DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the prior art teaches the label of claim 1, it does not teach or reasonably suggest such a label of claim 5 adhered to a package with the specific geometry set forth in claim 10.
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 1-2, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyajima et al., JP2005119745 (A), cited herein according to a machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Miyajima teaches a label comprising base film that may be “essentially non-shrinkable” (3 of Fig. 2, [0029]) and a laminate body (5 of Fig. 2) disposed on the surface of the base film, the laminate body comprising a heat-shrinkable film (62 of Fig. 2) and a thermal layer (7 of Fig. 2) that is intended to generate heat when exposed to microwaves ([0017]). Miyajima further teaches that the label may include notches (9 of Fig. 2) and that upon exposure to microwaves, the notches extend to penetrate through the base film 3 ([0020]). Regarding the limitation in claim 1 referring to the “back side” of the base film 3, note that either side of the base film 3 may be arbitrarily regarded as being the “back” side. Regarding the limitation in claim 1 stating that the label is “configured to be adhered to a film which seals a mouth of a container with the laminated body on the back surface side of the base film facing the film sealing the mouth of the container,” the limitation cannot distinguish the claimed invention from that of Miyajima because the claim is directed to the label per say, and it is unclear how a label that was configured to be adhered in the claimed manner would differ structurally from the label of Miyajima.
Regarding claim 2, Miyajima depicts the thermal layer (7 of Fig. 2) as positioned between the base film (3 of Fig. 2) and the heat-shrinkable film (62 of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Miyajima depicts the thermal layer (7 of Fig. 2) as positioned on one surface of the heat-shrinkable film (62 of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Miyajima depicts the base film (3 of Fig. 2) as having a greater area than the laminate body (5 of Fig. 2) and extending beyond the outer peripheral edges of the laminate body.
Regarding claim 8, Miyajima teaches that the thermal layer 7 may be formed from a thermal ink ([0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Miyajima depicts the notches 9 as extending along the direction of the plane of the shrinkable film 62 (ie, extending along a direction that intersects the direction that film 62 will shrink in when heated).
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.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyajima et al., JP2005119745 (A), as applied above.
Regarding claim 3, Miyajima teaches a label as discussed above. The teachings of Miyajima differ from the present invention in that Miyajima does not teach that the heat-shrinkable film is positioned between the base film and the thermal layer, instead depicting the thermal layer as positioned between the heat-shrinkable film and the base film. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the heat-shrinkable film and the thermal layer could be positioned in any orientation relative to the base film so long as the heat-shrinkable film was in contact with the thermal layer. The claimed orientation of the heat-shrinkable film and thermal layer relative to the base film cannot distinguish the claimed invention from that of Miyajima because the claimed orientation constitutes a reversal or rearrangement of parts that is prima facie obvious in view of the product of Miyajima (MPEP 2144.04 VI).
Regarding claim 4, although Miyajima does not explicitly teach the use of an adhesive for attaching the thermal layer to the heat-shrinkable layer, Miyajima teaches that the thermal layer may be attached with “adhesion” to the heat-shrinkable layer ([0017]), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to imply the use of an adhesive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an adhesive to attach the thermal layer to the heat-shrinkable layer in the product of Miyajima, as doing so would be consistent with Miyajima’s teaching of “adhesion.”
Regarding claims 5, 6, 8, and 9, Miyajima teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above.
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of Miyajima differ from the present invention in that although Miyajima teaches that the wrapping film 3 (corresponding to the claimed “base film”) may comprise multiple layers ([0032]), Miyajima does not specifically teach a second layer that extends beyond the outer peripheral edges of the first layer. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the shape of the base film in the product of Miyajima as necessary to accommodate the specific shape of the product being packaged and to achieve the desired decorative effect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-27-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Miyajima does not teach a label that is configured to be adhered in the claimed manner. This is unpersuasive because, as discussed above, it is unclear how a label that was configured to be adhered in the claimed manner would differ in structure from the label of Miyajima.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that the claimed configuration is not an obvious rearrangement of parts or reversal of parts in view of the product of Miyajima. This argument is unpersuasive because, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the heat-shrinkable film and the thermal layer could be positioned in any orientation relative to the base film so long as the heat-shrinkable film was in contact with the thermal layer.
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 Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights