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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 February 2026 has been entered.
Status
As directed by applicant, claims 1,11, and 14 are amended, claims 15-17 are added and claim 13. Thus, claims 1-12 and 14-17 are pending. This is a Final Office Action.
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.
Claims 16 and 17 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 further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claim 16 and 17 were already amended into the claim language of the independent claims 11 and 14, respectively, so they claims are redundant and do not further limit the invention. Just as claim 15 was cancelled because its subject matter was incorporated into claim 1, so too claims 16 and 17 should have been cancelled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
[Examiner’s note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not disclose that limitation]
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0001237) in view of Rizzo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0198831) and Sharma (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0306385) and further in view of Stuck (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140353381).
Regarding claim 1, Marsh discloses a substrate (Marsh, fig. 1, container wall 12) having a first pattern (decoration 18, fig. 1) formed on a surface or in an inside of the substrate (Marsh, ¶16, “Decoration 18 (FIG. 1) is formed by redirecting laser beam 28 to different points within container wall 12”), or on the surface and in the inside of the substrate, wherein the first pattern (18) is constituted by an aggregate of second patterns (¶16, multiplicity of fracture patterns 32 form a non-random decoration 18),
the aggregate of the second patterns includes an uneven shape (Marsh, Fig. 6, uneven ness can be seen, peaks at 13), and
the first pattern is an image (fig. 1, the image in the writing),
However, Marsh does not disclose a difference between a depth of a concave portion and a convex portion in the uneven shape is 0.4 µm or more, … each of a plurality of pixels of the image is defined by the aggregate of the second patterns, and
a spacing between adjacent second patterns is different between pixels.
However, it is apparent that Marsh teaches the uneven shape, but he does not teach specifically the depth or the concave and convex portions. However, regarding the depth of the uneven shape, Rizzo teaches that 0.4 µm or more is conventional to make sure that the visual effect is noticeable on the object, and that the depth may affect the aesthetic (Rizzo, ¶¶82-83, fig. 9, “ Typically, the depth D of the cavities 320 is between about 0.001 mm to about 2 mm, but any suitable depth D can be used.“. Now, Marsh does not further teach the concave and the convex portions (though the top does seem convex, fig. 6) and Rizzo, fig. 9, does not teach both a concave and convex portions, but Sharma, in his teachings, does seem to show a convex portion and a concave (Sharma, fig. 1I). And Sharma teaches that such concave and convex portions have the effect of disbursing the light (Sharma, ¶77) this would be to create a glossiness (¶100). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Marsh with the teachings of Rizzo and Sharma, to have a depth of a laser pattern to be larger than the claimed value, and to have “bumps and pits”, i.e. concave and convex portions, in order to disperse the light and create a glossy visual effect, as Marsh already teaches a second visual pattern (Marsh fig. 6) but does not quite precisely describe it features or dimensions, so it would be obvious to have the features as claimed.
And while Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma teach all the above limitations, it still does not teach each of a plurality of pixels of the image is defined by the aggregate of the second patterns, and a spacing between adjacent second patterns is different between pixels.
Now, Marsh does teach that the aggregate of the second patterns make up the images, but it does not specifically teach “pixels” but it can be seen in Marsh that there are definitely microscopic crack patterns making up the image (Marsh 30 and 32, in figs. 3-6) and the spacing between these adjacent second patterns is different between microcracks.
However, Stuck teaches “each of a plurality of pixels of the image is defined by the aggregate of the second patterns and a spacing between adjacent second patterns is different between pixels.” (Stuck, ¶0060, Pixels in a datamatrix barcode or other pattern can be created using a ps laser and these “pixels” are microcracks written into the glass at a certain depth”; see fig. 7 and 8 and spacing between pixels is different; all together, one can see the image.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma with the teachings of Stuck, to create an image whereby the cracks and pattern evident in Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma is created by pixels so that the image may be accurately created, the pixels and parameters of the laser are set, in order to ensure to ensure to create the image in a conventional way with the expected result of the predetermined surface cracks and features.
Regarding claim 2, Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma and Stuck teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches wherein the aggregate of the second patterns diffuses ambient light around the substrate (Marsh, ¶15, “Fracture pattern 32 is three-dimensional and of a microstructure that is discontinuous with (i.e., not a continuation of) the microstructure of the surrounding matrix of wall 12 so that fracture pattern 32 is visually discernible from outside of the container.”. Because of the fracture pattern, the light is being diffused, that is, being spread out in a different way, i.e. being reflected etc., so that the pattern is “visually discernible”, i.e. the light reflects differently, at the pattern points, so be recognizably different to an onlooker, whose eyes are registering the reflected light).
Regarding claim 3, Marsh in view of Rizzo, Sharma, and Stuck teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a substrate wherein the second patterns are formed as changes in a surface geometry, a crystallization state, or a foaming state of the substrate (¶15, fracturing and microcracking would change the crystallization state locally, in that it would change the crystallization state of the glass).
Regarding claim 4, Marsh in view of Rizzo, Sharma and Stuck teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a substrate wherein the second patterns are disposed at regular intervals (Marsh, fig. 3-6, i.e. the pattern repeats, repeating itself around the formed letter or covered space ).
Regarding claim 11, Marsh discloses a production method for producing a substrate having a first pattern formed on a surface or in an inside of the substrate (Fig. 2, ¶0015), or on the surface and in the inside of the substrate, the first pattern including an aggregate of second patterns (¶0016, “After repeated controlled illumination of container wall 12 with laser beam 28, the multiplicity of fracture patterns 32 form a non-random decoration 18”), the production method comprising: emitting a laser beam (28, ¶0014) to the substrate; rotating the substrate around an axis (¶0014, “decoration station 22 could include suitable means for rotating the container”, or linearly moving the substrate (“conveyor 20 can be of any suitable type, such as linear conveyor or a starwheel conveyor”); and controlling (Marsh, ¶0015, controller 26 “to direct laser beam 28 onto the opposing container wall … sufficient to form … fracture pattern 32, etc.”) emitting of the laser beam to form the second patterns, and controlling rotating of the substrate (¶0014) or controlling moving of the substrate (id.),
wherein:
the aggregate of the second patterns includes an uneven shape (Marsh, fig. 6),
the first pattern is an image (fig. 1, the image, in the writing),
However, Marsh does not disclose a difference between a depth of a concave portion and a convex portion in the uneven shape is 0.4 µm or more,
the first pattern is an image, each of a plurality of pixels of the image is defined by the aggregate of the second patterns, and a spacing between adjacent second patterns is different between pixels.
However, it is apparent that Marsh teaches the uneven shape, but he does not teach specifically the depth or the concave and convex portions. However, regarding the depth of the uneven shape, Rizzo teaches that 0.4 µm or more is conventional to make sure that the visual effect is noticeable on the object, and that the depth may affect the aesthetic (Rizzo, ¶¶82-83, fig. 9, “ Typically, the depth D of the cavities 320 is between about 0.001 mm to about 2 mm, but any suitable depth D can be used.“. Now, Marsh does not further teach the concave and the convex portions (though the top does seem convex, fig. 6) and Rizzo, fig. 9, does not teach both a concave and convex portions, but Sharma, in his teachings, does seem to show a convex portion and a concave (Sharma, fig. 1I). And Sharma teaches that such concave and convex portions have the effect of disbursing the light (Sharma, ¶77) this would be to create a glossiness (¶100). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Marsh with the teachings of Rizzo and Sharma, to have a depth of a laser pattern to be larger than the claimed value, and to have “bumps and pits”, i.e. concave and convex portions, in order to disperse the light and create a glossy visual effect, as Marsh already teaches a second visual pattern (Marsh fig. 6) but does not quite precisely describe it features or dimensions, so it would be obvious to have the features as claimed.
And while Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma teach all the above limitations, it still does not teach each of a plurality of pixels of the image is defined by the aggregate of the second patterns, and a spacing between adjacent second patterns is different between pixels.
Now, Marsh does teach that the aggregate of the second patterns make up the images, but it does not specifically teach “pixels” but it can be seen in Marsh that there are definitely microscopic crack patterns making up the image (Marsh 30 and 32, in figs. 3-6) and the spacing between these adjacent second patterns is different between microcracks.
However, Stuck teaches “each of a plurality of pixels of the image is defined by the aggregate of the second patterns and a spacing between adjacent second patterns is different between pixels.” (Stuck, ¶0060, Pixels in a datamatrix barcode or other pattern can be created using a ps laser and these “pixels” are microcracks written into the glass at a certain depth”; see fig. 7 and 8 and spacing between pixels is different; all together, one can see the image.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma with the teachings of Stuck, to create an image whereby the cracks and pattern evident in Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma is created by pixels so that the image may be accurately created, the pixels and parameters of the laser are set, in order to ensure to ensure to create the image in a conventional way with the expected result of the predetermined surface cracks and features.
Regarding claim 14, Marsh discloses a production apparatus for producing a substrate having a first pattern formed on a surface or in an inside of the substrate (¶0015, fracture pattern), or on the surface and in the inside of the substrate (Fig 2, ¶0015, inside substrate), the first pattern being constituted by an aggregate of second patterns (¶0016, decoration 18),
the production apparatus comprising:
a laser emitter (24) to emit a laser beam to the substrate;
a rotator to rotate the substrate around an axis, or a linear mover configured to linearly move the substrate (¶0014, rotating, linear conveyor); and
a control circuitry configured to control the laser emitter emitting the laser beam to form the second patterns (Marsh, ¶0015, controller 26 “to direct laser beam 28 onto the opposing container wall … sufficient to form … fracture pattern 32, etc.”), and control the rotator rotating the substrate or the moving unit linearly moving the substrate (¶0014, moving rotatingly or linearly)
wherein:
the aggregate of the second patterns includes an uneven shape (Marsh, fig. 6), and
the first pattern is an image (Marsh, fig. 1, the writing is the image),
However, Marsh does not disclose a difference between a depth of a concave portion and a convex portion in the uneven shape is 0.4 µm or more… and each of a plurality of pixels of the image is defined by the aggregate of the second patterns, and a spacing between adjacent second patterns is different between pixels. However, it is apparent that Marsh teaches the uneven shape, but he does not teach specifically the depth or the concave and convex portions. However, regarding the depth of the uneven shape, Rizzo teaches that 0.4 µm or more is conventional to make sure that the visual effect is noticeable on the object, and that the depth may affect the aesthetic (Rizzo, ¶¶82-83, fig. 9, “ Typically, the depth D of the cavities 320 is between about 0.001 mm to about 2 mm, but any suitable depth D can be used.“. Now, Marsh does not further teach the concave and the convex portions (though the top does seem convex, fig. 6) and Rizzo, fig. 9, does not teach both a concave and convex portions, but Sharma, in his teachings, does seem to show a convex portion and a concave (Sharma, fig. 1I). And Sharma teaches that such concave and convex portions have the effect of disbursing the light (Sharma, ¶77) this would be to create a glossiness (¶100). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Marsh with the teachings of Rizzo and Sharma, to have a depth of a laser pattern to be larger than the claimed value, and to have “bumps and pits”, i.e. concave and convex portions, in order to disperse the light and create a glossy visual effect, as Marsh already teaches a second visual pattern (Marsh fig. 6) but does not quite precisely describe it features or dimensions, so it would be obvious to have the features as claimed.
And while Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma teach all the above limitations, it still does not teach each of a plurality of pixels of the image is defined by the aggregate of the second patterns, and a spacing between adjacent second patterns is different between pixels.
Now, Marsh does teach that the aggregate of the second patterns make up the images, but it does not specifically teach “pixels” but it can be seen in Marsh that there are definitely microscopic crack patterns making up the image (Marsh 30 and 32, in figs. 3-6) and the spacing between these adjacent second patterns is different between microcracks.
However, Stuck teaches “each of a plurality of pixels of the image is defined by the aggregate of the second patterns and a spacing between adjacent second patterns is different between pixels.” (Stuck, ¶0060, Pixels in a datamatrix barcode or other pattern can be created using a ps laser and these “pixels” are microcracks written into the glass at a certain depth”; see fig. 7 and 8 and spacing between pixels is different; all together, one can see the image.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma with the teachings of Stuck, to create an image whereby the cracks and pattern evident in Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma is created by pixels so that the image may be accurately created, the pixels and parameters of the laser are set, in order to ensure to ensure to create the image in a conventional way with the expected result of the predetermined surface cracks and features.
Regarding claim 16, Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma teaches all the limitations of claim 11, and teaches production method, wherein: the first pattern is an image, and each of a plurality of pixels of the image is defined by the aggregate of the second patterns (Marsh in view of Rizzo, Sharma and Stuck, see §112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 17, Marsh in view of Rizzo, Sharma and Stuck teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and teaches production apparatus, wherein: the first pattern is an image, and each of a plurality of pixels of the image is defined by the aggregate of the second patterns (Marsh in view of Rizzo, Sharma and Stuck, see §112 rejection above).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0001237) in view of Rizzo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0198831) and Sharma (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0306385) and Stuck (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140353381) and further in view of Schulz (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0056322).
Regarding claim 5, Marsh in view of Rizzo, Sharma and Stuck teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a substrate, wherein the substrate is made of biodegradable resin. However, Schulz teaches wherein the bottle being printed upon may be made of biodegradable material (Schulz, ¶149, “material can be…biodegradable”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Marsh in view of Schulz to use a biodegradable material for the bottle/substrate, in order to be environmentally friendly, and the can will only have created garbage that can be recycled and/or absorbed back into the ground after use.
Claims 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0001237) in view of Rizzo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0198831) Sharma (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0306385) and Stuck (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140353381) and further in view of Piana (U.S. Patent 8,677,721).
Regarding claim 6, Marsh in view of Rizzo, Sharma and Stuck teaches a container formed of the substrate of claim 1, comprising:
a mouth portion (Marsh, Fig. 1, top of bottle);
a shoulder portion connected to the mouth portion (fig. 1, connected to the mouth portion);
a body portion connected to the shoulder portion (fig. 1, middle of bottle 10); and
a bottom portion connected to the body portion (Marsh, fig. 1, bottle 10 rounded towards the bottom, and the bottom surface),
but Marsh does not disclose wherein the first pattern is formed on the shoulder portion. However, Piana teaches such a location for forming a pattern (fig. 1, laser 2 scribing on the bottle on the right on the shoulder below the neck, i.e. the thinnest part). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma and Stuck with the teachings of Piana, to have the patterns formed on the shoulder, in order to place the marking in an easily accessible/readable location on the bottle, even so the insignia can be accessed from above (not just from the side, if the insignia was on the side wall of the body), and Marsh does make it clear that all parts of its body are prepared for such an insignia (Marsh, ¶0013), and this would be a conventional means used in a conventional way to achieve the expected result of an accessible insignia according to the desire of the operator.
Regarding claim 7, Marsh in view Rizzo, Sharma and Stuck and Piana teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further teaches a container, wherein the shoulder portion is inclined with respect to the body portion (the shoulder in Marsh, fig. 1, is inclined differently to the body, which is below the should and is completely vertical)
Regarding claim 10, Marsh in view of Rizzo, Sharma, Stuck, and Piana teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further teaches a container, and a content contained in the container. However, filling bottles with contents is the proper use of bottles, as even taught in Piana (Piana, col. 2 lines 33-4), and thus it would be obvious to use this bottle for its intended use, to hold contents, and the decoration or indicia would be on the bottle, identifying or some other way describing the bottle or its contents, as images on bottles conventionally do.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0001237) in view of Rizzo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0198831) and Sharma (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0306385), Stuck (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140353381), Piana (U.S. Patent 8,677,721) and further in view of Weaver (U.S. Patent 5,492,222).
Regarding claim 8, Marsh in view of Rizzo, Sharma, Stuck and Piana teaches all the limitations off claim 7, as above, but does not further teach a container wherein the first pattern of which a width decreases away from the mouth portion is formed on the shoulder portion. However, Weaver teaches parallel lines on a bottle shoulder (readable as a barcode; Weaver, fig. 1, barcode 38). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Marsh in view of Rizzo, Sharma, Stuck and Piana, with the teaching of Weaver, to have a bar code on the bottle shoulder, and given that Marsh in view of Piana already teaches placing an image on the shoulder, it would take merely routine experimentation to figure out how to place a readable bar-code, which would involve “a width decreases away from the mouth portion” in order to look flat from a distance, and be a readable bar-code, given the inclined nature of shoulders of bottles.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0001237) in view of Rizzo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0198831) Sharma (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0306385) and Stuck (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140353381) and further in view of Kriegel (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/ 0104697).
Regarding claim 9, Marsh in view of Rizzo Sharma and Stuck teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses a container comprising: a mouth portion (Marsh, fig. 1, top of bottle 10; a shoulder portion connected to the mouth portion (the mouth leads into the neck which is still thin, which then leads into the shoulder portion which broadens out to the thickness of the bottle); a body portion (Marsh, fig. 1, the main body portion with substantially vertical sidewalls, or slightly off of vertical) connected to the shoulder portion; and a bottom portion (Marsh, the bottom portion, which starts moving thinner from the thick body portion, and then contains a bottom which may sit on a conveyor 20) connected to the body portion,
But it does not teach wherein the first pattern is formed on the bottom portion. However, Kriegel does teach that an image may be printed on a bottom portion (Kriegel, ¶0023-24, fig. 4, the pattern 200 is created on the base 170 and may be created by a laser, ¶0035). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma with the teachings of Kriegel to have an image formed on the bottom portion, even as Marsh indicates that any of its walls is prepared for a pattern or indicia (Marsh, ¶0013, “Wall 12 is a container sidewall in the example of FIG. 1, but could be any wall (or combination of walls) of the container, including the container bottom wall or base. A decoration 18 is formed at least in container wall 12”) in order to mark a bottle in a conventional way, to display information about the contents or some other message, perhaps hidden or accessible on the bottom, as desired by an operator.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0001237) in view of Rizzo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0198831) Sharma (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0306385) and Stuck (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140353381) and further in view of Hansen, 2014/ 0305831).
Regarding claim 12, Marsh in view of Rizzo Sharma and Stuck teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further disclose a production method comprising: controlling an intensity of the laser beam. However, Hansen teaches controlling such an intensity (Hansen, ¶0044, claim 5, “laser intensity must be reduced”, for instance). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Marsh in view of Rizzo and Sharma with the teachings of Hansen, to add controlling the intensity of the laser to the method of Hansen, in order to control better the laser beam and increase intensity depending on the speed and mark being made and how intricate it is (i.e. slower speed, lower intensity, or for instance) or if the mark needs to be gone over again, and this changing intensity of the beam is a conventional way of controlling the marks to be made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the teachings of Stuck do teach that “pixels” may be used to engrave into a glass bottle. And Marsh, while not specifically calling them “pixels” does use the laser to create the roughness that is indicated by pixels, and thus the combination still finds this invention obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights