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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to contain a reference to a claim previously set forth. Claim 4 depends from a canceled claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima (JP 2003-171046).
Regarding claim 1, Oshima discloses a medium transport device comprising: first roll body 11 that feeds out a medium that is wound into a roll shape; a main roller 33 that applies a feeding force to the medium in a transport direction; and sub rollers 35 that pair with the main roller to rotate while nipping the medium therebetween; a first plate and a second plate (see Fig 7, below) that are for removing a wrinkle occurring in the medium being transported and that are disposed between the main roller 33 and a recording head 21,
PNG
media_image1.png
379
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the sub rollers 35 are a plurality of rollers including a first roller, a second roller, and a third roller, arranged at distances from each other along the longitudinal direction of the main roller, and the distances include a first distance and a second distance. See Fig. 7, shown in part below. Oshima lacks the explicit disclosure of the second distance being larger than the first distance (Fig. 7 shows such a distance relationship; however, the drawing is not necessarily to scale). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have the second distance be larger than the first distance, in order to space out the roller holders 55 appropriately along the length of the main roller 33.
PNG
media_image2.png
423
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the apparatus of Oshima as modified above comprises a recording device comprising: the medium transport device according to claim 1, and a recording section 21 that performs recording on the medium transported by the medium transport device.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima in view of Uruma (US 9,758,332).
Regarding claim 2, Oshima as modified above comprises the medium transport device according to claim 1, wherein the main roller 33 is disposed between the first roll body 11 and the recording head 21 and the recording head performing a process on the transported medium. Oshima lacks a second roll body that winds the medium transported in the transport direction and the recording head being positioned between the first roll body and the second roll body. Uruma teaches the use of a second roll body 22 that winds the medium transported in the transport direction and a recording head 3 being positioned between a first roll body 21 and the second roll body, in order to store the medium after it is printed upon. Uruma, col. 3, lines 62-67. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use a second roll body that winds the medium transported in the transport direction and the recording head being positioned between the first roll body and the second roll body, in the device of Oshima, as taught by Uruma, in order to store the medium after it is printed upon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the nearest prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. For example, Oshima does not teach removing a wrinkle occurring in the medium being transported by a first plate and a second plate that are disposed between the main roller and the recording head, in combination with the rest of the claimed elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Oshima does not disclose a structure composed of two distinct flat plates.” Remarks, p. 6. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 7, as shown in the rejection of claim 1, discloses a first and second plate. These plates are capable of removing wrinkle in the material being transported, as the material can pass over the plates as it is fed through the device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Jeremy R. Severson, whose telephone number is (571)272-2209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes, can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/JEREMY R SEVERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights