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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 08/24/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 8-11, 14-15, 21-25, and 29-30 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “the optical camera of a mobile device” it is not clear if the optical camera is a newly introduced optical camera or the previously recited optical camera of claim 8 and 11.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 15, 21, 25, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzarolo (US2012/0034329 of record) in view of Amir (US2021/0294997 of record), Haushalter (US2010/0046825 of record), and Peng et al. (US2020/0247967) hereinafter Peng.
Regarding claim 8, Mazzarolo teaches:
A method of forming a polymeric article having encoded visual indicia (abstract), the method comprising
providing a mold configured to provide an article preform (Fig 1: die 20; [0019-0020, 0031-0032]), the mold including a plurality of features configured to form the encoded visual indicia on the article preform (Fig 2: raised logo 68; [0026]),
applying a polymeric material to the mold to form the article preform of a desired shape, and form the encoded visual indicia in the article preform with the mold (Fig 1: web 16; [0018-0019, 0031-0032]), and
separating the article preform from the mold to provide the polymeric article ([0032]),
wherein the encoded visual indicia provides visual information associated with at least one of the polymeric article and a product used with the polymeric article (Fig 3-4; [0005])
wherein the encoded visual indicia includes: (i) a first embossment including at least one of text, a symbol, an icon, and an image (Fig 3-4; [0005]).
Mazzarolo does not teach the encoded visual indicia generates computer readable instructions when scanned by an optical camera to provide augmented reality information, and
(ii) a second embossment including a repeated pattern formed on the first embossment to cause the computer readable instructions to generate when scanned by the optical camera to provide the augmented reality information.
However, Mazzarolo teaches that printed material can be formed on a first embossment during molding ([0021]).
In the same field of endeavor regarding encoded visual indicia, Amir teaches printing a repeated pattern to cause the computer readable instructions to generate when scanned by the optical camera to provide augmented reality information for the motivation providing augmented reality information using machine readable encoding information ([0013-0014, 0072-0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the printing as taught by Mazzarolo to print a plurality of features arranged in a repeated pattern to cause the computer readable instructions to generate when scanned by the optical camera to provide augmented reality information as taught by Amir in order to provide augmented reality information using machine readable encoding information.
Mazzarolo in view of Amir does not teach the encoded visual indicia is in the form of a second embossment including a repeated pattern formed on the first embossment. However, Mazzarolo teaches printing on a first embossment, and Amir teaches printing encoded visual indicia comprising a repeated pattern (Fig 1a-2b; [0013-0014]).
In the same field of endeavor regarding embossing encoded visual indicia, Haushalter teaches that encoded visual indicia can be either embossed or printed onto an article ([0016-0019, 0041]). Haushalter teaches that embossing enables marking of the article without the addition of any type of extrinsic foreign, extraneous or adventitious chemical or material ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the printing of encoded visual indicia as taught by Mazzarolo in view of Amir to be embossing instead of printing as taught by Haushalter in order to enable marking of the article without the addition of any type of extrinsic foreign, extraneous or adventitious chemical or material.
Mazzarolo in view of Amir and Haushalter does not teach wherein the polymeric article is transparent.
In the same field of endeavor regarding visual indicia, Peng teaches a transparent polymeric article for the motivation of allowing a consumer to view the contents of the container through the lid ([0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymeric article as taught by Mazzarolo in view of Amir and Haushalter to be transparent as taught by Peng in order to allow a consumer to view the contents of the container through the lid.
Regarding claim 15, Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng teaches the method of claim 8.
Mazzarolo further teaches wherein the polymeric article is shaped as a lid for a cup and includes a brim mount and a central closure appended from the brim mount and the encoded visual indicia is formed on the central closure (Fig 3-4; [0024-026]).
Regarding claim 21, Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng teaches the method of claim 8.
Mazzarolo further teaches wherein the polymeric article is formed by thermoforming a sheet including the polymeric material with the mold ([0018-0021]),
Mazzarolo further teaches printing on the first embossment simultaneously with molding.
Amir teaches printing visual encoded indicia (Fig 1a-2b; [0013-0014, 0072-0076]).
Haushalter further teaches embossing with molds instead of printing ([0041-0044]).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill that the prior art teaches wherein the first embossment and the second embossment are formed as the sheet is thermoformed using the mold.
Regarding claim 25, Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng teaches the method of claim 15.
Mazzarolo further teaches wherein forming the lid includes forming the plurality of features in the central closure (Fig 3-4).
Peng further teaches a plurality of product identification domes in the central closure and spaced apart from the plurality of features (Fig 5: product-identification dome 16; [0008, 0055]).
Regarding claim 29, Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng teaches the method of claim 8.
Mazzarolo further teaches wherein the first embossment provides an outer boundary of the visual information that is communicated visually to a user when the user observes the polymeric article (Fig 3).
Mazzarolo further teaches that the first embossment is a logo and printing on the first embossment (Fig 3; [0021]).
Amir further teaches that the pattern of the printed material can have the form of a logo combined with qr code (Fig 2a-2b; [0049]).
Haushalter teaches that the printed pattern can be embossed.
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches wherein at least a portion of the second embossment provide an outer boundary of the visual information that is communicated visually to a user when the user observes the polymeric article.
Regarding claim 30, Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng teaches the method of claim 8.
Mazzarolo further teaches wherein the first embossment has an outer boundary defining the visual information (Fig 3).
Mazzarolo further teaches that the first embossment is a logo and printing on the first embossment (Fig 3; [0021]).
Amir further teaches that the pattern of the printed material can have the form of a logo combined with qr code (Fig 2a-2b; [0049]).
Haushalter teaches that the printed pattern can be embossed.
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches the second embossment is located within the outer boundary.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Pickett et al. (US201/0282412 of record) hereinafter Pickett.
Regarding claim 9, Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng teaches the method of claim 8.
Mazzarolo further teaches printing on the first embossment simultaneous with molding.
Amir teaches printing a first pattern of features (Fig 1a-2b; [0013-0014, 0072-0076]).
Haushalter further teaches embossing instead of printing.
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art further teaches forming a plurality of features including the repeated pattern formed on the first embossment.
Mazzarolo further teaches a surface at least partially spaced apart from the first embossment along a surface of the polymeric article (Fig 3: central deck area 66).
Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng does not teach a second pattern of features at least partially spaced apart from the first embossment along a surface of the polymeric article.
In the same field of endeavor regarding embossing, Pickett teaches molding a surface texture onto the entire surface of a molded object for the motivation of customizing the exterior surface texture for use in different applications ([0003, 0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second embossment as taught by Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng to include a surface texture on the entire surface of a molded object as taught by Pickett in order to customize the exterior surface texture for use in different applications.
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the surface texture of Pickett would be applied to the surface at least partially spaced apart from the first embossment.
Regarding claim 10, Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, and Pickett teaches the method of claim 9.
Pickett teaches the surface texture is applied to the entire surface of the molded object.
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the surface texture of Pickett would be applied to the surface including the repeated pattern, and that the prior art teaches wherein the first pattern is interspersed with at least a portion of the second pattern.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, and Pickett as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gamito et al. (US2020/0047480 of record) hereinafter Gamito.
Regarding claim 11, Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, and Pickett teaches the method of claim 9.
Amir further teaches wherein the repeated pattern and second pattern of features is configured to generate a first set of computer readable instructions when scanned when scanned by the optical camera ([0072-0076]).
Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, and Pickett does not teach wherein the repeated pattern is configured to generate a first set of computer readable instructions when scanned to provide a first set of information to one or more users and the second pattern is configured to generate a second set of computer readable instructions when scanned by the optical camera to provide a second set of information.
In the same field of endeavor regarding indicia, Gamito teaches using machine readable indicia to provide independent pieces of information for the motivation of providing multiple pieces of information about a product ([0103-0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, and Pickett to provide independent pieces of information as taught by Gamito in order to provide multiple pieces of information about a product.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, Pickett, and Gamito as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jones et al. (US 2018/0189751 of record) hereinafter Jones.
Regarding claim 14, Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, Pickett, and Gamito teaches the method of claim 11.
Gamito further teaches wherein the repeated pattern is configured to be read by the optical camera of a mobile device to communicate the first set of information to a consumer ([0103]).
Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, Pickett, and Gamito does not teach the second pattern of features is configured to be read by an optical camera of an industrial recycling facility.
In the same field of endeavor regarding indicia, Jones teaches using an optical camera of an industrial recycling facility to scan indicia for the motivation of determining trends in the recycled products ([0014, 0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, Pickett, and Gamito with the scanning step as taught by Jones in order to determine trends in the recycled products.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sorensen (US 4327730 of record).
Regarding claim 22, Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng teaches the method of claim 8.
Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng does not teach wherein each feature included in the repeated pattern has a depth within a range of about 0.005 inches to about 0.02 inches.
In the same field of endeavor regarding forming polymeric articles, Sorensen teaches features having a depth that overlaps with the claimed range for the motivation of imparting a more clothlike tactile impression and reduced gloss to the article (col 4, ln 17-51; abstract).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the depth of the features as taught by Sorensen that overlaps with the claimed range in order to impart a more clothlike tactile impression and reduced gloss to the article.
Regarding claim 23, Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, and Sorensen teaches the method of claim 22.
Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, and Sorensen does not teach wherein each feature included in the repeated pattern has a width within a range of about 0.005 inches to about 0.02 inches.
However, Sorensen further teaches features having a width that overlaps with the claimed range (col 4, ln 17-51).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the width of the features as taught by Sorensen that overlaps with the claimed range.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, and Sorensen as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. (US2019/0171856) hereinafter Sharma.
Regarding claim 24, Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, and Peng, and Sorensen teaches the method of claim 23.
Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Peng, and Sorensen does not teach wherein the plurality of features have a density of greater than 50 per square inch and up to 200 per square inch.
In the same field of endeavor regarding visual encoded indicia, Sharma teaches machine-readable patterns having a range of values for the density that overlaps with the claimed range for the motivation of optimizing payload capacity per unit area, robustness, and visibility ([0212]; 75-600 DPI).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the density of the features as taught by Sharma that overlaps with the claimed range in order to optimize payload capacity per unit area, robustness, and visibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights