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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 12/16/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 8-11, 14-15, and 21-30 remain pending in the application.
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, 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) and Haushalter (US2010/0046825 of record).
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 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 no 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.
Regarding claim 15, Mazzarolo in view of Amir and Haushalter 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 and Haushalter 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 29, Mazzarolo in view of Amir and Haushalter 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 and Haushalter 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 and Haushalter 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 and Haushalter 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 Mazzarolo in view of Amir and Haushalter 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 and Haushalter 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 and Haushalter 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, 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 so that a visual appearance of the encoded visual indicia is perceived as a single pattern to a user viewing the polymeric article.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, Pickett, and Gamito teaches the method of claim 11.
Gamito further teaches wherein the repeated pattern is read by an optical camera of a mobile device to communicate the first set of information to a consumer ([0103]) and
Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, Pickett, and Gamito does not teach the second pattern is 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, 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 and Haushalter as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sorensen (US 4327730 of record).
Regarding claim 22, Mazzarolo in view of Amir and Haushalter teaches the method of claim 8.
Mazzarolo in view of Amir and Haushalter does not teach wherein each feature included in the repeated pattern have 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, and Sorensen teaches the method of claim 22.
Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, 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, 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 Sorensen teaches the method of claim 23.
Mazzarolo in view of Amir, Haushalter, 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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzarolo in view of Amir and Haushalter as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Peng et al. (US2020/0247967 of record) hereinafter Peng.
Regarding claim 25, Mazzarolo in view of Amir and Haushalter 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).
Mazzarolo in view of Amir and Haushalter does not teach a plurality of product identification domes in the central closure and spaced apart from the plurality of features.
In the same field of endeavor regarding polymeric articles, Peng teaches a plurality of product identification domes in a central closure and spaced apart from a plurality of features for the motivation of indicating information visually in response to a deformation force (Fig 5: product-identification dome 16; [0008, 0055]).
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 and Haushalter to include the product identification domes as taught by Peng in order to indicate information visually in response to a deformation force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not include a second embossment on the first embossment of Mazzarolo because the prior art as a whole only teaches forming one embossment in Mazzarolo. However, applicant fails to recognize key teachings of the prior art relied upon in the art rejection above, Mazzarolo teaches more than just forming an embossment. A more accurate characterization is that Mazzarolo teaches “[t]o carry out the printing operation simultaneously and in synchronism with the thermoforming operation” ([0021]) wherein “the term “printed” is used herein to refer both to adding color to embossed surfaces and placing indicia on essentially flat surfaces” ([0006]) and wherein the thermoforming produces an product having an embossment such as raised logo 68 in Fig 3-4, i.e., forming an embossment having further printed indicia on the surface of said embossment. Therefore, rather than just forming an embossment, Mazzarolo seeks to apply indicia on said embossment. Haushalter teaches that printed indicia may be embossed as an alternative to printing ([0016-0019, 0041]). Therefore one of ordinary skill would seek to modify the printed indica of Mazzarolo to be embossments, the final product of which would result in an embossed indicia on the first embossment of Mazzarolo. This is contrary to applicant’s characterization of the prior art that the combination of references would yield a single embossment with no further indica.
Applicant argues that Mazzarolo desires coloring on the raised logo to provide more definition, and that replacing the coloring with a second embossment teaches away from the above teaching. However, the examiner notes that [0004] recites the product of Mazzarolo “are usually of one color” (emphasis added). This implies that the product can be multicolored. Rather than render the prior art invention invalid, Mazzarolo merely discloses a preferred embodiment. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Furthermore, Haushalter teaches that “[m]aterials suitable for optical encoding include, without limitation, any type of colored pigment, organic dye” ([0018]).
Applicant argues that Sorensen does not teach that the embossed feature is scannable by an optical device to generate instructions and that there is no reasonable expectation of success in combining the prior art references. However, the combination being made in this instance is to apply the dimensions for thermoformed textures as taught by Sorensen to the thermoformed patterns as taught by Mazzarolo in view of Amir and Haushalter for the motivation of imparting a more clothlike tactile impression and reduced gloss to the article. Sorensen also teaches that such embossments of such dimensions provide improvement to the visual aesthetics of the product (col 1, ln 35-37; col 1, ln 67-col 2, ln 2). Mazzarolo teaches that it is desirable to “add definition” to embossments ([0004]). Therefore the prior art references share a desire to visually improve their products and there is a reasonable expectation of success in combining the prior art references.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 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