DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant traverses the Requirement of the invention of claims 13 and 16 from that of claims 4, 5, 8, 9 and 15. The invention of claims 13 and 16 is now examined.
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, 9, 13, 15 and 16 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 claims 4 and 13, 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.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Huss in view of Quarre, Hagen and Lewis teaches the tag cassette assembly of claims 4 and 13, respectively, wherein tag framing panel includes first and second edges that extend along and define the through slit, wherein the first and second edges face each other across the through slit, wherein the first and second edges move away from each other to achieve the spring-like grip (Lewis, fig. 3, cols. 1-2, lines 37-10, Note first and second edges forming slit 154 and facing each other. Note that if the framing panel 120 is formed of cardboard, and slit 154 is a perforated portion of the framing panel that is openable to easily remove card 140, after opening of the slit and slightly pulling first and second edges away from each other in a depth direction of the framing panel, upon release of the edges, the edges would naturally spring back toward each other because of the resilience of the cardboard material. Note that this would be the case for any number of materials of framing panels. Note that, once the card 140 is removed from the framing panel, if the card was placed back into the opening from which it was removed, the opening would expand slightly when the two edges were separated and spring back to a flat shape to contact the edges of the card).
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 filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that, because Lewis teaches that the card 140 and the card carrier are formed from the same sheet material, and the purpose of slit 154 is to enable the card to be removed from the framing panel, Lewis does not teach wherein the slit 154 provides a spring-like grip of the card carrier against the card. As explained in the rejection of claim 15, if the framing panel 120 is formed of cardboard, and slit 154 is a perforated portion of the framing panel that is openable to easily remove card 140, after opening of the slit and slightly pulling first and second edges away from each other in a depth direction of the framing panel, upon release of the edges, the edges would naturally spring back toward each other because of the resilience of the cardboard material. Note that this would be the case for any number of materials of framing panels. Note that, once the card 140 is removed from the framing panel, if the card was placed back into the opening from which it was removed, the opening would expand slightly when the two edges were separated and spring back to a flat shape to contact the edges of the card.
Thus, while the intended purpose of Lewis’ framing panel slit may not be to grip a card inserted into the card opening, Lewis’ framing panel slit nonetheless meets the limitation because it would function and same and has the same structure and the claimed framing panel and slit.
The claim has not required that the tag is manufactured separately from the framing panel and placed in the framing panel only after production. In fact, Examiner was under the impression until the most recent argument that the tag and the framing panel were manufactured together just as Lewis’ card and card holder.
Further, it should be noted that “spring-like grip” could mean more than one thing. To Examiner’s understanding, Lewis’ framing panel 120 and slit 154 would produce the same spring-like grip as claimed of the framing panel 34-7 and slit 35 of Figure 36 of the claimed invention. That is, Examiner can see difference in the operation of the prior art and claimed framing panels.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights