DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-10 & 12-13 are pending as amended on 03/05/26.
Response to Amendment
This final action is a response to the amendment filed March 5, 2026. Claims 1 & 9 have been amended as a result of the previous action; the rejections have been redone accordingly.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 7, 9-10 & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosskopf et al., US 6,035,568 in view of Vidler et al., US 7,758,080 and Hong et al., US 2010/0129583.
With regard to claims 1 & 9, Grosskopf teaches a known type of label roll comprising a continuous release liner substrate web (802) which is not die cut and which has a plurality of adhesive label substrates adhered to the liner and substantially in line with & spaced from its side edges, wherein each of these labels comprises a master label (840/810A), as well as partially perforated inner tab labels (850) from the same material and extending horizontally across said master label, with a convex/’half-circle’ rounded end (859) as a graspable edge of the label substrate, and various backside discontinuous patterns of adhesive deadener (852) over the adhesive, leaving adhesive patches in uncovered areas which are evenly spaced and situated along a perimeter of the inner label, such that the deadener would prevent a substantial portion of the inner tab label from adhering to an object, and wherein this label roll is capable of being fed through a machine, for example from a winding rod (892) toward an automated applicator in a typical fashion (e.g. [Col. 17-18 & FIGS.18-20]).
While this reference does not show that this embodiment has an insert label which partially extends horizontally across the main label, such that there is an offset between a first end of the insert label and the edge of the main label, and that there are ‘gaps’ created at the other, rounded graspable end of the insert label where it meets the main label edge, this is a conventional alternate design for such graspable insert labels, as shown for example by the previously cited Vidler, which shows another known design for an insert label which extends partially horizontally across a master label, with a curved, graspable end shape, which is delineated by gaps at a shared, inline edge of the master label (throughout, e.g. [Col. 4, 34-37 & FIG. 1]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the graspable ‘at the edge of the master label, with gaps’ orientation of Vidler with the teachings of Grosskopf, in order to provide an easily grasped convex insert label, offset from one edge of the master label and in line with another (with gaps), according to a well-known alternative design configuration that still separates from the master label in essentially the same manner with predictable success. In such a combination, a first end is offset from a label edge, and its opposite forms its circular, graspable edge with gaps between insert & master labels at their shared, aligned edge (and which would also exist next to/spaced from the liner edge as well).
While Grosskopf has insert labels without perforated ends, and Vidler does not expressly disclose whether its first end is perforated, Vidler at least teaches that one may fully die cut or perforate (e.g. [Col. 4, 21-23]), wherein it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill to try full cuts or perforations as one of the limited combinations of possibilities of prior art teachings, or to predictably yield a duplicate grasping region.
While these references do not discuss what the labels/liner are comprised of, it was nevertheless well-known in this art to manufacture either of these components from a paper or a plastic film or the like as needed, as shown for example by Hong [0068-0069, 0086], any of which would have been obvious to try from this group of common materials for labels & liners, as desired for a given application. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in this art to combine the teachings of Hong with those of Grosskopf & Vidler, in order to yield a useful label/liner assembly using only art-conventional materials with predictable success.
With regard to claims 2 & 12-13, again, Vidler at least teaches that one may fully die cut or perforate (e.g. [Col. 4, 21-23]), wherein it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill to try full cuts or perforations as one of the limited combinations of possibilities of prior art teachings, or to predictably yield a duplicate grasping region.
With regard to claim 7, Grosskopf teaches insert labels proximate a bottom edge of the master label [FIG. 18] (as does Vidler).
With regard to claim 10, Grosskopf teaches insert labels having opposing parallel edges which are perforated [FIG. 18] (as does Vidler).
Examiner also notes US 6,423,391 & US 5,172,936 as relevant to the pending claims
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, “Remarks,” filed March 5, 2026 with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims are primarily directed to the claims as amended and have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection. Reels of label-liner material, carrying master labels which feature additional insert labels having a deadened adhesive backing, wherein the label liner material is not die cut to peel away with the insert label were also well-known at the time of Applicant’s invention, as shown for example by Grosskopf (and other minor alterations in shape/size/positioning of such insert label components were also well-known as shown previously by other cited prior art). Applicant’s unexplained assertions that Vidler fails to teach or suggest an insert label formed from the same substrate as the master label, or that it fails to teach or suggest a curved insert label edge which is substantially in line with that of the master label are erroneous; see for example Figure 1 and the accompanying descriptions, which show a perforated label sheet with such a configuration. Combination with the teachings and suggestions of the related insert labels taught by Grosskopf would have fallen well within the realm of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed invention using only well-known designs for such insert labels. The instant claims as written are still not considered to be patentably distinguishable over the teachings & suggestions of the prior art.
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 JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PST.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights