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 .
Drawings
Figures 1, 2A, and 2B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 26 is 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.
It appears that claim 26 was intended to depend from claim 15 because it, like claim 15, is directed to a label assembly. Claim 1, from which claim 26 now depends, is directed to a label sheet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15, 16, 18-21, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cushing et al. (2012/0315422).
Regarding claims 15 and 34, Cushing discloses a label assembly comprising: a label comprising: a label first portion (the portion of label 21 opposite liner portion 24-2) having an adhesive surface (31, Fig. 4b), and a label second portion (the portion of label 21 opposite liner portion 24-1) having an adhesive surface (F31, Fig. 4b); and a liner comprising: a liner first portion (24-2, Fig. 5a) coupled to the label first portion, the liner first portion configured to be separable from the label first portion, a liner second portion (24-1, Fig. 5a) coupled to the label second portion, and a cut (39, Fig. 5a) formed in the liner and positioned between the liner first portion and the liner second portion, the cut comprising a first curved portion positioned at a first edge of the liner and a second curved portion positioned at a second edge of the liner (Fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 16, where there is physical identity between the subject matter of the claims and the prior art, the label given to the claimed subject matter does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. In re Tuominen, 671 F2d 1329, 213 USPQ 89, 90 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 18, see paragraph 0002.
Regarding claim 19, the recitation that the printed material is laser-printed does not distinguish over the prior art because the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself.
Regarding claim 20, see paragraph 0050.
Regarding claim 21, see Fig. 5a.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14, 17, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing et al. (2012/0315422) in view of Fowler et al. (2006/0010743).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 27, Cushing discloses a label assembly comprising: a label comprising: a label first portion (the portion of label 21 opposite liner portion 24-2) having an adhesive surface (31, Fig. 4b), and a label second portion (the portion of label 21 opposite liner portion 24-1) having an adhesive surface (F31, Fig. 4b); and a liner comprising: a liner first portion (24-2, Fig. 5a) coupled to the label first portion, the liner first portion configured to be separable from the label first portion, a liner second portion (24-1, Fig. 5a) coupled to the label second portion, and a cut (39, Fig. 5a) formed in the liner and positioned between the liner first portion and the liner second portion, the cut comprising a first curved portion positioned at a first edge of the liner and a second curved portion positioned at a second edge of the liner (Fig. 5a).
However, the label assembly disclosed by Cushing is part of a pad containing a plurality of label assemblies. Fowler teaches mounting a plurality of label assemblies to a label sheet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the label assemblies disclosed by Cushing to a label sheet, as taught by Fowler, in order to enable the random selection of any desired label.
Regarding claim 2, where there is physical identity between the subject matter of the claims and the prior art, the label given to the claimed subject matter does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. In re Tuominen, 671 F2d 1329, 213 USPQ 89, 90 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 3, see paragraph 0002.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation that the printed material is laser-printed does not distinguish over the prior art because the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself.
Regarding claim 5, see paragraph 0050.
Regarding claim 6, see Fig. 5a.
Regarding claim 7, Cushing discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the curve disclosed by Cushing is not a sigmoid curve. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the curve in the cut disclosed by Cushing a sigmoid curve because it has been held that changes in the shape of an article are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed article is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claims 8-10, it is unclear from the drawings whether the curve disclosed by Cushing is different in one dimension than another, but It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the curve different in one dimension than another because it has been held that changes in the shape of an article are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed article is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 12, Cushing discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the curves of adjacent labels disclosed by Cushing do not appear to be in the form of a sine wave. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the curves of adjacent labels in the form of a sine wave because it has been held that changes in the shape of an article are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed article is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 14, see Fig. 1 of Fowler.
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing et al. (2012/0315422) in view of Fowler et al. (2006/0010743), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Lamb et al. (2022/046066).
Cushing discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the liner disclosed by Cushing appears to be the same size as the label. Lamb teaches making the liner slightly bigger than the label. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the liner disclosed by Cushing slightly bigger than the label, as taught by Lamb, as a matter of design choice.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing et al. (2012/0315422) in view of Fowler et al. (2006/0010743), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Hamstra et al. (5,894,923).
Cushing discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Fowler only discloses a single label sheet. Hamstra teaches attaching multiple label sheets together so that they can hold many labels and be folded for storage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide multiple label sheets of the type disclosed by Fowler folded together, as taught by Hamstra, in order to provide many labels and be folded for storage.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing et al. (2012/0315422).
Regarding claim 22, Cushing discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the curve disclosed by Cushing is not a sigmoid curve. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the curve in the cut disclosed by Cushing a sigmoid curve because it has been held that changes in the shape of an article are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed article is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claims 23-25, it is unclear from the drawings whether the curve disclosed by Cushing is different in one dimension than another, but It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the curve different in one dimension than another because it has been held that changes in the shape of an article are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed article is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of each reference is explained below, unless the relevance is deemed to be readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C HOGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/GARY C HOGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631