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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated June 3, 2026.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 – 5, 7, and 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Napierala (USPN 10,056,013 B1) in view of Wild (USPGPub 2015/0159034 A1).
Napierala discloses liner-label combination (Figures; Abstract) comprising: a liner with a release coating on a front side (Figure 2, #42; Column 2, lines 60 – 62); and a label with an adhesive coating on a back side (Column 2, lines 63 – 65), the label being initially adhered to the liner (Figure 2, #42 and 50); wherein the label includes a die cut portion allowing for removal from the label (Column 3, lines 12 – 22); wherein the liner includes die cut features that correspond to the die cut portion of the label (Column 3, lines 12 – 22); 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 5; Column 4, lines 20 – 28); 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 5; Column 4, lines 20 – 28); wherein the die cut features comprise a plurality of tabs arranged at intervals across a width direction of the liner (Figure 4, #80), with regions between adjacent tabs remaining in the liner after label removal to maintain tensile strength of the liner in an arrangement direction (Figure 4, #80); wherein a front side of the die cut features includes the release coating such that, when the die cut features are removed with the label and applied to the object, the front side of the die cut features does not adhere to the object, thereby preserving an active adhesive surface on the label for subsequent re-application (Column 2, lines 61 to Column 3, lines 11; Column 4, lines 20 – 28) 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 (Column 2, lines 61 to Column 3, lines 11; Column 4, lines 20 – 28). Regarding claim 4, a waste liner represented by the liner after the label has been removed and applied to the object (Figure 4; Column 4, lines 10 – 19). 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 (Figure 2, #80 and 60). 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 (Column 2, lines 53 – 55). As in claim 9, the label is configured to be applied to objects with a curved surface without wrinkling (Abstract, 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 3, lines 4 – 11). Regarding claim 11, the label is configured to be applied to objects in a high-speed automated labeling process (Column 2, lines 20 – 24; Abstract). However, Napierala 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 Napierala in order have an environmentally friendly release material as taught by Wild.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Napierala (USPN 10,056,013 B1) in view of Wild (USPGPub 2015/0159034 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Milson (USPN 8,507,065).
Napierala, as modified with Wild, discloses the claimed invention except for the label includes a printed area on the front side, the printed area being configured to receive thermal, laser, or inkjet printing.
Milson teaches a label (Figures; Abstract), wherein the label includes a printed area on the front side, the printed area being configured to receive thermal printing (Column 7, lines 37 – 49) for the purpose of providing information to the user (Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have thermal printing on print area in the modified Napierala in order to provide information to the user as taught by Milson.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Napierala (USPN 10,056,013 B1) in view of Wild (USPGPub 2015/0159034 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chigot (USPN 5,484,168).
Napierala, 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 Napierala 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 Napierala (USPN 10,056,013 B1) 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).
Napierala, 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 Napierala 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 with respect to claims 2 – 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to teach or suggest the newly presented claim limitation of “a front side of the die cut features includes the water-based release coating substantially free of silicone such that, when the die cut features are removed with the label and applied to the object, the front side of the die cut features does not adhere to the object, thereby preserving an active adhesive surface on the label for subsequent re-application”, please see the newly presented rejection in view of Napierala.
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 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 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights