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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 16, in the reply filed on 10/02/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups of inventions are directed to commonly linked features and share a general inventive concept, such that searching and examination of one group necessarily addresses the other. This is not found persuasive because the inventions were determined to lack unity of invention as the special technical feature of the flexible self-adhesive label of claim 1 is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Collins et al. as described in the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 08/06/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/02/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2024 is considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pg. 10, Ln. 22-25, the specification refers to Figure 2B, however, this is a typo and it should refer to Figure 1B.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-13 and 16 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 1,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12, throughout the claims, the phrase “the first region”, “the second region”, “the third region” and “the fourth region” are interchangeably used to refer to regions of the flexible layer and regions of the adhesive layer, which renders the claims indefinite. The inconsistencies make it difficult to determine what layer the regions are referring to, thus making claim interpretation difficult.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is indefinite for the following reasons:
In lines 1-2, the phrase “a covered adhesive region selectively peelable” is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by requiring the adhesive region be “selectively peelable”, as well as what is meant by “selectively peelable”.
In lines 5-6 the limitation recites “configured to cover at least a first region of the first side of the flexible layer” and lines 10-11 recite that the same adhesive layer is “also configured to cover a second region of the first side of the flexible layer”. Its unclear if the adhesive is a continuous adhesive layer or a patterned/partial adhesive layer. Lines 10-11 refer back to the adhesive recited by lines 5-6, however, it is not clear what the structure (patterned vs. continuous) of the adhesive is with respect to the claimed invention.
In line 12, the claim recites “the liner includes comprising a base region…”, however, it is unclear what the combination of the terms “includes comprising” means with respect to the claimed structure of the liner.
In lines 12-13, the claim recites “the liner includes comprising a base region attached to the second region, the base region and the first liner region being connected through a first fold line…” is indefinite. It is presumed that “the second region” refers to the second region of the first side of the flexible layer recited in the previous clause. Line 12 requires that the base liner region is attached to the second region of the flexible layer, however, line 13 recites that the base liner region and the first liner region are connected through a fold line. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what the structural configuration and relation is between the first region, the second region and the base region of the liner, adhesive and flexible layer.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the first region of the adhesive layer” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation in lines 2-3 reciting “wherein the surface of the second one of the two extreme portions configured to be adhered to the first region” is indefinite as it is unclear what structural relationship and/or configurations are being required. It is unclear what part of the label, the adhesive layer, the flexible layer or the liner layer, the phrase “the first region” is referring to.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation reciting “further comprises an addition first region and additional second region of the adhesive layer covered by an additional liner including an additional base region, attached to the additional second region, the additional base region and the additional first liner region being connected through an additional first fold line whose ends are approximately tangent to two cuts comprising anti-tear configurations of the additional liner and configured to allow the additional first region to be exposed and to keep the additional liner attached to the additional second region of the adhesive layer” is indefinite as it is unclear what structure is being claimed. Claim 1 requires that the first region of the flexible layer have a first liner region adhered thereto, wherein claim 2 requires that the overall flexible layer is an elongated with two extremes, one of the extremes comprises the first region of the flexible layer, but the second extreme is not said to comprise the second region. In claim 3, the second extreme is said to further comprise additional first region, second region, etc., however, the second region from claim 1 had not been recited in the additional structure of claims 2 or 3. Therefore, it is unclear what the structure of the claimed label is with respect to claim 3 in view of claim 2 and 1.
The metes and bounds of the claimed invention as required by claims 3, 2 and 1 are unable to be determined and prior art is not able to be applied.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation reciting “wherein the adhesive layer is configured to also cover a third region of the second side of the flexible layer the liner being configured to not cover the third region so that the third region is being adherably to a first surface of a flap of a closable product” is indefinite. Claim 1 requires that the adhesive is on a first side of the flexible layer, however, claim 4 requires that the same adhesive is present on a second side of the flexible layer. It is not clear how the same adhesive layer can be present on opposing sides of the flexible layer. The entire claim is indefinite as it is not clear what structure is being recited or required with respect to the claimed invention.
As the metes and bounds of the claimed invention as required by claim 4 are unable to be determined, prior art is unable to be applied.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase in lines 2-3 reciting “wherein the adhesive layer is configured to also cover a fourth region of the first side of the flexible layer” is indefinite as it is not clear if the adhesive layer is present in the fourth region or is capable of being present as the claim uses “configured to” language.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase in lines 2-3 reciting “wherein the adhesive layer is further configured to cover a fourth region of the first side of the flexible layer” is indefinite as it is not clear if the adhesive layer is present in the fourth region or is capable of being present as the claim uses “configured to” language.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation reciting “wherein the cutes constitutive of anti-tear configuration do not affect the flexible layer” is indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by “do not affect the flexible layer” and what structural features are required by the limitation.
Claims 9 and 13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to their dependency from the rejected claims above.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hodsdon (US 2018/0118979).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Hodsdon teaches an adhesive label liner sheet (flexible self-adhesive label) as shown at least by Figure 1 and 6A-6D,comprising a facestock layer (18; flexible layer) comprising opposing surfaces, wherein a pressure sensitive adhesive is disposed on the underside (first surface) of the facestock layer (18; flexible layer) (Figure 6A-6D; [0037-0050]).The adhesive label liner sheet (flexible self-adhesive label) further comprises a liner sheet (12; liner) covering the pressure sensitive adhesive underside of the facestock layer (Figure 6A-6D; [0037-0050]). The adhesive label liner sheet (flexible self-adhesive label) comprises a CD label portion (20; first region) on a right side of the figure covered by a first portion of the liner sheet (i.e. first liner portion) and a hold tab (24/25; second region) covered by a second portion of the liner sheet (i.e. base liner portion), separated by weakened lines (26; first fold line) that is adjacent to slits (33; anti-tear configurations) which are curved (Figure 1, 6A-6D; [0037-0050]).
The limitations reciting “configured to cover at least a first region of the first side of the flexible layer” in lines 5-6, “configured to be removed from the first region leaving the first region of the flexible layer with pressure sensitive adhesive exposed” in lines 8-9, “configured to cover a second region of the first side of the flexible layer” in lines 10-11, “and configured to allow the first region to be exposed and to keep the liner attached to the second region of the adhesive layer” in lines 15-17 considered functional language related to the intended use of the product and is accorded limited weight as the language does not further limit the structure or the process. The limitations claim the intended use of the invention, and has been considered, but is not given patentable weight as a structural limitation of the invention. The limitation defines the structural component by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim 1.
As Hodsdon teaches all the structural features required by claim 1 of the instant application, the invention taught by Hodsdon would be capable of performing in the manner claimed and described by the aforementioned recitations of intended use recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Hodsdon teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches, as shown at least by Figure 1, that the facestock layer (18; flexible layer) is elongated in shape, wherein defining a central portion including the fold line running through the center of the overall label assembly and two extreme portions designated by the CD label on the right side of the figure (first extreme portion) and the CD label on the left side of the figure (second extreme portion). The CD label on the right side of the figure (first extreme portion) comprising the CD label portion (20; first region) on a right side of the figure covered by a first portion of the liner sheet (i.e. first liner portion).
The limitation reciting “a surface superimposable to the first region by pending the central portion resulting in the first one and the second one of the extreme portion being adhered to one another” considered functional language related to the intended use and process of using the product and is accorded limited weight as the language does not further limit the structure or the process.
The limitations claim the intended use of the invention, and has been considered, but is not given patentable weight as a structural limitation of the invention. The limitation defines the structural component by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim 1. The method of using the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Hodsdon discloses the structure of claim 1 as described above.
Regarding claim 16, Hodsdon teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches as shown by Figure 6A-6D that the slits (33) do not affect the flexible layer.
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.
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.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodsdon (US 2018/0118979).
Regarding claim 5, Hodsdon teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Hodsdon further teaches a instruction area (16; third region) of the facestock layer (18; flexible layer) covered by pressure sensitive adhesive on the underside (Figure 1), however, the reference does not expressly teach that this area is not covered by the liner. Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the directions prior to the CD label to place them on a surface easily visible when assembling the CD to ensure the directions did not get thrown out before the label was done being applied.
The limitation reciting “the third region being adherable to a first surface of a flap of a closable product” recites the intended use of the product and is accorded limited weight as the language does not further limit the structure or the process. The limitations claim the intended use of the invention, and has been considered, but is not given patentable weight as a structural limitation of the invention. The limitation defines the structural component by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim 5.
As Hodsdon teaches all the structural features required by claims 5 of the instant application, the invention taught by Hodsdon would be capable of performing in the manner claimed and described by the aforementioned recitations of intended use recited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Hodsdon teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches a circular die cut (22; weakened lines) between the a CD label portion (20; first region) on a right side of the figure and the instruction area (16; third region) (see Figure 1).
The limitation reciting “configured to provide a tamper-evidence feature between the first region and the third region” recites the intended use of the product and is accorded limited weight as the language does not further limit the structure or the process. The limitations claim the intended use of the invention, and has been considered, but is not given patentable weight as a structural limitation of the invention. The limitation defines the structural component by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim 6.
As Hodsdon teaches all the structural features required by claims 6 of the instant application, the invention taught by Hodsdon would be capable of performing in the manner claimed and described by the aforementioned recitations of intended use recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Hodsdon teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches that the CD label portion (20; first region) on a right side of the figure is between the hold tab (24/25; second region) and the instruction area (16; third region) (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Hodsdon teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above, and Hodsdon further teaches hold tab (24/25; second region) on either side of the CD label, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when looking at the hold tab (24/25; second region) in the lower left corner, that it would be between the instruction area (16; third region) and the CD label portion (20; first region) on a right side of the figure (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Hodsdon teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above, and further teaches that the CD label portion (20; first region) on a right side of the figure and further teaches discontinuous cuts of the liner (41) that are parallel weakened lines (26; first fold line) (Figure 1, 6A-6D, [0037-0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Hodsdon teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above, and further teaches that the adhesive layer covers a jewel case area (14; fourth region) located on a side of the parallel weakened lines (26; first fold line) opposite the CD label portion (20; first region) on a right side of the figure (Figure 1).
The reference does not expressly teach that the jewel case area (14; fourth region) is not covered by the liner. Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the jewel case area (14; fourth region) prior to the CD label to place them on a surface easily visible when assembling the CD to ensure they do not get thrown out before the label was done being applied.
The limitation reciting “is configured to also cover a fourth region of the first side of the flexible layer, located on one side of the first fold line opposite to the side where the first region is located, the liner being configured not to cover and leave exposed the fourth region” recites the intended use of the product and is accorded limited weight as the language does not further limit the structure or the process. The limitations claim the intended use of the invention, and has been considered, but is not given patentable weight as a structural limitation of the invention. The limitation defines the structural component by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim 10. Hodsdon teaches all the structural limitations of claim 10 above, and thus is capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Hodsdon teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Hodsdon further teaches that the adhesive layer covers a jewel case area (14; fourth region) located on a side of the parallel weakened lines (26; first fold line) opposite the CD label portion (20; first region) on a right side of the figure and is covered by the liner sheet (Figure 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodsdon (US 2018/0118979) in view of Scott et al. (US 2010/0154264).
Regarding claim 13, Hodsdon teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and while the reference teaches hold tab (24/25; second region) on either side of the CD label (12; first portion), the reference does not expressly teach that the adhesive capacity of the hold tab (24/25; second region) is inhibited.
Scott et al. teaches a resealable label flap comprising a starting tab (22), wherein the adhesive on the underside of the flap is rendered ineffective or not present such that the starting tab (22) does not adhere to the package body and can be grasped by the user to pull the flap portion of the label, thus opening the package (Figure 1-3; [0021-0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the hold tab (24/25; second region) taught by Hodsdon to be rendered ineffective as with the starting tab (22) of Scott, to allow the user to grasp the hold tab (24/25; second region) and pull the label off the liner sheet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Tataryan et al. teaches a send-replay label having various parts and portions of both the label and liner that correspond to the various portions recited by the instant application (Figure 1A, 1B; [0026-0033]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785