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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 limitation “a third shaft” is indefinite. Specifically, it is not clear which “third shaft” applicant is referring. The specification mentions “a first shaft 72” and “a second shaft 82”, however it is not clear which “third shaft” applicant is referring.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samii (US Publication 2004/0062897).
With respect to claim 1, Samii teaches a printing apparatus, comprising:
a first shaft (24) around which an adhesive sheet (10) is wound (Paragraph 0030), the adhesive sheet (10) including a base material (16) and an adhesive layer (14) formed on the base material (16) and being provided with a protective sheet (12) on the adhesive layer;
a second shaft (60) around which the protective sheet is wound (Figure 2), the protective sheet being peeled off from the adhesive sheet fed out from the first shaft (Paragraph 0022, Figure 2);
a driving mechanism configured to rotate the second shaft (Paragraph 0021);
a support portion (surface of 52) configured to support the adhesive sheet from which the protective sheet is peeled off and the adhesive layer is exposed (41);
a guide portion (39, 42) configured to pass a fabric (18) through an upper position being vertically upward above the first shaft (24) and the second shaft (60) and guide the fabric toward the support portion (Figure 2); and
a printing unit (50) configured to perform printing on the fabric (18) attached to the adhesive sheet (10) at the support portion (Figure 2).
Samii does not explicitly disclose a third shaft around which a print medium is wound after printing by the printing unit, the printing medium including both the fabric and the adhesive sheet.
However, it has been held it has been held by the court that mere duplication of the essential working parts is an obvious mechanical expedient and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Particular attention is invited to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). (Additionally, note that “a print medium” and “the print medium including both the fabric and the adhesive sheet” are not positively recited. Samii provides all the structural elements claimed and therefore has the capability of performing the intended function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a third shaft around which to wound a medium as it would simply require the obvious duplication of parts since such a modification would result providing a more diverse apparatus that can wind up multiple mediums in a more expedient manner.
With respect to claim 5, Samii teaches a pressing unit (46) configured to press the fabric (18) against the adhesive sheet supported by the support portion (Paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 6, Samii teaches a transport unit (52) configured to transport the fabric (18) attached to the adhesive sheet (Figure 3).
With respect to claim 7, Samii teaches the guide portion (39, 42) rotatably supports the second shaft (60), includes the driving mechanism, and is detachably provided at an apparatus main body including the support portion (Figure 2).
With respect to claim 9, Samii teaches the guide portion (39, 42) includes, at the upper position, a position guide portion configured to guide a position of the fabric (18) in a width direction of the fabric intersecting a direction in which the fabric faces the support portion (Figure 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samii (US Publication 2004/0062897) in view of Shimomura (US Publication 2018/0345695).
With respect to claim 2, Samii teaches the claimed invention including a driving mechanism (41) however the driving mechanism does not explicitly disclose a first toothed gear configured to rotate together with the first shaft, and a second toothed gear configured to rotate together with the second shaft, and the first toothed gear and the second toothed gear mesh with each other so that the first shaft and the second shaft rotate in conjunction with each other.
Shimomura teaches a printing device with a driving mechanism that discloses a first toothed gear (66) configured to rotate together with the first shaft (63), and a second toothed gear (88) configured to rotate together with the second shaft (97), and the first toothed gear (66) and the second toothed gear (88) mesh with each other so that the first shaft and the second shaft rotate in conjunction with each other (Figure 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present
invention was made to modify the driving mechanism of the printer as taught by Samii to
provide a first toothed gear, a second toothed gear that mesh together as taught by Shimomura for the purpose of ensuring the proper power is distributed throughout the printer.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samii (US Publication 2004/0062897) in view of Shiomura (US Publication 2018/0345695) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Yamabe et al. (WO2015174521).
With respect to claim 3, Samii in view of Shimomura teaches the number of teeth of the first toothed gear (66) is larger than the number of teeth of the second toothed gear (88, Figure 12) as taught by Shimomura, however does not explicitly and the driving mechanism includes a torque limiter configured to limit rotational torque transmitted from the second toothed gear to the second shaft in accordance with rotation of the second toothed gear.
Yamabe teaches a driving mechanism including a torque limiter configured to limit rotational torque transmitted from a second toothed gear (44c) to the second shaft in accordance with rotation of the second toothed gear (Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present
invention was made to further modify the driving mechanism as taught by Samii, as modified, to provide a torque limiter as taught by Yamabe et al. for the purpose of restricting torque between the first and second gears thereby ensuring control between the two gears.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samii (US Publication 2004/0062897) in view of Uesugi et al. (RU 2729450).
With respect to claim 4, Samii teaches the claimed invention with the exception of a biasing portion configured to come into contact with the first shaft to apply force toward a center of rotation of the first shaft.
Uesugi et al. teaches a biasing portion (1373, 1374) configured to come into contact with the first shaft (13101) to apply force toward a center of rotation of the first shaft (Figure 92).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present
invention was made to modify the invention as taught by Samii to provide a biasing portion that contacts the shaft as taught by Uesugi et al. for the purpose of movably supporting the shaft in a stable manner.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samii (US Publication 2004/0062897) in view of Yamabe et al. (WO2015174521).
With respect to claim 8, Samii teaches a guide portion (39, 42) however does not explicitly disclose the guide portion includes a contact portion configured to come into contact with the fabric to cause the fabric to pass through the upper position, and a leg portion extending in a vertically downward direction from the contact portion, and rotatably supporting the second shaft, and the leg portion includes an engaging portion engageable with an engaged portion provided at the support portion.
Yamabe et al. teaches a guide portion (53) includes a contact portion (portion that contacts medium 90) configured to come into contact with the fabric (90) to cause the fabric (90) to pass through the upper position (Figure 3), and a leg portion (52) extending in a vertically downward direction from the contact portion (Figure 3), and rotatably supporting the second shaft, and the leg portion (52) includes an engaging portion engageable with an engaged portion provided at the support portion (Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present
invention was made to modify the invention as taught by Samii to provide a guide portion with a contact portion and a leg portion as taught by Yamabe et al. for the purpose of ensuring proper transport of the medium.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of the current rejection. Samii (US Publication 2004/0062897) is currently being applied under 35 USC 103.
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 MARISSA LIANA FERGUSON SAMRETH whose telephone number is (571)272-2163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/Marissa Ferguson-Samreth/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
