Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/696,520

Linerless Label For Flight Baggage

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 20, 2024
Examiner
RUMMEL, IAN A
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
318 granted / 568 resolved
-9.0% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
595
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.0%
+15.0% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 568 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. Claim 1 states that the label comprises four layers, but then appears to recite six layers. It is unclear what Applicant intends “comprising four layers” to mean in the context of the claim. Claim 4 states that the adhesive “adheres to each other well” and “does not adhere easily” to other objects. It is unclear what level of adhesion is considered to constitute adhering “well” or “easily.” It is also unclear whether the specific “other objected” listed are intended to be an exhaustive list of other objects, of if they are merely exemplary. 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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watarai et al., JP2017116937 (A), in view of Galoff et al., US 2017/0132956 A1. Regarding claim 1, Watari teaches a linerless label for use as a luggage tag, the label comprising, in order, a surface base-material (10 of Fig. 1e) in which a heat-sensitive coloring layer (10a of Fig. 1e) and a resin layer (10b of Fig. 1e) are integrated, an adhesive layer (32 of Fig. 1e, corresponding to the claimed “tackiness agent layer”), a lower substrate (20 of Fig. 1e), and a pressure-sensitive adhesive later (30 of Fig. 1e). See [0018]-[0022]. The teachings of Watarai differ from the present invention in that although Watarai teaches that the “lower substrate” is to have release properties and may be coated with a layer of release material ([0022]), Watarai does not explicitly teach that the lower substrate is a glassine paper. Galloff, however, teaches that glassine paper is most typically used for such applications ([0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use glassine paper as the “lower substrate” of Watarai, as Galloff explicitly teaches that glassine paper is most commonly used as a substrate in such applications. Regarding claim 3, Watarai teaches that the label may be wound into a roll ([0034], Fig. 2), which would necessarily result in the claimed configuration based on the order of the layers in the roll. Regarding claim 4, Watarai teaches that the adhesive adheres to itself but does not adhere to other objects such as hands (ie, skin) ([0025]). Regarding claims 5 and 6, Watarai teaches that the labels may be wound into a roll and may feature a plurality of small pieces formed to make one main piece arranged in a length direction, with perforations and slits (ie, notches) separating the various pieces (Fig. 3, [0030]-[0031]). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watarai et al. and Galoff et al., as applied above, and further in view of Khatib et al., US 5674626. Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Watarai differ from the present invention in that although Watarai teaches the presence of a pressure-sensitive adhesive on the rear of the label, Watarai does not teach that the adhesive is provided over all of the linerless label. Khatib, however, teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive layers on such labels may be applied to the entire rear surface of the label (Fig. 5 and 6, col. 6 ln. 43-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the adhesive layer of Watarai cover the entire rear surface of the label because Khatib explicitly teaches that the adhesive may cover the entire rear surface of such labels. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the need to select an appropriate shape for the adhesive layer based on the intended use of the label. Note that arbitrary changes to the shape of the adhesive layer cannot distinguish the claimed invention from that of the prior art would the differences would otherwise have been obvious (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601970
PHOTOSENSITIVE RESIN COMPOSITION, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PATTERNED CURED PRODUCT, CURED PRODUCT, INTERLAYER INSULATING FILM, COVER COAT LAYER, SURFACE PROTECTIVE FILM, AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589607
PRINTING PROCESSES FOR PRODUCING TEXTURED IMAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569878
PLATED STEEL SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552955
COATING COMPOSITION AND LAMINATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545797
INKJET INKS FOR METALLIC PRINTED IMAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+19.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 568 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month