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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 12-19 and 21 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (EP 1698999) in view of Voy et al. (US 4661189) and Hada et al. (US 20120241077).
As to claim 1, Suzuki discloses a method for inspecting RFID labels (Abstract).
Suzuki discloses that the method comprises of: providing a main continuous band 202, on which the self-adhesive labels 210, juxtaposed in a direction of travel of the main continuous band are attached; providing inspection means 104 adapted to detect any non-compliance in the self- adhesive labels; advancing the main continuous band so as to expose one or more of the self-adhesive labels to the inspection means; if the inspection means detects a non-conformity in at least one self-adhesive label, imparting a bend 108 to the main continuous band downstream of the inspection means, thereby giving the main continuous band a radius of curvature such as to cause an at least partial detachment of the at least one self-adhesive label from the main continuous band; removing the at least one self-adhesive label detached from the main continuous band, leaving a corresponding empty space on the main continuous band; applying a replacement label on the main continuous band 120, in the empty space left by the at least one removed self-adhesive label, to replace the removed self-adhesive label (Fig. 2 below; ¶7 and 23-32).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Suzuki fails to specifically teach or disclose whether the web may be rewound in the opposite direction so as to inspect the label that replaces a defect label by the inspection means upstream of the processing area where said replacement label is placed upon the continuous web. Voy discloses a method for manufacturing labels (Abstract). Voy discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to rewind a carrier web with labels so as to inspect uninspected labels upon said web (C9, L67 – C10, L8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the rewinding method of Voy in the method taught by Suzuki because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known conventional and successful means for ensuring that uninspected labels upon a carrier web of material can be inspected. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Suzuki discloses that a tray is disposed in the vicinity of the peeling roller so that defective tags may be placed into said tray, but fails to teach or disclose that an interlocking group comprising a collection of spools or an external drum coupled with a pressure roller may accept the defective label to move it to the desired tray. It is the position of the Examiner that utilizing an external drum (roll/roller) coupled with a pressure roller to form a nip to grasp a label from a web. Hada discloses a method/apparatus for the manufacture of liquid crystal display devices (Abstract). Hada discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to utilize a nip (rolls/drums 131, 132) to grip and remove sheet from a carrier web after the carrier web is given a radius of curvature by a wedge (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the nip of Hada in the method taught by the above references as combined because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means for removing a label sheet from a carrier material to move said label to a desired place/tray. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 12, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to encode the replacement label in the method of Suzuki with the information of the defective label since one of ordinary skill would recognize that this would replace the information missing in the label set due to the defective label.
As to claim 13, the method of claim 12 is taught as seen above. Suzuki fails to specifically teach or disclose that the step of providing the encoded replacement labels upstream of the of the inspection means. Providing the replacement labels upstream of the inspection means would amount to a selection of performing process steps which is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Here, the expected result would be to provide a replacement label upon the carrier web to replace the defective label so that the set of labels being produced would be complete.
As to claims 14, 16 and 18, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Suzuki discloses that an auxiliary labeling unit 111 is provided downstream of the inspection unit and it is adapted to apply replacement labels on the empty spaces left by the removed labels (Fig. 1).
As to claims 15 and 17, the method of claim 14 is taught as seen above. Suzuki fails to specifically teach or disclose that the auxiliary labeling unit may be placed upstream of the inspection unit. Providing the replacement labels by placing the auxiliary labeling unit upstream of the inspection means would amount to a selection of performing process steps which is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Here, the expected result would be to provide a replacement label upon the carrier web to replace the defective label so that the set of labels being produced would be complete.
As to claim 19, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Suzuki discloses that the removal step is carried out by a peeling roller/cam 108 upon which the web slides, that is switched from a first position upon which the web slides upon a first radius of curvature and the labels do not detach, to a second position in which the peeling roller/cam exposes to the carrier a second curved surface having a second radius of curvature smaller than the first radius of curvature which is configured in such a way to cause the detachment of an undesired label (Fig. 2).
As to claim 21, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Suzuki discloses that a computer means is provided to control and coordinate servomechanisms responsible for implementing the steps of the method (¶ 40-42).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 that none of the prior art, specifically Hada, teach or disclose the use of a pressure roller and external drum (pinch rolls/roller) as an interlocking group for pinching off and removing a label from band of adhesive labels. This argument is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, Hada discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use an interlocking group for pinching off a label from a band of adhesive labels when said band is given a radius of curvature by a wedge.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached on (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745