DETAILED ACTION
This is an Office action based on application number 18/271,855 filed 12 July 2023, which is a national stage entry of PCT/KR2022/000153 filed 5 January 2022, which claims priority to KR10-2021-0005018 filed 14 January 2021. Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 12 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that KR101330880B1 (KR 880) in view of Bilodeau (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0214497 A1) does not obviate the invention of claim 1; therefore, the special technical feature of claim 1 makes a contribution over the prior art. This is not found persuasive because Applicant’s arguments as to impermissible hindsight are unpersuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily replace the single color print layer of KR 880 with the multilayer construction of Bilodeau because the use of multiple layers allows the designer to choose desirable properties afforded by using multiple layers having different properties.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12 November 2025.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K101330880 B1 with citations taken from the provided machine translation (KR 880) in view of Bilodeau (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0214497 A1) (Bilodeau).
Regarding instant claim 1:
KR 880 discloses a label for identifying a defective part of an electrode for a secondary batter comprising a release paper having a silicone resin coated on one side thereof so that a silicone resin layer is integrally formed; an adhesive layer having an acrylic removable adhesive applied only to a portion corresponding to half or less of the total area of the silicone resin layer on side of the upper surface of the silicone resin layer coated on the release paper, the adhesive having a thickness of 5 to 30 μm; and a base film made of a transparent synthetic resin, the base film covering the upper surface of the adhesive layer and having a color printing layer formed by coating a predetermined color on one side facing the adhesive layer so that identification is possible using one or more sensors (Claim 1).
KR 880 does not explicitly disclose the color-white-color layer structure on the base film.
However, Bilodeau disclose a label that comprises: (A) a polymer facestock having an upper and lower surface; (B) an adhesive having an upper surface and a lower surface wherein the upper surface of the adhesive is in contact with the lower surface of the facestock; and (C) a release liner in contact with the lower surface of the adhesive (paragraphs [0010-0013]).
Bilodeau further discloses that the polymer facestock is an opaque multilayer film comprising two to ten or more layers, wherein opaque facestocks comprise a polymer and one or more pigments to provide a layer of multilayer facestock with color, e.g., white films prepared by introducing titanium dioxide in the pigment and carbon black intruded to produce a grey color (paragraph [0048]).
Bilodeau teaches that the individual layers of a multilayer facestock are selected to provide desirable properties
Bilodeau is construed to encompass within its scope an embodied facestock comprising a first colored layer, a white layer, and a second colored layer.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to replace the single color printing layer of KR 880 with the multilayer construction of Bilodeau. The motivation for doing so would have been that the use of multiple layers allows the designer to choose desirable properties afforded by using multiple layers having different properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the Bilodeau with KR 880 to arrive at the invention of the instant claim.
Regarding instant claim 2:
KR 880 further discloses that the material of the base film is anyone of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), and stretched polypropylene (OPP) (Claim 6).
Regarding instant claims 3-4:
KR 880 further discloses that in order to minimize contamination or influence on the electrode plate for a secondary battery that comes into contact when wound by the label, when the material of the base film is polyethylene terephthalate, a silicone curing resin layer is formed by coating silicone resin on the other side of the base film and the curing it by ultraviolet rays (paragraph [0016]).
It is noted that KR 880 does not explicitly disclose the thickness of said silicone curing resin layer. However, since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific thickness of the silicone curing resin layer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the ability to minimize contamination or influence of the electrode plate by the label is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the presence of the silicone curing resin layer, the precise amount of the layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the silicone curing resin layer in KR 880 to obtain the desired properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding instant claim 5:
KR 880 further discloses that the thickness of the base film is preferably 25 to 50 μm (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding instant claim 6:
KR 880 further discloses that infrared sensors and color sensors can be adopted and used as sensors to identify labels (paragraph [0004]).
Regarding instant claim 7:
KR 880 teaches that the presence of the color layers allows for the identification and minimization of defects during the production of batteries by showing if a label has been peeled off (paragraph [0004]).
It is noted that KR 880 does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the color layers. However, since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific thickness of the color layers are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the ability to identify and minimize defects in the secondary battery during production is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the presence of the colored layers, the precise amounts of each layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the silicone curing resin layer in KR 880 to obtain the desired properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claims 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 880 in view of Bilodeau as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0129583 A1) (Hong).
Regarding instant claims 8 and 9:
KR 880 in view of Bilodeau discloses the label of claims 1 and 7 as cited above.
KR 880 in view of Bilodeau does not disclose the concave groove-shaped adhesive layer marking portions.
However, Hong discloses a sheet having removable labels (Title).
Reference is made to FIG. 21, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
725
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 21 illustrates label sheet <200> having weakened separation lines <140> with a generally sinusoidal shape that facilitate a shape <154> that aid the user in separating the respective label by allowing the user to grasp the exposed portion and peel it back (paragraphs [0089-0091]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to form the weakened portions of a sinusoidal shape of Hong into the label of KR 088, thereby forming the concave portions. The motivation for doing so would have been to form a shape that aids the user to separate the label from the release liner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hong with KR 088 in view of Bilodeau to obtain the invention as specified by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Mangohig whose telephone number is (571)270-7664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Eastern.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571)272-1490. 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.
/TAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1788 03/04/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788