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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 14, and 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-11, and 14-15 of copending Application No. US 20260131584 A1 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that claims 1-5, 14, and 16-17 are included in and can be gleaned from claims 1, 7-11, and 14-15 of the reference application and claim 18 is included in and can be gleaned from claim 15 (of which depends on claim 14) of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “An example disclosed herein” in line 1 should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, line 10, “disnegaged” should read ---disengaged---.
In claim 19, line 2, acronym “RFID” should be defined. For example, “RFID” should recite ---radio frequency identification---
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 and 17 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.
Claim 1, line 5 recites “a media roll” – however line 3 already set forth “a media roll” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional media roll. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the media roll”.
Claim 17, line 2 recites “a media roll” – however line 3 of claim 16 already set forth “a media roll” – therefore it is unclear if the second recitation is meant to refer to the first recitation or introduce an additional media roll. For purposes of examination, the second recitation is being interpreted as “the media roll”.
Claims 2-15 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNestry (US11148446B2) in view of Bunch (US2585999A).
Regarding claim 18, McNestry discloses a media roll (32; Figure 3), comprising: a roll core (31), comprising a plurality of internal teeth (66) disposed about an internal circumference of the roll core (31), wherein each internal tooth of the plurality of internal teeth (66) includes a first tooth face (left side face of tooth 66) opposed to a second tooth face (right side face of tooth 66), the first tooth face defined in a first plane (plane parallel and flushed to left side face of tooth 66) and the second tooth face defined in a second plane (plane parallel and flushed to right side face of tooth 66), and a web of media (33), wound about the roll core (31), but fails to teach such that the first plane and the second plane intersect at a point that is located at a distance from a radial center of the roll core greater than a radius of the internal circumference of the roll core.
Bunch teaches a similar roll core and further teaches such that the first plane (1P; see Bunch annotated Figure 7 below) and the second plane (2P) intersect at a point (P) that is located at a distance from a radial center of the roll core (315) greater than a radius of the internal circumference of the roll core (315). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the media roll of McNestry to include the internal tooth faces as taught by Bunch in order to ensure devices lock onto the surfaces of the internal teeth to reduce wear and prevent slippage.
PNG
media_image1.png
201
319
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bunch, Annotated Figure 7
Regarding claim 19, McNestry discloses wherein the web of media (33) is comprised of media elements selected from a group consisting of labels and printable media (Column 1, lines 1-39).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claim 16 would be allowable over the prior art if the double patenting rejection outlined above is successfully overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1 and 16 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing the spindle having a slot; wherein a portion of the arm is configured to extend through the slot of the spindle and into the hollow cylindrical profile; a biasing member, configured to bias the arm into the roll hold position.
Inakoshi (US5853254A) is the closest prior art and further teaches media cartridge comprising: a housing (11; Figure 4C), comprising: a spindle (66; Figure 5B) configured to rotatively support a media roll (60; 70; Figure 5A), the spindle having a hollow cylindrical profile; a media roll (60; 70) comprising: a roll core (61), the roll core configured to rotate about the spindle, the roll core comprising a plurality of internal teeth (76) disposed about an internal circumference of the roll core; and a web of media (R), wound about the roll core; and a roll stop assembly (64, 68; 73, 78; Figure 4B) configured to transition between a roll hold position and a roll release position, comprising: an arm (68; 78), rotatively coupled to the housing, the portion of the arm comprising an embossment (protruded ends) comprising at least an external tooth (engaging protrusion tips of arms 68;78), but fails to teach the spindle having a slot; wherein a portion of the arm is configured to extend through the slot of the spindle and into the hollow cylindrical profile; a biasing member, configured to bias the arm into the roll hold position, wherein, when in the roll hold position, the external tooth of the embossment of the arm engages with at least one of the plurality of internal teeth of the roll core, blocking the media roll from rotating about the spindle; and wherein the roll stop assembly is configured to transition from the roll hold position to the roll release position by rotating the arm such that the external tooth disengages from the at least one of the plurality of internal teeth; wherein, when in the roll release position, the external tooth is retracted away from the plurality of internal teeth, such that the media roll is rotatable about the spindle.
Misawa (WO03072366A1) teaches a similar media cartridge and further teaches wherein, when in the roll hold position, the external tooth (221; Figure 11) of the embossment of the arm (215) engages with at least one of the plurality of internal teeth (207; teeth internal to the core) of the roll core (202; 203; Figure 9), blocking the media roll (b) from rotating about the spindle (spindle 66 of Inakoshi); and wherein the roll stop assembly (207, 215, 221) is configured to transition from the roll hold position to the roll release position by rotating the arm such that the external tooth disengages from the at least one of the plurality of internal teeth (Figure 11); wherein, when in the roll release position, the external tooth is retracted away from the plurality of internal teeth (Figure 12), such that the media roll is rotatable about the spindle, but fails to teach the spindle having a slot; wherein a portion of the arm is configured to extend through the slot of the spindle and into the hollow cylindrical profile; a biasing member, configured to bias the arm into the roll hold position.
Claims 2-15 would be allowable because they are dependents of claim 1.
Claim 17 would be allowable because it is a dependent of claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/HENRIX SOTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights