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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 19, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the three 1st channels (claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Fig. 4 only shows two of the 1st channels (403). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0015, “slot 124” should be ‘slot 125”.
In paragraph 0032, “a of a” should be “of a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are 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.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation that the first channels and second channels are separated by a pair of third channels appears to be misdescriptive. Fig. 4 shows that only a single third channel separates each of the other channels.
Claim 9 is rejected based on its dependency.
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 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Crum (11,559,975).
Crum discloses a label comprising, a substrate (Figs. 2A-2E); an adhesive (108”, Fig. 2E) disposed on a backside (100B, Fig. 2B) of the substrate in multiple channels (108C”, Fig. 2E) defined in the backside, wherein first channels (108C:, 108L”, Fig. 2E) include the adhesive disposed on the backside in a first coat weight (Column 12, lines 1-39) and second channels (the three larger middle channels 108L”, Fig. 2E) include the adhesive disposed on the backside in a second coat weight (Column 12, lines 14-18) and the backside of the label further includes third channels (108R”, Fig. 2E) that are devoid of' any of the adhesive (column 12, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 3, the adhesive disclosed by Crum is a hot melt adhesive. See column 10, lines 33-36.
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 2E shows that each of the first and second channels are separated by a third channel.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crum (11,559,975) in view of Hansen et al. (2003/0089452).
Crum discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Crum does not specifically disclose that the label is a linerless label. Hansen teaches a linerless label (4, Fig. 1, paragraph 0075). 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 label disclosed by Crum a linerless label, as taught by Hansen, to avoid having to dispose of a liner after the label is installed.
Claims 4-7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crum (11,559,975).
Regarding claim 4, Crum discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Crum does not disclose that the second channels cover more area on the backside of the label than the first channels. 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 second channels cover more area than the first channels because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size, shape or proportion of a component, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV).
Regarding claim 5, Crum discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Crum does not disclose that the third channels cover less area on the backside of the label than the first channels. 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 third channels cover less area than the first channels because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size, shape or proportion of a component, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV).
Regarding claim 6, although Crum discloses that the third channels are located away from the side edges (Fig. 2E), It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position two of the third channels at the side edges because merely shifting the position of an element, when such a shift does not affect the operation of the device, has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 7, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the first one of the third channels adjacent to one of the first channels, and the second one of the third channels adjacent to another first channel because merely shifting the position of an element, when such a shift does not affect the operation of the device, has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 9, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two sets of three of the second channels because it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 10, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate each set of second channels adjacent to a given third channel along a first side, and the give3n third channel further adjacent to a given first channel because merely shifting the position of an element, when such a shift does not affect the operation of the device, has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 11, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide three first channels, each adjacent to a third channel, and a third channel being further adjacent to a side edge because it has been held that mere duplication of parts (the three first channels) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B), and because merely shifting the position of an element, when such a shift does not affect the operation of the device, has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 12, 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 first coat weight 20 gsm and the second coat weight 12 gsm because it has been held that optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 13, 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 first channels cover approximately 42.8% of the total backside area, the second channels cover approximately 46.2% of the total backside area, and the third channels cover approximately 11% of the total backside area because it has been held that optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
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