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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on December 29, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-14 and 21 are cancelled; claims 15, 20, and 22 are amended; claim 28 is withdrawn; resulting in claims 15-20 and 22-27 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, it is suggested to amend the limitation reciting “wherein a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) of the pressure sensitive adhesive layer: … (b) an adhesive force…” to --wherein a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) of the pressure sensitive adhesive layer: … (b) has an adhesive force…--. The amendment to claim 15 in the claimed set filed 12/29/2025 renders this limitation unclear due to removal of the word “has”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the limitations reciting “wherein the polymeric film is dimensionally and thermally stable and is a polymeric film having a density of 1 g/m3 or less at 25°C” (claim 24) and “wherein the polymeric film comprises polypropylene (PP) and/or polyethylene (PE)” (claim 25) are not adequately supported in combination with the newly added limitation in claim 15 reciting “wherein the polymeric film shrinks when subjected to heat”.
In looking to the instant specification, in one embodiment, the polymeric film is said to be elongated in at least one direction and shrinks when subjected to heat, wherein the polymeric film in this embodiment preferably comprises or consists of PET or PVC. (p. 6, Ln 26-p. 6, Ln 4). In another embodiment, the polymeric film has not been elongated and is therefore not shrinkable, i.e., is a dimensionally stable and thermally stable polymeric film, wherein the polymeric film in this embodiment preferably has a density equal to or less than 1 g/cm3 at 25°C and is, for example, PP or PE (p. 6, Ln 5-9). Based on this disclosure, the instant specification is understood to set forth two mutually exclusive embodiments: (1) in which the polymeric film is heat-shrinkable (e.g., made of PET or PVC), and (2) in which the polymeric film is dimensionally and thermally stable and is not heat-shrinkable (e.g., made of PP or PE).
The instant specification therefore does not disclose an embodiment in which the polymeric film shrinks when subjected to heat (as required by claim 1), and in which the polymeric film is dimensionally and thermally stable (as required by claim 24) or in which the polymeric film comprises PP and/or PE (as required by claim 25).
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 15-20 and 22-27 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 claims 15 and 23, the limitations reciting “wherein a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) of the pressure sensitive layer: … (b) [has] an adhesive force less than a shrink force of the polymer film” (claim 15) and “the PSA adhesive exhibits an adhesive force less than the shrink force of the polymeric film” (claim 23) are indefinite because it is not clear exactly what features are required by the claim.
In particular, it is not understood how an “adhesive force” can be directly compared to a “shrink force”, as these are two different types of measurements. In looking to the instant specification at page 10, lines 22-24, the PSA adhesive is said to exhibit a force of adhesion to the container less than the shrink force of the polymeric film, wherein “shrink force” refers to the force exerted by the film on the adhesive in its heat-shrinkage action. It is noted, however, that the claim does not indicate what type of material/substrate is used when measuring the adhesive force. The claim also does not specify any conditions or parameters under which the shrink force property is measured.
Because of this, for a given PSA adhesive and a given polymer film, the adhesive force may be less than the shrink force when measured under one set of conditions (e.g., when adhered to a low surface energy substrate and when subjected to high-temperature heat shrinkage), but the adhesive force may be greater than the shrink force when measured under a different set of conditions (e.g., when adhered to a corona-treated substrate and when subjected to low-temperature heat shrinkage). The claimed relationship between the adhesive force of the PSA adhesive and the shrink force of the polymer film are not properties that are intrinsic to the label itself but rather depend on the external conditions to which the label is subjected.
It is not clear based on the instant specification what materials/features are suitable for achieving the claimed relationship between the adhesive force and shrink force. Absent further clarification from the Applicant, for the purpose of applying prior art, any label having a polymeric film which exhibits heat-shrinking properties under any conditions is interpreted to meet the claimed limitation, given that the label can be adhered to a substrate having low compatibility with the PSA adhesive such that the adhesive force is decreased to satisfy the claimed relationship.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation reciting “wherein the polymeric film is dimensionally and thermally stable” is indefinite in view of the newly added limitation in claim 15 reciting “wherein the polymeric film shrinks when subjected to heat”.
A material being “dimensionally stable” is understood to mean that the material keeps its shape and exact dimensions throughout the manufacturing process and during use, even in adverse or extreme environmental conditions (see https://www.newprocess.com/dimensional-stability-in-plastics-key-factors-and-materials/, p. 1). Temperature can also impact dimensional stability, as both high and low temperatures can make some plastics expand or contract (p. 2). A material being “thermally stable” is similarly understood to mean that the material is resistant to degradation or changes in its physical, chemical, and mechanical properties when exposed to high temperatures over time.
It is therefore not clear how a polymeric film can be both shrinkable upon being subjected to heat and dimensionally and thermally stable, as the definition of dimensional and thermal stability contradicts the ability of a material to shrink (i.e., change dimensions) upon exposure to high temperatures. For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 24 will be interpreted only as requiring that the polymeric film has a density of 1 g/cm3 or less at 25°C.
Regarding claims 16-20, 22, and 25-27, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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 15, 17-20, 22, 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Caylus (US 2011/0033700, previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Caylus teaches wash-off labels comprising a filmic layer and at least one pressure sensitive adhesive layer, wherein the film layer is quickly released from a glass or plastic substrate under appropriate conditions prior to a recycling process (Abstract, [0002]).
The filmic layer (bilayer) may be formed of a multi-layer construction comprising two to ten or more layers, wherein a wide variety of materials may be used to form the filmic layer, including paper and polymeric compositions ([0010]-[0012]), such that the filmic layer may comprise at least one paper layer coupled to at least one polymeric film. Caylus teaches that the filmic layer, or at least the layer of the multilayer film bearing the adhesive layer, may be treated before application of the adhesive layer, for example, by corona treatment, flame pretreatment, plasma pretreatment, or with the aid of an adhesion-promoting intermediate layer [0018]. Caylus further teaches that the filmic layer having a multi-layer construction can include one or more stressed films, such as monoaxially or biaxially stretched PET or PVC, which will curl and aid in pulling the label away from the glass or plastic substrate when subjected to suitable wash-off conditions ([0010], [0017]). The polymeric film therefore shrinks when subjected to heat.
The wash-off label comprises at least one pressure sensitive adhesive layer formed by drying an aqueous polymer dispersion, wherein acrylic monomers are preferred for preparing latex polymers to be used as pressure sensitive adhesive compositions ([0019], [0022]). The wash-off label formed from a filmic layer and the PSA layer formed by drying an aqueous polymer dispersion has a property in which the label releases from a glass substrate in 2 minutes or less when soaked in water at a pH of 13 and 80°C, wherein the wash solution may be formed from a 1.5% to 2% solution of NaOH in water ([0005], [0038], [0042]). The pressure sensitive adhesive layer therefore satisfies the claimed wash-off properties set forth under condition a).
Regarding claim 17, Caylus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above and further teaches that the film layers in the filmic layer having a multilayer construction can be bonded to one another by means of a lamination adhesive [0017].
Regarding claim 18, Caylus teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 above and further teaches that the PSA is quickly removable under moderate wash conditions, such as when soaked in water at a pH of 13 at 80°C [0005]. Given that the PSA is designed to be easily removable from the article under certain wash-off conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the adhesion strength between the PSA adhesive and an article to which the label is applied is designed to be less than the adhesion strength of the lamination adhesive (i.e., between the paper layer and the polymeric film of the bilayer), in particular, when the label is subjected to the designated wash-off conditions.
Regarding claims 19, 20, 22, and 25, Caylus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. As noted above, Caylus teaches that the filmic layer having a multi-layer construction can include one or more stressed films, such as monoaxially or biaxially stretched PET or PVC, which will curl and aid in pulling the label away from the glass or plastic substrate when subjected to suitable wash-off conditions (when subjected to heat and when subjected to washing in a basic solution at a temperature between 20 and 100°C) ([0010], [0017]). Caylus teaches that the shrinkable film can be used for only one or less than all of the layers in the multilayer film, and that the multilayer film can further include a non-shrinking film, such as a polyethylene or polypropylene film ([0010], [0017]).
Regarding claim 23, Caylus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above and further teaches that in multi-layer films, it may be advantageous for one or more of the layers that are not the layer in contact with the PSA to be made of shrinkably-stretched polymers, such as monoaxially or biaxially stretched PVC, which will curl and aid in pulling the label away from the substrate when subjected to suitable wash-off conditions ([0010], [0017]). Caylus therefore teaches a shrinkable polymeric film which satisfies the claimed relationship between the adhesive force of the adhesive and the shrink force of the polymeric film, in particular, when the adhesive is attached to a substrate with which it has low compatibility.
Regarding claim 26, Caylus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above and further teaches that the adhesion-promoting intermediate layer may contain chlorinated polyolefins, chlorinated rubber, ethylene/vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer, or polymerized ethylene/acrylamide comonomers [0018].
Claims 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mitchell et al. (US 2012/0199274, cited on IDS and ISR).
Regarding claim 15, Mitchell et al. teaches a wash-off label used in labelling of reusable containers, wherein the label (3; self-adhesive label) comprises a facestock (2; bilayer), a first adhesive layer (4; intermediate layer) comprising a hot-melt adhesive or a tackifier, and a second adhesive layer (8; PSA layer) comprising an acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive ([0007]-[0011]). As shown in Fig. 1b, the first adhesive layer is placed between the facestock and the second adhesive layer. Mitchell et al. teaches that the facestock of the label may comprise plastic film and/or paper ([0086], [0108]), such that the bilayer comprises a paper layer coupled to a polymeric film. In particular, Mitchell et al. teaches that the facestock may comprise a mono- or biaxially oriented heat-shrinkable polyester (PET) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) film ([0006], [0091]), such that the polymeric film shrinks when subjected to heat.
Mitchell et al. teaches that the label is a wash-off label, in that it may be easily removed from an item, wherein the contact area may be substantially free from adhesive residue after removal of the label even without additional mechanical brushing or washing with high-pressure jets [0027]. In particular, Mitchell et al. teaches that the wash-off properties of the label comply with industrial requirements, where the wash-off time in a solution of 1.5% caustic soda at 80°C is in the range of 60 to 120 seconds [0082]. The pressure sensitive adhesive layer therefore satisfies the claimed wash-off properties set forth under condition a).
Regarding claims 19 and 25, Mitchell et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. As noted above, Mitchell et al. teaches that the facestock may comprise a mono- or biaxially oriented heat-shrinkable polyester (PET) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) film, and further teaches that the facestock may comprise a non-shrinkable plastic film such as polypropylene ([0089], [0091]).
Regarding claims 20 and 22, Mitchell et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. As noted above, Mitchell et al. teaches that the facestock may comprise a mono- or biaxially oriented heat-shrinkable polyester (PET) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) film [0091]. Mitchell et al. teaches that the PET or PVC heat-shrinkable plastic film shrinks under typical washing conditions of 80-85°C in an alkaline solution [0006]. Therefore, Mitchell et al. teaches that the plastic film shrinks when subjected to washing in a basic solution at a temperature between 20°C and 100°C.
Regarding claim 23, Mitchell et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15. As noted above, Mitchell et al. teaches that the facestock may comprise a mono- or biaxially oriented heat-shrinkable polyester (PET) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) film ([0006], [0091]). Mitchell et al. therefore teaches a shrinkable polymeric film which satisfies the claimed relationship between the adhesive force of the PSA adhesive and the shrink force of the polymeric film, in particular, when the second adhesive layer (8; PSA layer) is attached to a substrate with which it has low compatibility.
Regarding claim 27, Mitchell et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above and further teaches that the second adhesive layer (8; PSA layer) may be covered with a release liner (6) ([0041], [0046], Fig. 1b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caylus (US 2011/0033700, previously cited) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kot et al. (US 2020/0199415, previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, Caylus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above but does not expressly teach that the paper layer is a non-fragile paper layer, having a tensile strength of at least 1.8 kN/m.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive labels, Kot et al. teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive label (LAB1) comprising a paper face layer (FLR1), an adhesive layer (ADH1), and a release liner (REL1) ([0082], [0092]-[0095], Fig. 1). A paper face layer comprising a water-soluble binder may soften or delaminate upon label manufacturing, which may render the label unsuitable for the end application [0083]. Typical parameter values for a paper which is suitable for a face layer of a recycling compatible label include a tensile strength in the range of 4.5 to 6 kN/m [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wash-off labels taught by Caylus by using a paper layer which is non-fragile and has a tensile strength within the claimed range, as taught by Kot et al., in order to ensure that the label has sufficient strength to remain intact during manufacturing and subsequent handling. Furthermore, it is noted that Kot et al. teaches a tensile strength for the paper layer which falls within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caylus (US 2011/0033700, previously cited) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Karhu et al. (US 2018/0265747, previously cited).
Regarding claim 24, Caylus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above but differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach a density of the polymeric film.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive labels, Karhu et al. teaches a label (1) comprising a face layer (2) and an adhesive layer (4), wherein the label is attached to an item (100) via the adhesive layer ([0067], [0081], Figs. 1-3). The item to which the label is attached may be a container, such as a PET bottle used in the beverage industry, wherein the labels are designed to be easily removed from the surface of the container during conventional washing processes to allow efficient recycling of the bottle ([0002]-[0003]). In particular, the face layer of the label may include paper, plastic film, or a combination thereof, wherein a plastic film of the face layer preferably has a density below 1 g/cm3 so that the label will float during the washing process while the PET bottle sinks, allowing for efficient recovery and recycling of the PET bottle ([0069], [0073]).
Given that Caylus similarly teaches that the labels may be used on glass or polyethylene bottles ([0003], [0033]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wash-off labels taught by Caylus by setting a density of the polymeric film within the claimed range, as taught by Karhu et al., in order to enable efficient recovery and recycling of the label and the article from which the label is separated.
Regarding claim 27, Caylus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above but does not expressly teach that the label further comprises a liner applied to the PSA adhesive.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive labels, Karhu et al. teaches a label (1) comprising a face layer (2), an adhesive layer (4), and a release liner (6) which includes a backing material layer (10) and a release coating layer (12) ([0058], [0068], Fig. 2). Karhu et al. teaches that the release liner is used to protect the adhesive layer and to allow easier handling of the label until the label is adhered to the surface of an item [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wash-off labels taught by Caylus by including a release liner applied to the PSA adhesive, as taught by Karhu et al., in order to protect the adhesive layer until the time of application of the label to an article.
Claims 17, 18, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US 2012/0199274, cited on IDS and ISR) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Henderson (US 2012/0018098, previously cited).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Mitchell et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above but does not expressly teach that the paper layer and the polymeric film are coupled using a lamination adhesive.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive labels, Henderson teaches a label comprising a first film layer (12), a second film layer (22), and an adhesive layer (14) made of a pressure-sensitive adhesive ([0024], [0028], [0035], Figs. 1B-1E). Henderson teaches that multilayer films of the label can include a tie layer or lamination adhesive layer (26) located between the first and second film layers which functions to improve adherence between the two film layers ([0037], Figs. 1D-1E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wash-off label taught by Mitchell et al. by including a lamination adhesive between the multiple layers of the facestock, as taught by Henderson, in order to improve adherence therebetween. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a lamination adhesive having higher adhesion strength than the PSA adhesive taught by Mitchell et al., given that the PSA is designed to be easily removable from (i.e., to have low adhesion strength with) an article when subjected to certain wash-off conditions.
Regarding claim 26, Mitchell et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above but does not expressly teach that the intermediate layer comprises one of the claimed materials.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive labels, Henderson teaches a label comprising a first film layer (12) and/or a second film layer (22) and an adhesive layer (14) made of a pressure-sensitive adhesive ([0024], [0028], [0035], Figs. 1A-1E). Henderson teaches that the film can be treated on one or both of its surfaces to enhance performance, e.g., to include abrasion resistance, moisture resistance, or adhesion of an ink or adhesive to a surface of the film [0041]. Surface treatments include a corona discharge treatment, a flame treatment, a plasma treatment, or a topcoat treatment, wherein the topcoat treatments include adhesive-receptive materials such as an acrylic primer [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wash-off label taught by Mitchell et al. by applying a surface treatment comprising an acrylic primer on the facestock prior to depositing the adhesive, as taught by Henderson, in order to improve the adhesion between the facestock and the adhesive layer.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 15 and 20 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed December 29, 2025. However, in light of the amendments to claim 15, a new claim objection is raised in the office action above.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 15 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and by dependency claims 16-20, 22, and 24-27 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention are maintained in the office action above.
On page 5 of the remarks filed December 29, 2025, the Applicant notes that claim 15 is amended to clarify the claim language, such that the indefiniteness rejections are overcome. Although claim 15 has been amended to recite “wherein the polymeric film shrinks when subjected to heat”, the limitation in clause (b) of claim 15 directed to a relationship between an adhesive force of the PSA and a shrink force of the polymeric film remains indefinite for the reasons presented above. Further clarification from the Applicant is respectfully requested.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-9 of the remarks filed December 29, 2025, with respect to amended claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejections based on Caylus, the Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the remarks that Caylus does not teach or disclose a layer of paper coupled to a polymeric film, and that the only indication of a shrinkable film is used for only one layer, particularly the lowermost film layer, and the other layers would be non-shrinking film. Therefore, the Applicant argues that there is no teaching or disclosure of an intermediate layer placed between the polymeric film and the PSA adhesive and/or that the polymeric film is treated with a corona treatment on a surface opposite to a surface of lamination to the at least one paper layer, wherein the polymeric film shrinks when subjected to heat.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above, Caylus teaches that the filmic layer used to form the wash-off label may be formed of a multi-layer construction [0010]. A wide variety of materials may be used to form the filmic layer, including paper and polymeric compositions ([0010]), thus suggesting the use of a paper layer and a polymeric film. The material may be surface treated by, for example, corona discharge, flame, plasma, etc. to provide the surfaces with desirable properties such as improved adhesion to subsequently applied layers, where procedures for corona and flame treating of polymeric films are well known in the art [0011]. Caylus therefore teaches that the polymeric film may be treated with a corona, flame, or plasma treatment. Caylus further teaches that it is possible to use a shrinkably-stretched film for only one (or less than all) of the layers in the multilayer film, in particular the lowermost film layer (i.e., the layer closest to the adhesive layer), and for one or more of the other layers to use a non-shrinking film [0017].
Therefore, the layer in contact with the PSA layer, which is corona, flame, or plasma treated prior to application of the PSA layer thereto, is a heat-shrinkable polymeric film, while the layer(s) arranged on a surface of the heat-shrinkable polymeric film opposite the surface on which the PSA layer is formed are preferably non-shrinking film(s) (e.g., a paper layer, a non-shrinkable polymeric layer). In the case where one or more non-shrinkable polymeric layers are arranged between the shrinkable polymeric film and the paper layer, all of the polymeric layers together may be taken to correspond to the claimed polymeric film, which is shrinkable upon being subjected to heat as a result of the one heat-shrinkable layer.
The Applicant further argues on page 7 of the remarks that Caylus does not teach or disclose Applicant’s claimed multi-layer label because the detachment mechanism is different from Applicant’s claimed self-adhesive layer.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a detachment mechanism) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. As explained above, Caylus discloses all of the features of the claimed self-adhesive label, anticipating the claimed invention. The Applicant’s arguments do not specifically identify any features of the claimed invention that are not satisfied by the prior art, and are thus not persuasive.
With respect to the rejections based on Mitchell et al., the Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of the remarks that Mitchell does not teach or disclose a layer of paper coupled to a polymeric film, nor does it describe the fact that the polymeric film is treated with a corona, flame, or plasma treatment on the surface opposite that coupled to the paper layer. Rather, the Applicant argues that the corresponding label in Mitchell has a layer of paper or plastic (2) directly coupled to a layer of adhesive (4). The Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is directed to one layer of PSA, whereas the Mitchell product features two adjacent layers of PSA adhesive.
These arguments are not persuasive. With respect to the limitation requiring that the polymeric film is treated with a corona treatment, a flame treatment, or a plasma treatment, it is noted that this limitation is recited alternatively (i.e., “and/or”) with the limitation requiring that the label comprises an intermediate layer placed between the polymeric film and the PSA adhesive, capable of promoting adhesion of the PSA adhesive to the polymeric film. As explained in the rejections above, the first adhesive layer (4) in Mitchell et al. corresponds to the claimed intermediate layer which is placed between the polymeric film in the facestock (2) and the second adhesive layer (8) comprising a PSA adhesive. The alternative limitation directed to a corona, flame, or plasma treatment on the polymeric film is therefore not required by the claim, given that the limitations directed to the intermediate layer are satisfied. Mitchell et al. further teaches that the facestock (2) may comprise plastic film and/or paper ([0086], [0108]), thus suggesting the use of a bilayer comprising a paper layer coupled to a polymeric film (i.e., plastic film and paper).
With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention is directed to one layer of PSA, whereas the Mitchell product features two adjacent layers of PSA adhesive, it is noted that the claim does not expressly preclude the presence of a second adhesive arranged between the polymeric film and the PSA adhesive. Rather, the claim does positively recite that an intermediate layer is placed between the polymeric film and the PSA adhesive, wherein the intermediate layer is capable of promoting adhesion of the PSA adhesive to the polymeric film. An adhesive layer interposed between the PSA adhesive and the polymeric film therefore falls within the scope of the claimed intermediate layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Achatz et al. (US 2024/0318051) teaches adhesive labels comprising a backing material and a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer attached to the first side of the backing material, wherein the backing material is made of a polymeric film, paper, or a polymeric film/paper laminate, wherein corona treatment or a primer may be used between the polymeric film and the adhesive coating, and wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is made of an aqueous PSA composition that can be removed from a substrate by washing with an aqueous solution comprising 1-2 wt% sodium hydroxide at a temperature of about 65°C ([0007], [0017], [0033], [0076], [0085]-[0086]).
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785