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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The cancellation of claim 4 has rendered the 112 rejection of the previous office action moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenzel et al. (US 5292713). McIntyre (US 5023138), Galovic (US 20030012910) and Shuey (US 20170221391).
As to claim 1, Stenzel discloses a linerless thermal and thermal transfer label (Abstract). Stenzel discloses the label comprises: a non-top coated (NTC) substrate 15; a direct thermal coating 12 disposed on a front side of the NTC substrate 15, and a silicone coating 13 disposed directly on the direct thermal coating 12; and an adhesive coating 14 disposed on a backside of the NTC substrate (Fig. 1 and 2 below; C2, L45-60; C3, L30-40). The silicone coating 13 is capable of acting as a release coating for the linerless label when the label material is in roll form (Fig. 1). McIntyre (C2, L40 – C3, L7), Galovic (¶32) and Shuey (¶39) disclose silicone coating ranges upon facestock of 1.0-2.0 gsm, 1.0 -1.5 gsm and 0.4 to 4.5 gsm, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the silicon coating weights of McIntyre, Galovic and Shuey in the product taught by Stenzel because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional coating weight of silicone upon a facestock. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the product of Stenzel to have a silicone coating weight between 1 gsm and 5 gsm, because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation would have been to provide an appropriate amount of coating weight permitting good image visibility and potential scanning of a bar code on the label as disclosed by Stenzel (C4, L45-55).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Stenzel discloses that the front side includes a direct thermal/thermal transfer thermal coating 12 disposed under the silicone coating 13 (Id.).
As to claim 5, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Stenzel discloses that the adhesive may be in the form of an aggressive or non-aggressive adhesive (pressure sensitive adhesive 14, which falls into Applicant’s defined categories of under 0.5 lbs/in peel force for non-aggressive and 0.5 lbs/in peel force and above for aggressive adhesive) (Id.).
As to claim 6, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The pressure sensitive adhesive of Stenzel would have sufficient tack to stick to a surface of a material to be recycled.
As to claim 7, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Stenzel discloses that the coat weight of the silicone coating depends on a substrate type associated with the substrate (weight of silicone release coating is based on providing visibility to the image on the thermosensitive layer 12 placed on substrate 15 (C2, L50-68; C4, L20-20, 40-55).
As to claim 8, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Stenzel discloses that the silicone coating is a release coating for the linerless label web when in roll form which may be unwound for printing (Fig. 3).
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and 8 above, which discloses a linerless label web with release coating in roll form, which has the same recited layers as in claim 9.
As to claim 11, the product of claim 9 is taught as seen above. Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 2 and 3 above.
As to claim 12, the product of claim 9 is taught as seen above. Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenzel et al. (US 5292713), Stenzel et al. (US 5292713). McIntyre (US 5023138), Galovic (US 20030012910) and Shuey (US 20170221391) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-9 and 11-12 above, and further in view of Hill et al. (US 20220238045).
As to claim 10, the product of claim 9 is taught as seen above. Stenzel fails to specifically teach or disclose that marks may be placed on the backside of the web of the NTC substrate to delineate each of the labels upon the web. Hill discloses a roll/web of adhesive labels (Abstract). Hill discloses that sense marks may be placed on the backside of the web so that a printer may read and register labels for desired printing upon particular labels in the web of material (¶48). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add marks on the backside of the web material of Stenzel to delineate labels and would have been motivated to do so because Hill teaches that such marks allows for a printer to read and register labels for desired printing upon particular labels in the web of material.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenzel et al. (US 5292713). McIntyre (US 5023138), Galovic (US 20030012910), Shuey (US 20170221391), Ko et al. (US 20090162595) and Brown et al. (US 6586510).
Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9 above, wherein a silicone coating 13 is disposed on the front side of the base substrate 15 (Fig. 2). Stenzel fails to specifically teach or disclose the adhesive layer may comprise of multiple layers, and more specifically three layers one on top of the other as currently claimed. Ko discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to form a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) layer on a label by applying multiple coatings one on top of the other to generate a PSA layer with multiple layers (¶3). Brown discloses a label with an adhesive layer comprising two layers or multiple layers one on top of the other (C6, L32-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an adhesive comprising of three or more layers as disclosed by Ko or Brown in the product taught by Stenzel because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known conventional and successful adhesive layer configuration for use with a label. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, applying multiple layers/coatings of adhesive to form an adhesive layer would amount to a mere duplication of parts which is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As to the claim recitation that the first, second and third adhesive layers are deposited by successive passes through a press, the product of the above references as combined contains the same structural elements as the recited product and therefore is obvious. See MPEP 2113.
As to claim 14, the product of claim 13 is taught as seen above. It would have been obvious to add fourth layer of adhesive to the muti-layered adhesive above because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would add to the thickness of the adhesive layer and therefore increase the adhesive strength of the layer as needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will address only those arguments pertinent to the rejection above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues on page 6 that Stenzel fails to teach or disclose the recited product wherein a thermosensitive layer is placed upon a non-coated substrate with a silicone coating placed upon said thermosensitive layer. Applicant argues that instead Stenzel discloses a conventional thermal paper and does not teach the configuration of a thermosensitive layer directly placed upon a substrate. This argument is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, Stenzel clearly discloses a product with a non-coated substrate layer 15, with a thermosensitive layer 12 placed directly thereupon, and a silicone layer 13 placed directly upon said thermosensitive layer (Fig. 2 above).
Applicant’s arguments that Stenzel does not disclose silicone upon a thermal coating since Stenzel teaches that chromate based coating is the preferred release coating is not persuasive. Stenzel clearly discloses that silicone is release coating that may be placed upon the thermosensitive layer in the thermal transfer layer which matches the recited structure in claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments on page 6 that Stenzel does not teach or suggest that silicone coatings perform well on NTC substrates or that such a combination would even be contemplated is not persuasive. First, Applicant does not claim that the silicone coating is applied directly onto a non-top coated substrate, Applicant recites in claim 1 that the silicone coated is applied upon a thermosensitive coating placed upon a substrate. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, Stenzel discloses that a silicone coating layer is applied to a front side of the substrate and it is capable of making a successful thermal transfer label.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7 regarding McIntyre’s teaching that a hot melt barrier coating is placed between a porous substrate and a silicone coating is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, McIntyre’s teaching is to silicone coating weight range upon a coating on a substrate, much like the recited coating weight of silicone upon a thermal coating on a substrate.
Applicant’s arguments on page 8 regarding claim 13 is unpersuasive for the same reasons given for claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the references. This argument is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Here, the predictable result would be to use a known successful adhesive layer means in the label of Stenzel.
Applicant argues that Stenzel discloses a different substrate and purpose than that recited by claim 1. Applicant argues that Stenzel discloses layers which are not recited in the current claims. This argument is not persuasive since Applicant recites a comprising type product claim, which does not exclude extra elements taught by the prior art so long as the recited components are disclosed/taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights