DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 8/8/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-129062 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant’s claim now recites the first and second housings “enclose” claimed features. The term requires entirely surrounding the claimed elements which is not originally provided in the applicant’s specification or shown in the applicant’s drawings. The term “enclose” or variant thereof doesn’t appear in the applicant’s specification at all.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The applicant’s amendment requiring the enclosed aspects relating to the paper guide and roll paper are not clearly understood. As noted above, the applicant’s originally disclosure fails to provide detail and the term requires a complete surrounding of the claimed elements. For the purpose of examination the “enclosed” elements are merely required to be within the claimed feature requiring the enclosure.
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, 2, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (US Pat No 8,061,914) in view of Taki et al (JP2013-212689).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, as best understood, Sasaki discloses an information terminal device, comprising:
a roll paper printer having a second housing (shown in figure 1) and being configured to pull out paper from paper roll (P), perform printing (1), and cut the paper (26), the roll paper printer being enclosed by the first housing;
a paper guide (8) configured to guide the paper; and
an issue port (identified by arrow of B) through which the paper is discharged, wherein
the paper guide includes
a first guide (108a) for guiding a first surface of the paper,
a roller (108b) for guiding a second surface of the paper being a surface opposite to the first surface at a position facing the first guide, and
a support portion (linkage including 108c) permitted to movably support a shaft of the roller.
It is noted that Sasaki fails to explicitly disclose a first housing. However, Taki discloses a similar device for printing on roller paper having multiple housings wherein a second housing (13) is provided within a first housing (10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sasaki with the teachings of Taki to achieve the predictable result of providing a end product which can easily and safely be used which can hold each and every component in the desired place.
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki discloses the paper guide includes a second guide (102a) disposed on a side opposite to the first guide with the roller interposed, and the support portion is provided at the first guide or the second guide.
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki discloses the roll paper printer, by transporting a first sheet of paper before being cut, is permitted to move a second sheet of paper that is cut and located between the first guide and the roller.
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki discloses the paper guide includes a first opening through which the paper discharged from the roll paper printer is permitted to enter, and a second opening that is in communication with the first opening and through which the paper is permitted to be put out to the issue port (e.g. how a sheet feeds through the guide).
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki discloses along with the structure recited in claim 1, Sasaki discloses a platen roller (see column 7, line 37 column 8, line 6) configured to pull out the paper from roll paper and configured to transport the paper to the issue port via the paper guide; a head (14) configured to perform printing on the paper at a position facing the platen roller; and a cutter (26) configured to cut the paper, wherein the combination discloses the platen roller, head, and cutter are provided in a second housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619