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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 19 recites abutment regions which provide adhesive along both upper and lower edges of the label and at multiple intermediate portions between the upper and lower label edges. This language is absent in the originally filed specification. The closest support is found only in Fig. 10 and its description. Figure 10 does not show any adhesive being present on the upper or lower label edges, only adjacent to the edges with a gap therebetween.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-9, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schinelli (WO 2018/114618) in view of Ahn (KR 10-1923127) and either one of Pedercini (WO 2020/225725) or Barrash (US 6,048,423).
Schinelli teaches a labeling machine (1) comprising a conveyor (11) for supporting and conveying containers (10) to be labeled, an unwinding assembly (3) for unwinding a labeling ribbon (4) bearing a plurality of consecutively printed labels, a transfer drum (2) which receives labels on a lateral surface (2a) thereof, and a spreading roller (12) for spreading adhesive on the labels while the labels are in contact with the lateral surface of the transfer drum (See Figures; p. 6, line 3 to p. 7, line 7). The transfer drum (2) comprises bonding regions (14) with at least one portion in relief with respect to the lateral surface of the transfer drum and adapted to receive leading and trailing edges of the labels, the bonding regions being formed by a block (15) with contoured parts forming resting contact surfaces (14a,14b) shaped with a recessed seat (17) therebetween and tapered peripheral edges surrounding and defining the resting contact surfaces (See Figs. 14-18; p. 7, line 8 to p. 8, line 13). The bonding regions read on the instantly claimed runners, and the resting contact surfaces read on the instantly claimed abutment regions formed as spaced apart columns. The recessed seat and tapered peripheral edges read on the instantly claimed at least one other region, with the resting contact surfaces extending further from the lateral surface of the transfer drum than the recessed seat and tapered peripheral edges such that the resting contact surfaces define where the spreading roller applies adhesive strips (13a,13b) surrounded by regions without adhesive (See Fig. 18; p. 11, lines 10-20). The adhesive strips read on the instantly claimed at least one respective adhesive imprint on leading and trailing edges of the labels.
In the labeling machine of Schinelli, the resting contact regions are formed as two circumferentially spaced columns, each with a single, uninterrupted contact surface (See Figs. 14-15). Schinelli does not expressly disclose a plurality of spaced abutment regions for each column which apply discrete adhesive portions with intervening non-adhesive portions as claimed.
Pedercini teaches a labeling machine including a labeling device (2) in the form of a transfer drum with a plurality of support runners (61) having a plurality of ridges (62) protruding from the runners which form a contoured surface adapted to contact a glue roller (51) and form an adhesive imprint including alternating adhesive portions (31) and adhesive-free portions (32) (See Figures; p. 3, line 7 to p. 6, line 20). The plurality of ridges are spaced abutment regions which apply discrete adhesive portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a plurality of spaced abutment regions in the labeling machine of Schinelli since Pedercini teaches that such an arrangement was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for such a purpose (See Figures; p. 3, line 7 to p. 6, line 20).
Barrash teaches a labeling machine comprising a drum (18) having ridges (19a,19b) projecting from an outer surface (18a) thereof, at least one ridge (19a) including two raised segments (19a’) separated by a contoured recess (19a”) such that an adhesive applicator (25) applies adhesive to the raised segments but not the recess and thereby forms an adhesive imprint including adhesive regions and adhesive-free regions (See Figures; col. 3, line 25 to col. 4, line 67). The raised segments (19a’) are spaced abutment regions which apply discrete adhesive portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use spaced abutment regions in the labeling machine of Schinelli since Barrash teaches that such an arrangement was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for such a purpose (See Figures; col. 3, line 25 to col. 4, line 67).
Regarding the placement of suction ports, Schinelli and Barrash show suction ports on both the abutment regions as well as areas surrounding the abutment regions (See Figures). Pedercini is silent regarding the placement of suction ports. Schinelli, Barrash, and Pedercini do not expressly disclose providing suction ports only on areas surrounding the abutment regions and omitting the suction ports at the abutment regions as claimed.
Ahn teaches a labeling device comprising an adsorption drum (8) with a plurality of suction holes on its surface to hold a label sheet (2), wherein the adsorption drum includes first projections (8a) corresponding to a first adhesive application region on a leading edge (2a) of the label sheet and second projections (8b) corresponding to a second adhesive application region on a trailing edge (2b) of the label sheet, wherein the first and second projections do not include the suction holes (See Figures; [0025]-[0032]). The first and second projections of Ahn read on the instantly claimed abutment regions which lack suction ports thereon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the abutment regions taught by the combination of Schinelli and either one of Pedercini or Barrash could be formed without suction ports. Since abutment portions with suction ports (as taught by Schinelli and Barrash) and abutment portions without suction ports (as taught by Ahn) were both recognized in the prior art as being functionally equivalent arrangements for holding a label during adhesive application, the substitution of one art-recognized arrangement for the other would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 9, each bonding region of Schinelli includes contoured parts (See Figs. 14-16; p. 7, line 8 to p. 8, line 13).
Regarding claim 12, each bonding region of Schinelli includes two resting contacting surfaces, with one corresponding to a trailing edge of a first label and the other corresponding to a leading edge of a subsequent label (See Figures; p. 11, lines 10-20). In the proposed combination, each resting contact surface is considered to include a relief portion and at least one contoured part as claimed.
Regarding claims 13-14, both of the resting contact surfaces of Schinelli—the one which receives the leading edge, and the one which receives the trailing edge—include the relief portion and the contoured part (See Figs. 14-18).
Claim 15 contains many of the same limitations as claim 8. All such limitations are taught by Schinelli in combination with Ahn and either one of Pedercini or Barrash for the reasons detailed above, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim 15 differs from claim 8 in that is further defines the abutment regions as being circumferentially aligned and vertically spaced with intervening separating regions. The proposed combination of Schinelli, Ahn, and either one of Pedercini or Barrash also includes this arrangement. In particular, the ridges of Pedercini are circumferentially aligned and vertically spaced with separating regions therebetween to produce discrete adhesive portions (See Figures). Similarly, the raised segments of Barrash are circumferentially aligned and vertically spaced with a separating region therebetween to produce discrete adhesive portions (See Figures). The second protrusions (8b) of Ahn also include a vertical spacing with a separating portion therebetween (See Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, in the proposed combination the abutment regions are vertically aligned along a height of the runner.
Regarding claim 18, in the proposed combination there are two columns, each with abutment regions aligned vertically along a height of the runner. Pedercini shows that the abutment regions may be aligned in adjacent columns such that the adhesive portions (31) applied by each abutment region are aligned on the leading and trailing edges (21a,21b) of the label (See Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 7 of Pedercini clearly shows adhesive present on upper and lower edges of a label and intermittent adhesive locations between the upper and lower edges. Since Pedercini illustrates that such an adhesive arrangement was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for labeling a container, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate a corresponding pattern of runners in the labeling machine of Schinelli to produce such an adhesive arrangement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 01/29/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it is not clear from the prior art references that the varying arrangements of Schinelli, Barrash, and Ahn with respect to port placement are functional equivalents. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Schinelli and Barrash teach drums having runners with suction ports on both protruding and recessed portions, as detailed above. Ahn teaches a drum having runners with suction ports only on recessed portions and absent on protruding portions, also detailed above. Each of these runner types yields the same predictable result regardless of the suction port placement, which is that the suction ports sufficiently hold the label against the drum while the label receives adhesive at the protruding portions with adhesive-free regions at the recessed portions. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would readily conclude from this evidence that these arrangements are functionally equivalent since they perform in an identical manner and yield the same predictable result.
Applicant also argues that Schinelli and Barrash expressly teach a need to have suction ports in the abutment regions. Examiner contends that the cited passages of Schinelli and Barrash merely describe the placement and function of the suction ports and do not describe the particular placement as being essential.
Applicant argues that modifying the runners of Schinelli and Barrash to remove suction ports in the abutment regions would render the abutment regions unsatisfactory for their intended purpose. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The intended purpose of the runners of Schinelli and Barrash is to hold a label on a drum while adhesive is applied in discrete regions. This purpose is also clearly fulfilled in the Ahn reference in the absence of suction ports on a protruding portion of the runner.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the runners of Schinelli to include the suction port arrangement of Ahn because there is no articulated advantage in the Ahn reference. The rationale for combining the teachings of Ahn and Schinelli is clearly stated in the rejection. The substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. This is true even if a reference does not expressly recite an advantage for one particular element over another.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746