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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant also elected with traverse of Species I (Fig.3) in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that in particular claims 2 and 3, which are limited to stacked grid pattern (Fig.3) or offset grid pattern (Fig.4) respectively, are dependent on generic claim 1 and removal of the election of species requirement is requested. This is not found persuasive because as applicant stated, claim 2 is directed to the species stacked grid pattern (Fig.3) and claim 3 is directed to the species offset grid pattern (Fig.4). As discussed in the restriction requirement office action, each species Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 recites mutually exclusive grid patterns that are divergent subject matters and requires separate searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant further indicated claims 3, 11-22 are withdrawn and claims 1-2,4-10 are drawn to the elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025, 09/29/2025, 06/17/2025, 03/24/2025, 09/29/2024, 09/04/2024, 07/23/2024, 02/29/2024, 07/03/2023, 03/31/2023, and 12/05/2022 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrei et al. (US 2016/0256955).
Regarding claim 1, Andrei et al teaches an article marked by a pulse lasing apparatus (figs.1,5,6), the article comprising:
a body portion (5 fig.1) comprising a wall material (wall/surface of 5); and
a predetermined feature (16 figs.1,5,6) incorporated into at least a portion of the wall material, wherein the predetermined feature (16) comprises a plurality of marks (marking of spots 31) in a grid pattern comprising a plurality of locations (location of spots 31) disposed along a series of substantially parallel rows (rows each extending in direction 8 in figs.1,5,6), wherein;
each adjacent pair of locations (pair of 31 figs.1,5,6) along any of the substantially parallel rows is separated by an X-distance (distance 18 in direction 8 figs.1,5,6); and
each adjacent pair of parallel rows (pair of rows each extending in direction 8 in figs.1,5,6) is separated by a Y-distance (distance 19 in direction 9 figs.1,5,6) and,
wherein the Y-distance (distance 19) is different than the X-distance (distance 18) (paragraphs 0010,0062,0063,0072,0074. See also the distance between adjacent pair of dots 31 in horizontal and vertical direction in figs.1,5,6,9,10).
Regarding claim 2, Andrei et al further teaches wherein the locations between adjacent parallel rows are stacked (spots 31 in rows each extending in direction 8 in figs.1,5,6,9,10).
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.
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.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrei et al. (US 2016/0256955) in view of Hirayama et al. (US 2022/0097414).
Regarding claim 4, Andrei et al teaches the predetermined feature (desired mark 16 figs.1,5,6).
Andrei et al does not explicitly teaches wherein the predetermined feature includes at least one alphanumeric character.
However, Hirayama et al teaches a predetermined feature (11 figs.1,16,20; 611 fig.10; 641 fig.13; 16 figs.23,24;22b figs.33) formed on a wall portion of an article (1,1b), wherein the predetermined feature includes at least one alphanumeric character (11 figs.1,16,20; 611 fig.10; 641 fig.13; 16 figs.23,24;22b figs.33. Paragraphs 0077,0086, 0089,0090,0122,0540).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form alphanumeric character on the article of Andrei et al based on the teachings of Hirayama et al for instance to be able to include identifying information on the article.
Regarding claim 5, Andrei et al as modified by Hirayama et al further teaches wherein the alphanumeric character has a font size within the range of 6 pt to 10 pt and the Y-distance is at least 1.2, preferably 1.5, more preferably 1.7, and even more preferably 2 times the X-distance (see paragraphs 0086,0087 and fig.14A of Hirayama et al).
Note also, the above claimed ranges are also obvious since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Andrei et al as modified by Hirayama et al further teaches wherein the predetermined alphanumeric feature has a font size within the range of 11 pt to 16 pt and the Y-distance is at least 2, preferably 2.5, more preferably 3, and even more preferably 4 times the X-distance (see paragraphs 0086,0087 and fig.14A of Hirayama et al).
Note also, the above claimed ranges are also obvious since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Andrei et al as modified by Hirayama et al further teaches wherein the article is a container (1 figs.1,5,16,20,33;1a figs.23,24,27 of Hirayama et al) further comprising an opening (opening of container 1,1a) and a base (104) and wherein the body portion comprises one or more walls (wall/s of container 1,1a) extending from the opening to the base and surrounding an interior space (interior of container 1,1a), the one or more walls having an article inner surface (interior surface of container 1,1a) and an article outer surface (outer surface of container 1,1a) and wherein the opening is in fluid communication with an interior space (figs.1,5,16,20,23, 24,27,33).
Regarding claim 8, Andrei et al as modified by Hirayama et al further teaches wherein the container further comprises a neck adjacent the opening (neck of container 1 figs.1,5,16,20,33; neck of 1a figs.23,24,27 of Hirayama et al).
Regarding claim 9, Andrei et al as modified by Hirayama et al further teaches wherein the body portion comprises a first face and a second face, wherein a decoration comprising ink is disposed on the first face, and wherein the second face is free of ink and comprises the plurality of marks (for instance the inner face, outer face, front face, back face of container 1 figs.1,5,16,20,33; for instance the inner face, outer face, front face, back face of container 1a figs.23,24,27 of Hirayama et al).
Regarding claim 10, Andrei et al as modified by Hirayama et al further teaches wherein the wall material further comprises a laser absorption additive, wherein the laser absorption additive is titanium dioxide (TiO.sub.2), antimony tin oxide (ATO), ATO coated substrates such as mica, indium tin oxide (ITO), Sb.sub.2O.sub.3, tin oxide, carbon black, graphitic carbon, bismuth oxide, mixed metal oxides, metal nitrides, doped metal nitrides, metal carbides, metal borides, pearlescent pigments, zero valent metals, doped tungsten oxides, tungsten oxides, doped tungsten oxides and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0003,0014,0027 of Andrei et al; paragraphs 0056,0088,0089,0199, 0339 of Hirayama et al).
Note also, the above claimed different materials are also obvious since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for intended use for the purpose of providing material that is suitable to receive the type of image needed. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENOK D LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1615. The examiner can normally be reached General Schedule 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, IFP.
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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571)431-0716. 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.
/HENOK D LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853