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.
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) 1-3, 6, 17-18, 22, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson et al. (2013/0138391) (hereinafter Jackson et a.).
Regarding Claim 1, Jackson et al. teaches a media processing device (100, Fig. 1C) [Paragraph 0021], comprising: a platen roller (208, Fig. 2A) [Paragraphs 0023 and 0028]; a printhead (206, Fig. 2A) configured to form a nip with the platen roller (208) [Paragraph 0028]; a media exit [see Figs. 2A-2C]; a first sensor (114/116, Fig. 2A) disposed proximate to the platen roller (208) [Paragraphs 0024-0025]; a second sensor (112, Fig. 2A) disposed proximate to the media exit (see Fig. 2A) [Paragraphs 0024-0025]; and a logic circuit (402, Fig. 4) operatively coupled to the first and second sensors (114/116, 112), the logic circuit (402) configured to: discriminate between a normal operation of the media processing device, a media jam error, and a media wrap error based on outputs from the first and second sensors (114/116, 112) [Paragraphs 0027-0028, 0031-0041].
Regarding Claim 2, Jackson et al. teaches the media processing device (100), wherein the first sensor (114/116) is configured to sense a state of the platen roller (208) and the second sensor (112) is configured to sense the presence or absence of media proximate to the media exit (see Figs. 2A-2C) [Paragraphs 0031-0041].
Regarding Claim 3, Jackson et al. teaches the media processing device (100), further comprising: a motor (not shown in Figures) operatively coupled to the platen roller (208), wherein the logic circuit (402) is configured to cease driving the motor (not shown in Figures) in response to detecting a media jam error or media wrap error [Paragraphs 0013, 0028, 0033, and 0036].
Regarding Claim 6, Jackson et al. teaches the media processing device (100), further comprising: an output device (not shown in Figures) operatively coupled to the logic circuit (402), the logic circuit (402) is configured to output an indication via the output device (not shown in Figures) in response to the logic circuit (402) determining that the media jam error or the media wrap error has occurred [Paragraphs 0037-0041, 0078-0079].
Regarding Claim 17, Jackson et al. teaches the media processing device (100), further comprising. a cutting assembly (216, Figs. 2A-2C) disposed between the platen roller (208) and the media exit (see Figs. 2A-2C), the second sensor (112) being disposed between a cutting blade (216) of the cutting assembly (216) and the media exit (see Figs. 2A-2C) [Paragraphs 0034 and 0053, see also Figs. 2A-2C].
Regarding Claim 18, Jackson et al. teaches The media processing device (100), wherein the logic circuit (402) is configured to determine that the media wrap error has occurred based on an output of the first sensor (114/116) indicating the presence of media [Paragraphs 0031-0041].
Regarding Claim 22, Jackson et al. teaches a method comprising: driving a platen roller (208) to advance media along a feed path (see Figs. 2A-2C) past a printhead (206) and towards a media exit (see Figs. 2A-2C) of a media processing device (100) [Paragraphs 0030-0031]; sensing, via a first sensor (114/116) disposed proximate to the platen roller (208), whether the media is present or absent [Paragraphs 0031-0041]; sensing, via the second sensor (112) disposed proximate to the media exit (see Figs. 2A-2B), whether the media is present or absent [Paragraphs 0031-0041]; and discriminating, by a logic circuit, between a normal operation of the media processing device, a media jam error, and a media wrap error based on outputs from the first and second sensors (114/116, 112) [Paragraphs 0027-0028, 0031-0041].
Regarding Claim 38, Jackson et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (406, Fig. 4) storing instructions [Paragraph 0073], wherein execution of the instructions by a logic circuit (402) causes the logic circuit (402) to perform a method comprising: driving a platen roller (208) to advance media along a feed path (see Figs. 2A-2C) past a printhead (206) and towards a media exit (see Figs. 2A-2C) of a media processing device (100 [Paragraphs 0030-0031]; sensing, via a first sensor (114/116) disposed proximate to the platen roller (208), whether the media is present or absent [Paragraphs 0031-0041]; sensing, via the second sensor (112) disposed proximate to the media exit (se Figs. 2A-2C) , whether the media is present or absent [Paragraphs 0031-0041]; and discriminating, by a logic circuit, between a normal operation of the media processing device, a media jam error, and a media wrap error based on outputs from the first and second sensors (114/116, 112) [Paragraphs 0027-0028, 0031-0041].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-9, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 27, and 37 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 primary reason for the allowance of claims 4-5 and 7 is the inclusion of the limitation of a media processing device that includes wherein a logic circuit drives a motor to rotate a platen roller in a first direction for a printing process and rotates the platen roller in a second direction in response to detecting a media jam or media wrap error. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 8-9, 12 is the inclusion of the limitation of a media processing device that includes a printhead defining a print line such that the print line radiates from a center point relative to a platen roller in a first plane and a first sensor that radiates from a center point relative to the platen roller in a second plane, wherein the second plane creates a nonzero angle relative to the first plane. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 14 is the inclusion of the limitation of a media processing device that includes a first sensor offset from a print line by a nonzero angle circumferentially relative to a surface of a platen roller and the orientation of the first sensor is to sense a surface of the platen roller as the platen roller rotates, the first sensor provides a first output indicative of where media is adhering to the surface of the platen roller after pass the print line. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 16 is the inclusion of the limitation of a media processing device that includes a media scraper between a platen roller and media exit, the media scraper guides media off of the platen roller and towards the media exit, wherein a first sensor is under the media scraper. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 19 is the inclusion of the limitation of a media processing device that includes wherein a logic circuit determines a media jam error on the basis of the expectation of the presence of media at a media exit, wherein outputs of a first and second sensor indicate the media is absent. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 20 is the inclusion of the limitation of a media processing device that includes wherein a logic circuit drives a motor to rotate at least one of a media supply spindle or further roller in a first direction for a printing process and rotates the at least one of a media supply spindle or further roller in a second direction in response to detecting a media jam or media wrap error. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 27 is the inclusion of a method that includes the method steps of a print line that radiates from a center point relative to a platen roller in a first plane and a first sensor that radiates from a center point relative to the platen roller in a second plane, wherein the second plane creates a nonzero angle relative to the first plane. It is these steps found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 37 is the inclusion of a method that includes the method steps of determining a media jam error is on the basis of the expectation of the presence of media at a media exit, wherein outputs of a first and second sensor indicate the media is absent. It is these steps found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)272-1701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30am -6pm, EST.
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.
/LISA SOLOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853