DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4, 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huss et al. (8,424,216) in view of Quarre et al. (2017/0261735), Hagen et al. (8,413,357) and Lewis et al. (7,367,504).
Regarding claim 4, Huss teaches a tag cassette assembly for use in connection with an engraving process carried out in an engraving machine, the assembly comprising:
a single piece cassette body (fig. 1, item 66), the cassette body including a first major side and a second major side and a periphery formed by minor edges (see fig. 1, note that the top, bottom and side edges are being mapped to the first major side, the second major side and the minor edges, respectively);
a tag (fig. 1, item 12) secured in a capture space of the cassette body (see fig. 1);
wherein the first major side is configured to provide access to a first side of the tag to facilitate engraving and the second major side is configured to provide access to a second side of the tag to facilitate engraving (see fig. 4).
Huss does not teach wherein the capture space of the plastic single piece cassette body is formed by a lateral slot along one minor edge and into which the tag slidingly engages into a final position in order to locate the tag in a set position within the capture space for engraving. Quarre teaches such an arrangement (Quarre, [0023], see fig. 1A, Note cassette 100, unlabeled capture space, lateral slot generally at 118/120 along minor edge opening into the lateral slot). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to construct the cassette of Huss in the manner disclosed by Quarre because doing so would amount to applying a known cassette construction to a known engraving machine using such a cassette. That is, Huss does not go into any detail as to how its cassette is constructed, and thus it would have been obvious to one of skill to look to Quarre for a structure of a substrate loading cassette.
Huss in view of Quarre does not teach wherein the tag is held within an opening of a tag framing panel or wherein the tag has a thickness that is greater than the thickness of the tag framing panel. Hagen teaches this (Hagen, see fig. 9, Note tag 132 is thicker than the surrounding framing panel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a tag with relative thickness disclosed disclosed by Hagen in the device disclosed by Huss in view of Quarre because doing so would have amount to combining a known tag structure with a known engraving device to yield predictable results.
Huss in view of Quarre and Hagen does not teach wherein the framing panel is a card of paper or paperboard material, or wherein the opening is defined by an inner opening edge; wherein the tag is positioned within the opening such that an outer periphery of the tag is in interference with the opening inner edge; and wherein the tag framing panel includes a slit that extends from the opening to a peripheral edge of the tag framing panel to allow the opening to expand slightly so that as to provide a spring-like grip of the opening inner edge against the periphery of the tag. Lewis teaches a this (Lewis, see fig. 3, Note framing panel 120 with inner unlabeled edges interfering with a card 140 to be held in the opening of the framing panel and a slit 154 from edge of the framing panel 126 to the inner edge of the opening). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the framing panel disclosed by Huss in view of Quarre and Hagen of paperboard and include a slit, as disclosed by Lewis, because doing so would allow for cheap, disposable packaging of the tag.
Regarding claim 5, Huss in view of Quarre, Hagen and Lewis teaches the tag cassette assembly of claim 4, wherein
the first major side of the cassette body includes tag engaging structure at least along a portion of a periphery the tag when the tag is in the set position, and the second major side of the cassette body includes tag engaging structure at least along a portion of the periphery of the tag when the tag is in the set position, wherein the tag engaging structure of the first major side and the tag engaging structure of the second major side is spaced apart in a direction of the thickness of the tag by a first distance,
the first major side of the cassette body includes tag framing panel engaging structure and the second major side of the cassette body includes tag framing panel engaging structure, wherein the tag framing panel engaging structure of the first major side and the tag framing panel engaging structure of the second major side is spaced apart in a direction of the thickness of the tag framing panel by a second distance that is smaller than the first distance (Huss, see fig. 1, Note tag 12 is sandwiched in cassette 66 on both major sides in the thickness direction. Note that the tag itself contacts edges of the hole in the cassette while the framing panel contacts the interior, more narrow slot, which is smaller than the first distance of the interior edges of the opening in the cassette).
Regarding claim 8, Huss in view of Quarre, Hagen and Lewis teaches the tag cassette assembly of claim 4, wherein the tag framing panel is releasably held within the capture space by at least one retaining tab that includes a retaining edge engaged with a peripheral edge portion of the tag framing panel, and the retaining edge of the retaining tab is spaced inwardly of the one minor edge that includes the lateral slot (Quarre, see fig. 1A, Note retaining edge 110. Upon insertion of the tag and framing panel of Hagen to the cassette of Quarre, the limitation would be met).
Regarding claim 9, Huss in view of Quarre, Hagen and Lewis teaches the tag cassette assembly of claim 4, wherein a portion of the tag framing panel is exposed outwardly of a portion of the one minor edge that includes the lateral slot (Quarre, see fig. 1A. Note also that “exposed outwardly of a portion of the one minor edge” is broad and can be interpreted in a number of ways.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huss in view of Quarre and Schillinger as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Berman (2019/0337700).
Regarding claim 7, Huss in view of Quarre, Hagen and Lewis teaches the tag cassette assembly of claim 4. Huss in view of Quarre, Hagen and Lewis does not teach wherein at least one of the tag framing panel or the cassette body includes a space in which an attachment ring is held. Berman teaches this (Berman, see figs. 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include an attachment ring, as disclosed by Berman, in the packaging disclosed by Huss in view of Quarre, Hagen and Lewis because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lewis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached 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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853