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 04/10/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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, 8-12, 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,296,579 (hereafter U.S. Patent ‘579). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are obvious in view of the claims in the patent as discussed below.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘579 teaches a printer (claim 1 line 9), comprising:
a sensor positioned within a print path, said sensor generating a first signal indicative of a height of a point of incoming media relative to a reference surface (claim 1 lines 10-13);
a control system that, in response to receiving said first signal, determines when the height of the point poses a collision risk to one or more portions of the printer within the print path or a damage risk to the printer (claim 1 lines 14-18); and
said control system generating a second signal that rejects the media after the media is passed through the printer without being printed and without stopping or slowing down printer operation (claim 1 lines 32-35).
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches wherein said first signal is indicative of the highest point of incoming media relative to the reference surface, and wherein said control system, in response to receiving said first signal, determines when the height of the highest point of the incoming media poses a collision risk to one or more portions of the printer within the print path or a damage risk to the printer (claim 1 lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 3, claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches further comprising:
said control system, in response to receiving said first signal, determines that the height of the point does not pose the collision risk to the one or more portions of the printer within the print path or the damage risk to the printer (claim 2 lines 36-41);
said control system, in response to receiving said first signal, determines that the height of the point indicates acceptable printing of the media (claim 2 lines 42-44); and
said control system generating a third signal that operates the printer to print on the media (claim 2 lines 45-46).
Regarding claim 4, claim 5 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches further comprising:
said control system, in response to receiving said first signal, determines that the height of the point indicates acceptable printing of the media (claim 5 lines 54-57); and
said control system generating a third signal that adjusts a printhead height of the printer to prevent interference with the media and that keeps the printheads within acceptable limits for adequate print quality relative to an upper media surface distance (claim 5 lines 58-62).
Regarding claim 5, claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches further comprising: said control system generating a third signal that raises the printer's print bars to prevent the media from damaging the printer (claim 9).
Regarding claim 8, claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches a method for operating a printer (claim 14 line 55), comprising:
providing a sensor positioned within a print path (claim 14 lines 56-57);
said sensor generating a first signal indicative of a height of a point of incoming media relative to a reference surface (claim 14 lines 58-59);
providing a control system in communication with said sensor that, in response to receiving said first signal, determines when the height of the point poses a collision risk with one or more portions of the printer within the print path or a damage risk of the printer (claim 14 lines 60-65);
said control system generating a second signal that stops operation of the printer when the height of said point poses the collision risk with the one or more portions of the printer or the damage risk to the printer (claim 14 lines 66-67,1-3); and
when the height of the point does not indicate acceptable printing of the media, said control system generating a third signal that rejects the media after the media is passed through the printer without being printed and without stopping or slowing down printer operation (claim 14 lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 9, claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches wherein said first signal is indicative of the highest point of incoming media relative to the reference surface, and wherein said control system, in response to receiving said first signal, determines when the height of the highest point of the incoming media poses a collision risk to one or more portions of the printer within the print path or a damage risk to the printer (claim 14 lines 58-65).
Regarding claim 10, claim 15 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches further comprising: said control system, in response to receiving said first signal, determines that the height of the point does not pose the collision risk to the one or more portions of the printer within the print path or the damage risk to the printer; said control system, in response to receiving said first signal, determines that the height of the point indicates acceptable printing of the media; and said control system generating a fourth signal that operates the printer to print on the media (claim 15).
Regarding claim 11, claim 18 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches further comprising: said control system, in response to receiving said first signal, determines that the height of the point indicates acceptable printing of the media; and said control system generating a fourth signal that adjusts a printhead height of the printer to prevent interference with the media and that keeps the printheads within acceptable limits for adequate print quality relative to an upper media surface distance (claim 18).
Regarding claim 12, claim 22 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches further comprising: said control system generating a fourth signal that raises the printer's print bars to prevent the media from damaging the printer (claim 22).
Regarding claim 15, claim 25 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches a method for operating a printer (claim 25 line 1), comprising:
positioning a sensor within a print path before a printer location (claim 25 lines 2-3);
said sensor generating a first signal indicative of a height of a point of incoming media relative to a media transport belt (claim 25 lines 4-6);
in response to receiving said first signal, a control system in communication with said sensor determining when the height of the point indicates that the media can be printed properly (claim 25 lines 7-10);
said control system generating a second signal that adjusts a printhead height of the printer relative to the height of the point (claim 25 lines 11-13);
in response to receiving said first signal, the control system determining that the height of the point indicates that the media cannot be printed properly (claim 25 lines 14-17); and
the control system generating a third signal that routes the media to a reject facility after the media passes through the printer without being printed (claim 25 lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 16, claims 14,16 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches wherein the sensor is a first sensor and the first signal is indicative of a height of a first point, the method further comprising: positioning a second sensor within the print path before the printer location (claim 14 lines 55-59);
said sensor generating a fourth signal indicative of a height of a second point of incoming media relative to the media transport belt (claim 16);
in response to receiving said first and second signals, the control system determining that the incoming media poses a collision risk with one or more portions of the printer within the print path or a damage risk to the printer (claim 14 lines 60-65); and
the control system generating a fifth signal that stops movement of the incoming media (claim 14 lines 66-67,1-2).
Regarding claim 17, claims 14,16 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches wherein said first signal is indicative of the highest point of incoming media relative to the media transport belt, and wherein said control system, in response to receiving said first signal, determines when the height of the highest point of the incoming media poses a collision risk to one or more portions of the printer within the print path or a damage risk to the printer (claim 14 lines 58-65, claim 16).
Regarding claim 18, claim 22 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches further comprising: said control system generating a fourth signal that raises the printer's print bars to prevent the media from damaging the printer (claim 22).
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,296,579 (hereafter U.S. Patent ‘579) in view of Van De Wynckel et al.(US 2009/0303276) and/or Gurak et al.(US 2016/0159117).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20, claims 1,14 of U.S. Patent ‘579 further teaches the sensor and wherein said sensor is positioned within the print path before the printer (claim 1 lines 10-11, claim 14 lines 56-57).
Claims 1,14 of U.S. Patent ‘579 does not explicitly teaches the type of sensor being used is specifically photoelectric sensor, a retroreflective sensor, a thru beam sensor, and/or a charge-coupled device (CCD/ccd) sensor.
However, Van De Wynckel et al teaches the use of different sensors including photoelectric sensor, a retroreflective sensor, a thru beam sensor, and/or a charge-coupled device (CCD/ccd) sensor (figs.1-4, paragraphs 0061-0064 teach sensors including CCD, photoelectric, etc.).
Similarly, Gurak et al teaches the use of different sensors including photoelectric sensor, a retroreflective sensor, a thru beam sensor, and/or a charge-coupled device (CCD/ccd) sensor (figs.1-8, paragraphs 0028, 0032-0034 teach CCD, photoelectric, etc. censors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use such types of sensors in claim 1,14 of the patent based on the teachings of Van De Wynckel et al for instance to enable optimum detection based on the type of media and/or type of printer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENOK D LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1615. The examiner can normally be reached General Schedule 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, IFP.
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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571)431-0716. 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.
/HENOK D LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
