print re-setting reception processing including displaying the print settings at the time of interruption (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0095]), on the display, and receiving an input to re-set the print settings when re-starting the continuous printing subsequent to interruption of the continuous printing processing (paragraph [0098] and [0099]); and print control processing including driving the print head and the roller based on the print data to perform printing using the print settings re-set in the print re-setting reception processing (paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 10, Kako et al., Onoguchi and Takayanagi teach all the elements of claim 9 as stated above and Onoguchi teaches when the input to re-set the print settings is received, the print control processing includes driving the print head and the roller based on the print data to perform the printing using the print settings re-set in the print re-setting reception processing (paragraph [0099]), and when the input to re-set the print settings is not received, the print re-start processing includes driving the print head and the roller based on the print data to re-start the continuous printing from the
re-start number, using the print settings stored as the interruption information (paragraph [0099] specifically the user “can” change to settings or opt not to). Takayanagi teaches the additional functionality of fetching the print settings from data stored in nonvolatile memory (paragraphs [0005] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, Kako et al., Onoguchi and Takayanagi teach all the elements of claim 7 as stated above and Onoguchi teaches displaying, on the display, a recovery screen obtained by adding, to the reception screen, an image representing the print data stored (Fig. 13 and paragraph [0106] and [0107]). Takayanagi teaches displaying information when the printer is turned on and there is data stored in the nonvolatile memory (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the printer of Kako et al. and Onoguchi with the additional functionality taught by Takayanagi as a known technique in the art to display information found in nonvolatile storage when a printer is turned on with a printer that displays settings information in the event of a malfunction to allow a user to modify the settings in the event that a malfunction causes the printer to turn off.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to as a first displaying process display on the display, a reception screen to receive specification of print data, when a power source of the label printer is turned ON and the interruption information is not stored in the non-volatile memory as it is known in the art to display a reception screen when a printer is turned on under non-extraordinary circumstances such as when no data is stored in nonvolatile memory.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kako et al. (US 20170182804 A1) and Onoguchi (US 20230205465 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinohara (JP 5037600 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Kako et al. and Onoguchi teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Kako et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to interrupt continuous printing process based on a remaining charge of a battery by: interrupting continuous printing during execution of printing when the remaining charge falls below a first threshold value (Fig. 5 element S 15 and paragraph [0058] and [0059]).
However, Kako et al. and Onoguchi fail to teach interrupting continuous printing after completion of a image print before starting printing of a subsequent image when the remaining charge falls below a second threshold value, the second threshold value is larger than the first threshold value.
Shinohara teaches interrupting printing based on a first threshold value of battery charge (paragraph [0011] the second reference value) and teach interrupting continuous printing after completion of an image print before starting printing of a subsequent image when the remaining charge falls below a second threshold value (Fig. 4 element S3 and paragraphs [0011] specifically the first reference value), the second threshold value is larger than the first threshold value (paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus of Kako et al. and Onoguchi with the battery method of Shinohara as a simple substitution of one detection method for another to allow the printer to interrupt the printing process and determine if power is so low that it must be cut off and data transferred to nonvolatile memory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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 of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the elements of claim 12 alone or in combination with particularly including in response to detecting an operation to edit the print data displayed on the recovery screen, cancel a further re-stat of the interrupted continuous printing and switch to a normal mode for receiving specification of new data.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Manish S Shah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights