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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17, 2026 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated February 17, 2026. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments.
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 2 – 7 and 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milson (USPN 8,507,065) in view of Wild (USPGPub 2015/0159034 A1).
Milson discloses liner-label combination (Figures; Abstract) comprising: a liner with a release coating on a front side (Figures 1 and 4, #1); and a label with an adhesive coating on a back side (Figure 1 and 4, #2 and 3), the label being initially adhered to the liner (Figures 1 and 4); wherein the label includes a die cut portion allowing for removal from the label (Figures 1 and 4, #21); wherein the liner includes die cut features that correspond to the die cut portion of the label (Figure 2, #12); wherein the label is configured to be removed from the liner and applied to an object, with the die cut features of the liner facilitating the removal and application of the label (Figure 10, #6); wherein the die cut features are removed with the label creating voids in the liner, and wherein a backside of the die cut features lack an adhesive coating (Figure 6; Column 7, lines 11 – 25); wherein the die cut features comprise a plurality of tabs arranged at intervals across a width direction of the liner (Figure 2, #12), with regions between adjacent tabs remaining in the liner after label removal to maintain tensile strength of the liner in an arrangement direction (Abstract; Column 6, lines 13 – 50) as in claim 2. With respect to claim 3, the die cut portion of the label is configured to form a secondary label that is removable from a primary label after application to the object (Figure 10, #21). Regarding claim 4, a waste liner represented by the liner after the label has been removed and applied to the object (Figures 6 – 11). For claim 5, the die cut features of the liner define a channel that aligns with the die cut portion of the label when the label is adhered to the liner (Figures 1 and 4, 12 and 21). In claim 6, the label includes a printed area on the front side, the printed area being configured to receive thermal printing (Column 7, lines 37 – 49). With regard to claim 7, the adhesive coating on the back side of the label is a pressure-sensitive adhesive that allows for repositioning of the label on the object after initial application (Abstract). As in claim 9, the label is configured to be applied to objects with a curved surface without wrinkling (Figure 7 and 8, wherein the labels are store on a roll, a curved surface, without wrinkles). With respect to claim 10, the die cut features of the liner include perforations that facilitate the removal of the label from the liner (Column 5, lines 8 – 39). Regarding claim 11, the label is configured to be applied to objects in a high-speed automated labeling process (Column 1, lines 16 – 23). However, Milson fails to disclose a water-based release coating substantially free of silicone.
Wild teaches a water-based release coating substantially free of silicone (Paragraphs 0008 – 0010 and 0022 – 0024) as part of a label (Figures; Abstract) for the purpose of having an environmentally friendly release material (Paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have water-based release coating substantially free of silicone in Milson in order have an environmentally friendly release material as taught by Wild.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milson (USPN 8,507,065) in view of Wild (USPGPub 2015/0159034 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chigot (USPN 5,484,168).
Milson, as modified with Wild, discloses the claimed invention except for the liner is composed of a material selected from the group consisting of paper, plastic, and composite materials.
Chigot teaches a label (Figures; Abstract) liner is composed of a material selected from the group consisting of paper, plastic, and composite materials (Column 3, lines 11 – 20) for the purpose of covering the adhesive of the label so it does not stick to unwanted surfaces (Column 1, lines 26 – 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a liner of paper in the modified Milson in order cover the adhesive of the label so it does not stick to unwanted surfaces as taught by Chigot.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milson (USPN 8,507,065) in view of Wild (USPGPub 2015/0159034 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dronzek et al. (USPGPub 2003/0008082).
Milson, as modified with Wild, discloses the claimed invention except for the label is configured to be transparent or translucent, allowing for visibility of a surface of the object through the label after application.
Dronzek et al. teach a the label is configured to be transparent or translucent (Abstract), allowing for visibility of a surface of the object through the label after application (Paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a transparent or translucent label in the modified Milson in order to allow for visibility of a surface of the object through the label after application as taught by Dronzek et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Milson Does Not Disclose a Water-Based Release Coating Substantially Free of Silicone”, please see the newly presented rejection in view of Wild. Wild teaches a water-based release coating substantially free of silicone (Paragraphs 0008 – 0010 and 0022 – 0024) as part of a label (Figures; Abstract) for the purpose of having an environmentally friendly release material (Paragraph 0021).
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Milson Does Not Disclose the Specific Tab Arrangement for Maintaining Tensile Strength”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Milson the die cut features comprise a plurality of tabs arranged at intervals across a width direction of the liner (Figure 2, #12), with regions between adjacent tabs remaining in the liner after label removal to maintain tensile strength of the liner in an arrangement direction (Abstract; Column 6, lines 13 – 50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited to show the state of the art with regard to water-based release coating substantially free of silicone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patricia L Nordmeyer whose telephone number is (571)272-1496. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6:30pm EST, Monday - 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Patricia L. Nordmeyer/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/pln/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 March 3, 2026