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
Applicant’s Amendment filed on July 5, 2026 regarding claims 1, 3, 4, and 11 is fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, the applicant amends claim 1 to avoid 112(f) interpretation by rewriting the term “holding part” as “holder”. However, this amendment still fails to sufficiently provide structure.
On page 8, the applicant amends claim 1 to recite that the cutter is upstream of the print head, pointing out that Kitahara US 20220080753 A1 has the cutter downstream of the print head. However, Watanabe et al. US 6343884 B1 teaches a cutter upstream of the head and notes the benefits thereof. Therefore, the rejection is maintained under new grounds necessitated by the amendment.
On page 8, the applicant adds independent claim 11 and argues that Kitahara does not disclose or suggest an outlet as recited in the new claim. However, Kitahara does in fact teach an outlet, as shown in the following rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“…a holder configured to hold…” in claims 1 and 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitahara US 20220080753 A1.
Regarding claim 11,
an image recording apparatus configured to record an image on a sheet, comprising:
a body (Paragraph 0031, “As illustrated in FIG. 1, FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, the recording device 11 includes a cuboid housing 12 and a body frame 16 that supports portions of the recording device 11”) having an insertion port (Figure 13A, Item 30a), an outlet (Figure 13A, Item D1) and a first roller (Figure 13A, Item R) disposed in the body, a sheet unwound from the first roll being discharged from the outlet
PNG
media_image1.png
871
1320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and inserted into the insertion port (Figure 13A, Items M, D1, and 30a),
a conveyer configured to convey the sheet inserted from the insertion port, along a first conveyance route in a conveyance direction (Figure 13A, Items D1 and 34),
a cutter configured to cut the sheet conveyed by the conveyer, the cutter being located downstream in the conveyance direction of the insertion port in the first conveyance route (Figure 13A, Item 27; Paragraph 0040, "The cutting unit 27 is located downstream from the support unit 25 and upstream from the discharge port 14"),
the conveyer includes a holder configured to hold the sheet cut by the cutter, the holder being located between the insertion port and the cutter in the first conveyance route (Figure 13A, Item 35; Paragraph 0075, "a position where the upstream transport roller pair 35 holds the medium M between the rollers").
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, 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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara US 20220080753 A1 and Watanabe et al. US 6343884 B1.
Regarding claim 1,
PNG
media_image2.png
871
1320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an image recording apparatus configured to record an image on a sheet (Paragraph 0002, "The present disclosure relates to a recording device"),
an insertion port into which a sheet unwound from a first roll disposed outside the image recording apparatus is inserted (Figure 13A, Item 30a),
a conveyer configured to convey the sheet inserted from the insertion port, along a first conveyance route in a conveyance direction (Figure 13A, Items D1 and 34),
a head configured to form an image onto the sheet conveyed by the conveyer (Figure 13A, Item 22; Paragraph 0037, “The recording unit 20 includes a head 22…”),
a cutter configured to cut the sheet conveyed by the conveyer, the cutter being located downstream in the conveyance direction of the insertion port in the first conveyance route (Figure 13A, Item 27; Paragraph 0040, "The cutting unit 27 is located downstream from the support unit 25 and upstream from the discharge port 14"),
wherein the conveyer includes a holder configured to hold the sheet cut by the cutter, the holder being located between the insertion port and the cutter in the first conveyance route (Figure 13A, Item 35; Paragraph 0075, "a position where the upstream transport roller pair 35 holds the medium M between the rollers").
Kitahara does not disclose a cutter upstream in the conveyance direction of the head in the first conveyance route.
However, Watanabe et al. teaches a printer having a cutter disposed upstream of a print head (Abstract, “By positioning the cutter upstream of the printing head…”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kitahara to have that the cutter is disposed upstream of the print head in order to allow any dirty sections of the paper roll to be cut away before reaching the print head, as taught by Watanabe et al. (Abstract, “By positioning the cutter upstream of the printing head and cutting the paper before the forward edge of the paper moves downstream of the printing head, the printing head and a platen roller can be kept free of any dirt adhering to the paper”)
Regarding claim 8,
a feed tray configured to accommodate a plurality of the sheets stacked (Figure 3, Item 221; In addition, the recording device 11 includes an accommodating carrier 200 accommodating a cassette 221 that accommodates the cut-sheet medium M).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara US 20220080753 A1 and Watanabe et al. US 6343884 B1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. US 20220204299 A1 and Morris et al. US 4796066 A1.
Regarding claim 2,
Kitahara teaches:
a casing (Paragraph 0031, "As illustrated in FIG. 1, FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, the recording device 11 includes a cuboid housing 12 and a body frame 16 that supports portions of the recording device 11"),
a feed tray having an accommodating part configured to accommodate the sheet (Figure 3, Item 221; In addition, the recording device 11 includes an accommodating carrier 200 accommodating a cassette 221 that accommodates the cut-sheet medium M)
Kitahara does not disclose that the feed tray is configured to move in a front-rear direction with respect to the casing.
However, Yamaguchi et al. teaches a feed tray configured to move in a front-rear direction with respect to the casing (Figure 1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitahara to have the tray move in a front-rear direction so that the user may pull out and insert the tray, as taught by Yamaguchi (Paragraph 0116, “In the above-described first embodiment and second embodiment, the feeding tray can be inserted/pulled out in the front and rear direction with respect to the housing”).
Modified Kitahara fails to disclose that the insertion port is located on one of a front surface of the casing and a front surface of the feed tray.
However, Morris et al. teaches a printer apparatus with an external paper roll and insertion port located on a front surface of the casing (Figure 1, Item 37). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitahara to have the insertion port located at a front surface of the casing so that the roll may be replaced more easily, and so that larger rolls may be used, as taught by Morris et al. (Column 2, Lines 49- 53, “In FIG. 1 paper roll 13 is shown mounted external to printer housing 10 for ease of replacing the paper roll. External mounting is the preferred embodiment of the invention and permits larger diameter rolls to be used”).
Regarding claim 4,
Kitahara teaches:
the holder includes a feed roller configured to feed the sheet accommodated in the accommodating part toward the cutter (Figure 13A, Items 35, 34, and 32),
the feed roller is configured to convey and hold the sheet inserted from the insertion port (Figure 13A, Items 35, 34, and 32).
Regarding claim 5,
Kitahara teaches:
a casing (Paragraph 0031, "As illustrated in FIG. 1, FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, the recording device 11 includes a cuboid housing 12 and a body frame 16 that supports portions of the recording device 11"),
the cutter is configured to selectively cut the sheet inserted from the insertion port and the sheet unwound from the second roll (Figure 1, Items 27 and M; Paragraph 0040, "The cutting unit 27 cuts the medium M at a cutting position across the width direction"; Kitahara the cutter is made to selectively cut the roll sheet inserted from the insertion port and the cut sheet supplied by the cassette. The functionality and operation of the cutter would not change between cutting a sheet and roll, thus the second roll can be substituted for the cut sheet, which is supplied as alternative to the first rolled medium).
Kitahara does not disclose a feed tray configured to accommodate a second roll around which a sheet is wound.
However, Yamaguchi et al. does teach a feed tray configured to accommodate a roll around which a sheet is wound (Figure 1, Item R). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a roll inside the feed tray, allowing the printer to have two different sources of roll paper, one supplied from outside the image recording apparatus and the other from the feed tray, Yamaguchi et al.
Regarding claim 7,
Kitahara does not teach a feed tray configured to accommodate a second roll around which a sheet shorter than a maximum length of the sheet of the first roll is wound.
However, Yamaguchi et al. does teach a feed tray configured to accommodate a roll around which a sheet is wound (Figure 1, Item R). It would be apparent that the roll stored within the feed tray would be smaller than the maximum length of a roll stored outside, as taught by Morris et al. (Column 2, Lines 49- 53, “In FIG. 1 paper roll 13 is shown mounted external to printer housing 10 for ease of replacing the paper roll. External mounting is the preferred embodiment of the invention and permits larger diameter rolls to be used”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to accommodate a second roll around which a sheet shorter than a maximum length of the sheet of the first roll is wound, allowing the printer to have two different sources of roll paper, one supplied from outside the image recording apparatus and the other from the feed tray, as taught by Yamaguchi et al.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara, US 20220080753 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arakane et al., US 20150274456 A1.
Kitahara teaches:
a feed tray including an accommodating part configured to accommodate the sheet (Figure 3, Item 221),
a sensor configured to detect the sheet inserted from the insertion port (Paragraph 0063, "In addition, a transport position of the medium M is configured to be detectable by a position detection unit”),
a notifying part (Paragraph 0035, "Additionally, a speaker 15d is provided emitting sound to an exterior"),
a controller (Paragraph 0060, "Next, a configuration of the control unit 58 of the recording device 11 will be described"),
the conveyer is configured to convey the sheet accommodated in the accommodating part (Figure 3, Item 217),
Kitahara does not disclose that the controller is configured to cause the notifying part to notify a user of removal of the sheet accommodated in the accommodating part from the accommodating part in accordance with detection of the sheet by the sensor.
However, Arakane et al. teaches that the controller is configured to execute a removal notifying process when the sheet is removed from the first tray (Paragraph 0007, "Further, the controller is further configured to execute a removal notifying process to output a notification indicating removal of the sheet on the first tray"; Paragraph 0072, “Then, the controller 130 repeatedly executes the removal notification process (an example of the second notifying process) until the state of the registration sensor 120 is changed from the registration-active state to the registration non-active and the state of the tray sensor 125 is changed from the MP-active state to the MP-non-active state (S32: NO)”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitahara such that the controller causes the notifying part to notify the user when the sheet is removed from the accommodating part, in accordance with the detection of the sheet by the sensor, in order to notify the user when each sheet is used in the printing operation, as taught by Arakane et al.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara, US 20220080753 A1 and Watanabe et al. US 6343884 B1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. US 20220204299 A1 and Hitoshi et al. JP 2005250273 A.
a casing (Paragraph 0031, "As illustrated in FIG. 1, FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, the recording device 11 includes a cuboid housing 12 and a body frame 16 that supports portions of the recording device 11"),
a feed tray having an accommodating part configured to accommodate the sheet (Figure 3, Item 221; In addition, the recording device 11 includes an accommodating carrier 200 accommodating a cassette 221 that accommodates the cut-sheet medium M)
Kitahara does not disclose that the feed tray is configured to move in a front-rear direction with respect to the casing.
However, Yamaguchi et al. teaches a feed tray configured to move in a front-rear direction with respect to the casing (Figure 1). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitahara to have the tray move in a front-rear direction so that the user may pull out and insert the tray, as taught by Yamaguchi (Paragraph 0116, “In the above-described first embodiment and second embodiment, the feeding tray can be inserted/pulled out in the front and rear direction with respect to the housing”).
Modified Kitahara fails to disclose that the insertion port is located on one of a front surface of the casing and a front surface of the feed tray.
However, Hitoshi et al. teaches a printer apparatus with an external paper roll an insertion port located on a rear surface of the casing (Figure 6, Item 31a). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitahara to have that the insertion port is located at rear surface of the casing so that the roll may be replaced more easily, and so that larger rolls may be used, as taught by Morris et al. (Column 2, Lines 49- 53, “In FIG. 1 paper roll 13 is shown mounted external to printer housing 10 for ease of replacing the paper roll. External mounting is the preferred embodiment of the invention and permits larger diameter rolls to be used”).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara US 20220080753 A1, Watanabe et al. US 6343884 B1, Yamaguchi et al. US 20220204299 A1, and Hitoshi et al. JP 2005250273 A as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Inoue et al. US 20130057630 A1.
Kitahara et al. fails to disclose:
the feed tray is configured to accommodate a second roll around which a sheet is wound,
However, Yamaguchi et al. does teach a feed tray configured to accommodate a roll around which a sheet is wound (Figure 1, Item R). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a roll inside the feed tray, allowing the printer to have two different sources of roll paper, one supplied from outside the image recording apparatus and the other from the feed tray, as taught by Yamaguchi et al.
Modified Kitahara further fails to disclose:
the conveyer is configured so that the sheet unwound from the second roll is conveyed along a second conveyance route,
the image recording apparatus further comprises another cutter which is different from the cutter, the another cutter being disposed in the second conveyance route, and configured to cut the sheet unwound from the second roll.
However, Inoue et al. teaches two rolled mediums (Figure 1, Items 111 and 121) conveyed along two separate conveyance routes (Figure 1, 113 and 123), each having separate cutters (Figure 1, 116 and 126). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have that the second roll is conveyed along a second conveyance route and that the second conveyance route have a second cutter configured to cut the unwound sheet from the second roll so that when a component of conveyance route fails, the other can still be utilized, as taught by Inoue et al. (Paragraph 0058, Thus, the present embodiment achieves a technical effect in which, in the case where either one of the print head of the printers is out of order, images can be easily formed on the recording medium loaded on the printer whose print head is out of order”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for allowance of claim 3 is the inclusion of the limitations “an insertion port into which a sheet unwound from a first roll disposed outside the image recording apparatus is inserted… a feed tray having an accommodating part configured to accommodate the sheet and configured to move in a front-rear direction with respect to the casing… the insertion port is located on a front surface of the feed tray.” It is these limitations, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 3, that indicates allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
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 Rami Alshoroogi whose telephone number is (571)272-8946. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm.
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.
/RAMI A ALSHOROOGI/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights