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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 11 February 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-11 & 19-20 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Klinefelter et al. (US 2004/0136768 A1) and TSUCHIMOTO (JP-2003103816-A Machine Translation), submitted with the IDS indicated above as USPAP #1 & FPD #1. Rejection based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Response to Amendment
Claims 10 & 13 have been amended and examined as such.
Claim 12 has been canceled as requested by the Applicant.
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, 3 & 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinefelter et al. (US 2004/0136768 A1) in view of TSUCHIMOTO (JP-2003103816-A Machine Translation submitted with IDS).
As related to independent claim 1, Klinefelter et al. teaches a ribbon orientation system for a printer (Klinefelter et al. – Figures 1 & 2, shown below) comprising a spindle rotatable in a first direction and a second direction (Klinefelter et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 21). Klinefelter et al. does not specifically teach detecting whether the spindle is rotating in the first direction or the second direction. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the more complex techniques stated in Klinefelter et al. would have included detecting the rotating direction of the spindle. Meanwhile, TSUCHIMOTO teaches a ribbon orientation system for a printer (TSUCHIMOTO – Figure 1, shown below), comprising: a spindle rotatable in a first direction and a second direction (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 16 & 20 and Figure 1, Reference #17, shown below), the spindle capable of supporting a supply of ribbon material for rotation therewith (TSUCHIMOTO – Figure 1, Reference #16, shown below); a trigger associated with the spindle (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraph 19 and Figure 2, Reference #19, shown below), wherein the trigger rotates with the spindle in the first direction and the second direction (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 16 & 20 and Figure 2, shown below); and an actuator [i.e. slit sensor] positioned adjacent to the spindle (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 19-21 and Figure 2, Reference #20, shown below), and specifically teaches the slit sensor is configured to detect whether the spindle is rotating in the first direction or the second direction via the trigger [i.e. through the use of triangular slits] (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 21 & 31-35 and Figure 2a, Reference #19a, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the more complex techniques of Klinefelter et al. to include the use of a slit sensor and triangular slits as taught by TSUCHIMOTO in an effort to provide a method of detecting the ink ribbon and distinguishing between different portions of the ink ribbon regardless of the direction of transportation (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 2-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
362
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
178
250
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
166
228
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 3, the combination of Klinefelter et al. and TSUCHIMOTO remains as applied above and continues to teach a connection ring connected to the trigger and configured to transmit at least a portion of the rotational motion of the spindle to the trigger via friction generated by contact between at least a portion of the connection ring and at least a portion of the spindle (Klinefelter et al. – Figure 2, Reference #60, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 7, the combination of Klinefelter et al. and TSUCHIMOTO remains as applied above and continues to teach the ribbon material is defined by an ink-coated side and a blank side [i.e. inherent feature of ink ribbon ink], the ink-coated side facing away from a printhead of the printer when the spindle rotates in the first direction (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraph 13 and Figure 1, Reference #16 & #15, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 8, the combination of Klinefelter et al. and TSUCHIMOTO remains as applied above and continues to teach a mounting wall of the printer designed to receive a portion of the spindle; a hardstop connected to the mounting wall; and an actuator mounting member connected to the mounting wall and designed to support the actuator in a fixed position with respect to the spindle, wherein the trigger is configured to engage the hardstop and to be detected by the actuator when the spindle rotates in the first direction (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 13-17 and Figures 1 & 2, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 9, the combination of Klinefelter et al. and TSUCHIMOTO remains as applied above and continues to teach the actuator is provided in the form of an optical sensor (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraph 19 and Figure 2a, Reference #20, shown above).
Claims 10-11 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Günther et al. (US 5,821,975 A) in view of d’Armancourt (US 2019/0207950 A1) and further in view of TSUCHIMOTO (JP-2003103816-A Machine Translation submitted with IDS).
As related to independent claim 10, Günther et al. teaches a ribbon orientation system for a printer, comprising: a ribbon supply spindle (Günther et al. – Column 6, Lines 40-65 and Figures 1a & 3B, Reference #26, shown below); a supply of ribbon material capable of being installed on the ribbon supply spindle in a first orientation [i.e. not reversed] or a second orientation [i.e. reversed] (Günther et al. – Column 5, Line 53 – Column 6, Line 19; Column 6, Lines 40-65; and Figures 1a & 3B, Reference #26, shown below), the ribbon material including an ink-coated side and a blank side [inherent characteristic of inking ribbon]; and an actuator [i.e. recognition unit] positioned proximate to the ribbon supply spindle and configured to detect whether the supply of ribbon material is installed in the first orientation or the second orientation (Günther et al. – Column 5, Line 53 – Column 6, Line 19 and Figure 1a, Reference #35, shown below). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized the ribbon material in an ink ribbon printer would have included an ink-coated side and a blank side. Moreover, d’Armancourt teaches a ribbon orientation system for a printer which includes a ribbon sensor to detect orientation of a printing ribbon and specifically teaches the printer ribbon including an ink-coated side [i.e. functional layer] and a blank side [i.e. substrate] (d’Armancourt – Page 4, Paragraphs 38-39, Figure 6, & Figures 2A-2B, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the ribbon material of Günther et al. would include the ribbon material characteristics of d’Armancourt, that being to have an ink-coated and a blank side in an effort to show one of numerous examples of printing ribbon used in ribbon printing devices (d’Armancourt – Page 1, Paragraph 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
608
566
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
374
436
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
674
424
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
608
326
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Continuing with claim 10, the combination of Günther et al. and d’Armancourt does not specifically teach the actuator detects a blocked state or an unblocked state. However, TSUCHIMOTO teaches a ribbon orientation system for a printer (TSUCHIMOTO – Figure 1, shown below), comprising: a spindle rotatable in a first direction and a second direction (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 16 & 20 and Figure 1, Reference #17, shown above), the spindle capable of supporting a supply of ribbon material for rotation therewith (TSUCHIMOTO – Figure 1, Reference #16, shown above) and specifically teaches an actuator [i.e. slit sensor] positioned adjacent to the spindle (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 19-21 and Figure 2, Reference #20, shown above), and specifically teaches the slit sensor is configured to detect the slits of the encoder disc and thus a blocked and unblocked state (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 21 & 31-35 and Figure 2a, Reference #19a, shown above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify actuator of Günther et al. and d’Armancourt to include the use of a slit sensor and triangular slits as taught by TSUCHIMOTO in an effort to provide a method of detecting the ink ribbon and distinguishing between different portions of the ink ribbon regardless of the direction of transportation (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 2-9).
As related to dependent claim 11, the combination of Günther et al., d’Armancourt, and TSUCHIMOTO remains as applied above and continues to teach a printhead that applies heat to the ribbon material (Günther et al. – Figure 1a, Reference #1; d’Armancourt – Figures 2A-2B, Reference #108, each shown above; and TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraph 13 and Figure 1, Reference #15 & #16, shown above); a platen roller positioned adjacent to the printhead (Günther et al. – Column 6, Lines 49-52 and d’Armancourt – Figures 2A-2B, Reference #116 & #108, shown above); and a waste ribbon spindle, the ribbon material guided from the ribbon supply spindle to the waste ribbon spindle along a ribbon path that passes between the printhead and the platen roller (Günther et al. – Column 6, Lines 49-52 and Figure 1a, Reference #25, shown above and d’Armancourt – Figures 2A-2B, Reference #110, #116, & #108, shown above), wherein the ink-coated side [i.e. functional layer] faces the platen roller when the supply of ribbon material is installed in the first orientation and the ink-coated side faces the printhead when the supply of ribbon material is installed in the second orientation (d’Armancourt – Figures 2A-2B, Reference #204, #110, #116, & #108, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 13, the combination of Günther et al., d’Armancourt, and TSUCHIMOTO remains as applied above and continues to teach a trigger disposed along the spindle and capable of rotational motion (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraph 19 and Figure 2, Reference #19, shown above).
Claims 19-20 & 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Klinefelter et al. (US 2004/0136768 A1) and TSUCHIMOTO (JP-2003103816-A Machine Translation submitted with IDS) in further view of Günther et al. (US 5,821,975 A).
As related to independent claim 19, the combination of Klinefelter et al. and TSUCHIMOTO remains for the reasons indicated above and also teaches a method for determining whether a supply of ribbon material is installed on a spindle of a printer correctly (Klinefelter et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 20 and TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraph 3) , comprising the steps of: providing a ribbon orientation mechanism (TSUCHIMOTO – Figure 1, shown above) comprising: an actuator capable of being in a blocked position or an unblocked position [i.e. a sensor detects the slits of the encoder disc and thus blocked and unblocked state] (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 19-21 and Figure 2, Reference #20, shown above); and a trigger disposed on the spindle and capable of rotating in a first direction or a second direction, wherein the trigger causes the actuator to be in a blocked position when the trigger rotates in the first direction and the trigger causes the actuator to be in an unblocked position when the trigger rotates in the second direction (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 19-21 & 31-35 and Figure 2, Reference #19, shown above); receiving the supply of ribbon material on the spindle; rotating the spindle; determining whether the actuator is in the unblocked position or block position (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 19-21 and Figure 2, Reference #20, shown above). The combination does not specifically teach displaying an error message, however, Günther et al. teaches a ribbon orientation system for a printer, comprising: a ribbon supply spindle (Günther et al. – Column 6, Lines 40-65 and Figures 1a & 3B, Reference #26, shown below); a supply of ribbon material capable of being installed on the ribbon supply spindle in a first orientation [i.e. not reversed] or a second orientation [i.e. reversed] (Günther et al. – Column 5, Line 53 – Column 6, Line 19; Column 6, Lines 40-65; and Figures 1a & 3B, Reference #26, shown above); and in response to a determination that the actuator is in the unblocked position, displaying an error message [i.e. acoustic or optical signal] (Günther et al. – Column 10, Lines 55-61 and Figures 2 & 3a, Reference #410, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing mechanisms of the combination of Klinefelter et al. and TSUCHIMOTO with an acoustic or optical signal generator as taught by Günther et al. in an effort to provide a method of detecting the ink ribbon and distinguishing between different portions of the ink ribbon regardless of the direction of transportation to ensure that the print quality does not significantly deteriorate (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 2-9 and Günther et al. – Column 4, Lines 15-35).
PNG
media_image9.png
570
466
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
370
500
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 20, the combination of Klinefelter et al., TSUCHIMOTO, and Günther et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a step of: in response to a determination that the actuator is in the blocked position, permitting operation of the printer [i.e. the tape is inserted correctly and not at the end] (TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraph 12 and Günther et al. – Column 10, Lines 41-61).
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of Klinefelter et al., TSUCHIMOTO, and Günther et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach the system is configured to take corrective action in the form of sending an error message in response to the actuator detecting that the spindle is rotating in the second direction TSUCHIMOTO – Paragraphs 19-21 & Figure 2, Reference #20, shown above and Günther et al. – Column 5, Line 53 – Column 6, Line 19; Column 6, Lines 40-65; Column 10, Lines 55-61; & Figures 1a, 2, & 3B, Reference #26, shown above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-6 & 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim [claim 1 & 10, respectively], but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim [claim 1 & 10, respectively] and any intervening claims [claim 13].
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to dependent claim 4, a review of the application file was conducted and an extensive search was conducted. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a ribbon orientation system for a printer comprising all of the structural limitations as claimed, particularly, but not limited to: an interrupter coupled to the trigger.
With respect to dependent claim 14, a review of the application file was conducted and an extensive search was conducted. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a ribbon orientation system for a printer comprising all of the structural limitations as claimed, particularly, but not limited to: a hardstop which engages a first portion of the trigger in one situation and engages a second portion of the trigger in another situation.
Prior Art TSUCHIMOTO teaches a ribbon orientation system for a printer an actuator adjacent the spindle and a trigger, but does not teach the structural limitations of an interrupter and/or a hardstop as claimed.
Prior Art Günther et al. teaches a ribbon orientation system for a printer but does not teach the limitation of the actuator adjacent the spindle or the trigger disposed on a spindle.
Prior Art d’Armancourt teaches a ribbon orientation system for a printer but does not teach the limitation of the actuator adjacent the spindle or the trigger disposed on a spindle.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 11 February 2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights