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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weisz et al. (7296745).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Weisz et al. teaches a method of marking reusable containers comprising the steps of:
Providing a container which has at least one first marking on a wall of the container which identifies this container (see Weisz first step 202- “Scan package with processing unit to capture package specific price”- the package has a wall with a marking that is scanned – for example, the top sirloin roast in Fig. 3a is a marking on the container that identifies the container of sirloin roast);
Determining at least one information associated with said first marking (as seen in Fig. 3a, there is a price- the price is information that is associated with the top sirloin roast, Fig 3a is the first marking)
Attaching a second marking on the wall of the container, wherein the second marking is created taking into account the first marking and/or the determined information (step 208- a discount is applied to the package to identify the reduced price- see also second marking in Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 12, the second marking is linked to the first marking- it is applied to the same packaging- this is a “link”.
Regarding claim 13, the container is provided with at least one décor element and the second marking is arranged on this décor element (the beef is wrapped; see for example, background- the wrapping is a décor element).
Regarding claim 14, the décor is a label.
Regarding claim 15, the first marking is selected from a bar code (see abstract).
Regarding claim 16, the first marking (original tag) is at least partially concealed by the décor element (the new tag- see Fig. 3B where discount tag covers original tag).
Regarding claim 17-18, Weisz teaches the use of a detection device “upstream” of the decorating device, see for example, “scanning an original bar code” column lines 30-35. As discussed above, the marking device applies the second marking taking into account the first marking (i.e. the original price).
Regarding claim 19, the device must inherently have some storage in order to print the discount bar code.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As explained above, claim 11 is directed to a method of providing a container that already has a marking with a second marking after “determining information” of the first marking. This claim appears to be directed to a practice of marking down items in a grocery store as taught by Weisz.
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 DAVID R DUNN whose telephone number is (571)272-6670. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636