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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of CLAIMS 1-11 in the reply filed on 13 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-8 and 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected INVENTION, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed with respect to the distinct invention groups. The Species election was made with traverse. Applicant alleges the burden for species restriction is not met. This is not found persuasive because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species, such as locations of the displays and the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Newly submitted claim 16 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 16 contains the subject matter of Group 2 that was restricted on the basis of distinctness.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 16 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Japan Application No. 2023-123769 was received on 21 August 2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 July 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 26 July 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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.
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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokuda et al. (US PGPub 2022/0063306 A1), hereinafter Tokuda.
With regard to Claim 1, Tokuda discloses a feeding apparatus (Fig. 5; ¶0029) comprising:
a casing (Figs. 1A);
a tray having a roll accommodating part configured to accommodate a roll in which a belt-shaped medium is rolled (Figs. 1, 5; ¶0020), the tray being configured to be moved between an attached position at which the tray is attached to the casing (Figs. 1, 5; ¶0020) and a drawn-out position at which the tray is drawn out of the casing in a direction crossing an up-down direction and crossing a first direction (Figs. 1, 5; ¶0020, Lines 12-13), the first direction being a direction of an axis of the roll accommodated in the roll accommodating part (Figs. 1, 5; ¶0020);
a feeder configured to feed the belt-shaped medium unrolled from the roll accommodated in the roll accommodating part of the tray in the attached position (Fig. 5); and
a roll-remaining amount display disposed on an outer surface of the tray and configured to display a remaining amount of the roll accommodated in the roll accommodating part (Figs. 1-2; indication unit 2; ¶0020-0022).
With regard to Claim 2, Tokuda further discloses wherein the roll-remaining amount display has a curved shape (Fig. 3C).
With regard to Claim 4, Tokuda further discloses wherein the casing has a first liquid accommodating part configured to accommodate a liquid tank (Fig. 1A; ¶0028), the feeding apparatus further comprises a first liquid-remaining amount display disposed on an outer surface of the casing (Fig. 4B; remaining amount of each color ink; ¶0028), the first liquid-remaining amount display being configured to display a remaining amount of a liquid in the liquid tank accommodated in the first liquid accommodating part (Fig. 4B; ¶0028), wherein: the first liquid-remaining amount display is disposed on a first surface of the outer surface of the casing (Fig. 4B; ¶0028); and in a state that the tray is in the attached position, the outer surface on which the roll-remaining amount display is disposed is positioned along the first surface (Fig. 4, front surface of printer housing).
With regard to Claim 5, Tokuda further discloses wherein in the state that the tray is in the attached position, both the roll-remaining amount display and the first liquid-remaining amount display are positioned on a first side in the first direction with respect to a center of the casing in the first direction (Fig. 4A; right side of center).
With regard to Claim 10, Tokuda further discloses wherein the roll- remaining amount display is configured to display the remaining amount in accordance with three or more stages (Figs. 1-2; indication unit 2; ¶0020-0022).
With regard to Claim 11, Tokuda further discloses an image forming apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: the feeding apparatus as defined in claim 1 (See claim 1 above); and an image former configured to form an image on the belt-shaped medium fed by the feeder of the feeding apparatus (¶0029).
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 of this title, 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 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 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.
Claim 9 is is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuda, in view of Yahata et al. (CN 102205697 A), hereinafter Yahata, using a machine translation.
With regard to Claim 9, Tokuda does not explicitly disclose wherein: the tray has a handle; and the roll-remaining amount display is disposed at a position different, in the first direction, from a position at which the handle is disposed.
The secondary reference of Yahata discloses wherein: the tray has a handle (Figs. 5-6, 8; handle 144 and other types of handles shown; ¶0080); and the roll-remaining amount display is disposed at a position different, in the first direction, from a position at which the handle is disposed (¶0061, information display part 113 as shown; Figs. 5-6, 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the handle of Yahata, with the tray of Tokuda, in order for the operator to conveniently operate the tray, as taught by Yahata (¶0080).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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 primary reasons for allowability for Claim 3 is that applicants claimed invention includes a feeding apparatus wherein the tray has an arm including: a first arm biased by a biasing member to make contact with an outer circumferential surface of the roll in the roll accommodating part; and a second arm having a first end connected to the first arm and a second end, opposite to the first end, positioned in the roll-remaining amount display as seen in the direction in which the tray is moved between the attached position and the drawn-out position. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 6 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 primary reasons for allowability for Claim 6 is that applicants claimed invention includes a feeding apparatus wherein the casing further has a second liquid accommodating part configured to accommodate a liquid tank, the first liquid accommodating part being configured to accommodate the liquid tank as many as a first number, the second liquid accommodating part being configured to accommodate the liquid tank as many as a second number, the first number being greater than the second number, the feeding apparatus further comprises a second liquid-remaining amount display disposed on the outer surface of the casing and configured to display a remaining amount of a liquid in the liquid tank accommodated in the second liquid accommodating part, wherein in the state that the tray is in the attached position, the second liquid-remaining amount display is positioned on a second side in the first direction, opposite to the first side, with respect to the center of the casing in the first direction. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 PM.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights