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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 11, 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Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated May 11, 2026.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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 contains the same limitations that have been added to claim 1 in an amendment. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1 and 3 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Boom et al. (USPN 9,058,753) in view of Vigunas et al. (USPN 8,445,104) and Wild et al. (USPGPub 2015/0361305 A1).
Van Boom et al. disclose a roll of linerless labels (Column 2, lines 11 – 15), comprising: a substrate (Column 15, lines 39 – 41); and an adhesive patch disposed on a backside of the substrate, wherein the adhesive patch disposed in a pattern of an adhesive on the backside, wherein the pattern repeats along the backside (Column 15, lines 48 – 51; Column 5, line 19 to Column 6, line 60), and wherein the adhesive is a microsphere adhesive with a particle size of between 10-250 or 20-350 microns (Column 16, lines 10 – 14) having a solids of at least 25% (Column 7, lines 24 – 27), wherein the pattern enables a consistent and continuous contact with a platen roller of a printer as the platen roller advances the label media through the printer to ensure consistent pull and energy exerted by the printer as the label media proceeds through a printer web path (Column 5, lines 29 to Column 7, line 24) ; wherein the pattern minimizes adhesive buildup on components of the printer when the roll of labels is fed through the printer without decreasing adhesive bonding characteristics of labels dispensed from the printer (Column 7, line 49 to Column 8, line 30; Column 2, lines 19 – 31); wherein each label within the roll is repositionable based on the microsphere adhesive on a corresponding backside of a corresponding label (Column 5, lines 19 – 27); wherein the adhesive patch enables a cutting mechanism of the printer to cut through the label substrate cleanly while minimizing adhesive debris on the cutting mechanism (Column 5, lines 56 – 67), the pattern may be applied in various shapes including diamond shaped adhesive areas (Column 5, lines 29 – 36) as in claim 1. Regarding claim 3, the roll further comprising, a release coating applied atop a thermal print coating on a front side of the substrate, wherein the release coating comprises a water-based release coating (Column 15, lines 39 – 61; Column 4, lines 53 – 67). For claim 5, the substrate comprises a stock weight of greater than or equal to 50 gsm (grams per square meter) (Column 4, lines 50 – 52). In claim 6, a coverage area of the microsphere adhesive within the pattern is between 30% and 70% of a total surface area of the backside that corresponds to any given label defined within the roll (Column 6, lines 24 – 35). With regard to claim 10, each label within the roll is repositionable based on the microsphere adhesive on a corresponding backside of a corresponding label (Column 5, lines 19 – 28). As in claim 12, a thermally activated print coating on a front side of the substrate; and a release coating disposed atop the thermally activated print coating (Column 15, lines 39 – 61; Column 4, lines 53 – 67). Van Boom et al. further disclose a linerless label (Column 2, lines 11 – 15) comprising: a substrate (Column 15, lines 39 – 41); and at least one adhesive patch disposed on a backside in a pattern (Column 15, lines 48 – 51; Column 5, line 19 to Column 6, line 60), wherein the adhesive patch comprises microspheres with a solids ranges of at least 25% and a microsphere particle size of between 10-250 or 20-350 microns (Column 16, lines 10 – 14); a thermally activated print coating disposed on a front side of the substrate; a release coating disposed atop or over the thermally activated print coating Column 15, lines 39 – 61; Column 4, lines 53 – 67); wherein the pattern minimizes a coverage area of the adhesive along the backside of the substrate associated with the at least one adhesive patch and minimizes adhesive contact with components of a printer when the linerless label is fed through the printer (Column 5, lines 29 – 60); wherein the adhesive patch enables a cutting mechanism of the printer to cut through the label substrate cleanly while minimizing adhesive debris on the cutting mechanism (Column 5, lines 56 – 67); wherein the pattern and adhesive formulation provide characteristics for sufficient high tack and aggressive adhesives while mitigating printer adhesive buildup, jams, and other printer malfunctions caused by adhesive buildup on printer components (Column 7, line 49 to Column 8, line 30; Column 2, lines 19 – 31); wherein the adhesive formulation is repositionable and semi-permanent, which enhances recyclability and enhances functionality of the linerless label by enabling the linerless label to be removed and reapplied to support multiple applications of the linerless label to objects, packages, and surfaces (Column 5, lines 19 – 28); wherein the pattern enables a consistent and continuous contact with a platen roller of a printer as the platen roller advances the label media through the printer to ensure consistent pull and energy exerted by the printer as the label media proceeds through a printer web path (Column 5, lines 29 to Column 7, line 24), the pattern may be applied in various shapes including diamond shaped adhesive areas (Column 5, lines 29 – 36) as in claim 13. With respect to claim 14, the coverage area is between 30% and 70% of a total surface area of the backside of the linerless label (Column 6, lines 24 – 35). Regarding claim 15, the substrate comprises a stock weight of greater than 50 gsm (grams per square meter) (Column 4, lines 50 – 52). For claim 16, the at least one adhesive patch comprises a first adhesive patch and a second adhesive patch vertically striped along a first side and a second side of the backside of the substrate (Figures; Column 5, lines 29 – 60). However, Van Boom et al. fail to disclose the pattern includes 5 or more continuous stripes of the microsphere adhesive, each stripe separated by an area devoid of any adhesive, the pattern includes diamond shaped adhesive areas and diamond shaped void areas that are devoid of any adhesive, the microsphere adhesive is an acrylic emulsion comprising microspheres in a solids range of at least 25%, and the adhesive patch comprises two adhesive patches vertically striped down the backside of the substrate, wherein a first adhesive patch is vertically striped adjacent to a first side of the backside of the substrate and a second adhesive patch is vertically striped adjacent to a second side of the backside of the substrate, and the pattern diamond shaped void areas that are devoid of any adhesive, wherein the diamond shaped adhesive areas include first diamond shapes of adhesive that are larger than and surround second diamond shapes of adhesive, and wherein the second diamond shapes of adhesive are separated by the diamond shaped void areas.
Vigunas et al. teach a roll of linerless labels (Abstract; Figures), comprising: a substrate (Column 3, lines 29 - 35); and an adhesive patch disposed on a backside of the substrate, wherein the adhesive patch disposed in a pattern of an adhesive on the backside, wherein the pattern repeats along the backside (Column 4, line 63 to Column 5, line 3), wherein the adhesive is a microsphere adhesive (Column 5, lines 4 – 19) with a particle size of between 10-250 or 20-350 microns (Column 5, lines 19 – 21), and the microsphere adhesive is an acrylic emulsion comprising microspheres (Column 5, lines 4 – 20) and the adhesive patch comprises two adhesive patches vertically striped down the backside of the substrate, wherein a first adhesive patch is vertically striped adjacent to a first side of the backside of the substrate and a second adhesive patch is vertically striped adjacent to a second side of the backside of the substrate (Figure 3, #22) for the purpose of forming a repositionable adhesive label roll (Column 1, lines 66 and 67).
Wild et al. teach a label (Figures; Claim 1) comprising: a substrate (Claim 1); and an adhesive patch disposed on a backside of the substrate (Figures; Claim 1), wherein the adhesive patch disposed in a pattern of an adhesive on the backside, wherein the pattern is optimized to minimize adhesive coverage on the backside and minimize adhesive contact with components of a printer when the label is fed through the printer (Paragraph 0028); wherein the adhesive patch is disposed in a pattern that maintains adhesive bonding characteristics when the label is dispensed from the printer (Paragraphs 0068; 0080; 0087; Figure 2); wherein the adhesive patches are discontinuous (Paragraphs 0030 and 0056; Figures 1E an 1F, the adhesive) wherein the label is a linerless label (Paragraphs 0017 – 0019; Figures); the adhesive patch includes four adhesive patches arranged in the pattern on the backside (Figures 1E and 1F), a first adhesive patch and a second adhesive patch is of a first shape, and a third adhesive patch and a fourth adhesive patch is of a second shape (Figures 1E and 1F), the pattern includes the first adhesive patch diagonal to the second adhesive patch on the backside, and the third adhesive patch diagonal to the fourth adhesive patch on the backside (Figures 1E and 1F), the adhesive patches may be any geometric shape, which would include diamond, and applied in various patterns (Paragraph 0030), adhesive areas include first shapes of adhesive that are larger than and surround second shapes of adhesive (Figures 1E and 1F) for the purpose of having an adhesive arrangement that allow a for lower adhesive amount to be used while maintaining a high-tack adhesive surface (Paragraph 0032).
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 microsphere adhesive is an acrylic emulsion in a desired pattern in Van Boom et al. in order to form a repositionable adhesive label roll as taught by Vigunas et al. and to have an adhesive arrangement that allow a for lower adhesive amount to be used while maintaining a high-tack adhesive surface as taught by Wild et al.
With regard to the limitations of “the pattern includes 5 or more continuous stripes of the microsphere adhesive, each stripe separated by an area devoid of any adhesive, the pattern diamond shaped void areas that are devoid of any adhesive, wherein the diamond shaped adhesive areas include first diamond shapes of adhesive that are larger than and surround second diamond shapes of adhesive, and wherein the second diamond shapes of adhesive are separated by the diamond shaped void areas”, Van Boom et al. clearly states that the adhesive placement may have a variety of patterns (Figures; Column 5, lines 29 – 60). Wild et al. also clearly teaches the adhesive patches may be any geometric shape, which would include diamond, and applied in various patterns (Paragraph 0030), adhesive areas include first shapes of adhesive that are larger than and surround second shapes of adhesive ((Figures 1E and 1F). It is well settled that a particular shape of a prior invention carries no patentable weight unless the applicant can demonstrate that the new shape provides significant unforeseen improvements to the invention. In the instant case, the application does not indicate any new, significant attributes of the invention due to its shape which would have been unforeseen to one of ordinary skill in the art. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 (I) and (IV).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Van Boom and Vigunas do not disclose the claimed pattern, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is well settled that a particular shape of a prior invention carries no patentable weight unless the applicant can demonstrate that the new shape provides significant unforeseen improvements to the invention. In the instant case, the application does not indicate any new, significant attributes of the invention due to its shape which would have been unforeseen to one of ordinary skill in the art. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 (I) and (IV). Applicant has provided no evidence of unexpected results.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the specific diamond pattern provides unexpected benefits, specifically “The specific diamond pattern achieves both objectives-minimal printer contact and full adhesive bonding capability-through its hierarchical structure. This dual achievement represents a synergistic result not predictable from Van Boom's general teaching of pattern variety or Vigunas's teaching of continuous strips.
The diamond geometry is particularly effective because it creates balanced load distribution during label application. When a label is pressed onto an object, the diamond shapes distribute the adhesive contact in a manner that provides uniform bonding while allowing air to escape through the void areas, preventing bubbling or wrinkling. This functional advantage is not taught or suggested by the references.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, this is not deemed persuasive since arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record to overcome a rejection. See MPEP 2145. Applicant has provided no evidence that the patterns of adhesive of Van Boom and Vigunas would not function in the desired manner. Second, please the rejection in view of Wild et al. presented above. Wild et al. clearly state that the purpose of the adhesive arrangement allows for lower adhesive amount to be used while maintaining a high-tack adhesive surface (Paragraph 0032) and the adhesive patch disposed in a pattern of an adhesive on the backside, wherein the pattern is optimized to minimize adhesive coverage on the backside and minimize adhesive contact with components of a printer when the label is fed through the printer (Paragraph 0028). Third, simple geometry may be used to determine the amount of the surface area of the substrate that needs to be covered by the pattern of adhesive to get the desired adhesive properties while maintaining minimal contact with the printer components.
In response to applicant's argument that the specific pattern solves technical problems not addressed by the references, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Also, Wild et al. clearly state that the purpose of the adhesive arrangement allows for lower adhesive amount to be used while maintaining a high-tack adhesive surface (Paragraph 0032) and the adhesive patch disposed in a pattern of an adhesive on the backside, wherein the pattern is optimized to minimize adhesive coverage on the backside and minimize adhesive contact with components of a printer when the label is fed through the printer (Paragraph 0028).
Conclusion
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 May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights