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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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 11 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.
Specifically, Claim 11 recites "excluding the resin molded article". Independent Claim 10 recites "a resin molded article", while Claim 11 excludes this limitation. Thus, it fails the test for proper dependency which requires inclusion of every limitation of the claim from which it depends.
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 § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sahashi (US 6644236 B2, see reference in its entirety).
The applied reference has a common assignee (Richoh Company Ltd) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With respect to independent Claim 10, Sahashi disclose(s): A determining method comprising:
forming a discoloring portion (Fig. 3: 9 and col. 3, lines 33-38) of a resin molded article (Fig. 3: 1);
discoloring in the discoloring portion of the resin molded article (col. 3, lines 33-38); and
determining the resin molded article to be deteriorated. (col. 3, lines 33-38).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahashi in view of Rekum et al. (US 2005/0125926 A1, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Sahashi disclose(s): A resin molded article (Fig. 3 and col. 3, line 33) comprising:
a body having a first discolor speed discolored by deterioration of the body (Fig. 3: 9 and col. 3, line 44-50); and
a discoloring portion in the body and having a second element (Fig. 3: 109).
Sahashi does not specifically disclose: a second discolor speed faster than the first discolor speed discolored by deterioration of a discoloring portion.
However, Rekum teach(es) an article (¶ [0010]) comprising: a second discolor speed faster than the first discolor speed discolored by deterioration of a discoloring portion (¶ [0010] & [0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sahashi, with the teachings of Rekum , for the purpose of providing a breakdown of separate phases of deterioration (¶ [0027]).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Sahashi and Rekum disclose(s) the article of Claim 1.
Sahashi further disclose(s): wherein the body discolors to a first color (col. 3, lines 44-50).
The combination does not specifically disclose: the discoloring portion discolors to a second color different from the first color.
However, Rekum further teach(es): the discoloring portion discolors to a second color different from the first color (¶ [0010]).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Sahashi and Rekum disclose(s) the article of Claim 2.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the discoloring portion includes a printed portion, and the printed portion emerges by discoloring of the discoloring portion to the second color.
However, Rekum further teach(es): wherein the discoloring portion includes a printed portion, and the printed portion emerges by discoloring of the discoloring portion to the second color (¶ [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sahashi and Rekum, with the further teachings of Rekum , for the purpose of visibly notifying the user of the deterioration of the article (¶ [0025]).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Sahashi and Rekum disclose(s) the article of Claim 3.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the printed portion includes readable information on the resin molded article.
However, Rekum further teach(es): wherein the printed portion includes readable information on the resin molded article (¶ [0025]).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Sahashi and Rekum disclose(s) the article of Claim 4.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the readable information includes at least one of a material, a grade, a lot number, or a manufacturing date of the resin molded article.
However, Rekum further teach(es): wherein the readable information includes at least one of a material, a grade, a lot number, or a manufacturing date of the resin molded article (¶ [0025]).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Sahashi and Rekum disclose(s) the article of Claim 4.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the printed portion includes any one of a barcode, a two-dimensional barcode, a number, and a symbol.
However, Rekum further teach(es): wherein the printed portion includes any one of a barcode, a two-dimensional barcode, a number, and a symbol (¶ [0025]).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Sahashi and Rekum disclose(s) the article of Claim 1.
Sahashi further disclose(s): a first discoloring portion discolors by a first outer factor including at least one of heat, ultraviolet light, temperature, or humidity (col. 3, lines 44-50); and a second portion deteriorating by a second outer factor including at least one of heat, ultraviolet light, temperature, or humidity, other than the first outer factor (col. 6, lines 5-10).
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the discoloring portion includes multiple discoloring portion; and a second discoloring portion discoloring.
However, Rekum further teach(es): wherein the discoloring portion includes multiple discoloring portion (¶ [0010]); and a second discoloring portion discoloring (¶ [0010]).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Sahashi and Rekum disclose(s) the article of Claim 1.
Sahashi further disclose(s): wherein the discoloring portion has a less environmental resistance than other portions of the resin molded article (col. 3, lines 44-50).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Sahashi and Rekum disclose(s) the article of Claim 1.
Sahashi further disclose(s): wherein reusability of the resin molded article is determined based on a discoloration of the discoloring portion (col. 4, lines 31-38).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12535476 B2 (Shimizu). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the Current Application is a broader claim than Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12535476 B2 (Shimizu) by broadening "a discoloration checker" (see below comparison table).
Claim(s) of Current Application 18/755708
Under Examination
(NOTE: bold italicized element(s) signify element(s) broadened)
Claim(s) of Application 18/757610
NOW U.S. Patent 12535476 B2
(NOTE: bold italicized element(s) signify element(s) broadened)
1. A resin molded article comprising:
a body having a first discolor speed discolored by deterioration of the body; and a discoloring portion in the body and having a second discolor speed faster than the first discolor speed discolored by deterioration of a discoloring portion.
2. The resin molded article according to claim 1, wherein the body discolors to a first color; and the discoloring portion discolors to a second color different from the first color.
1. A resin molded component comprising: a discoloration checker made of a first material discolored at a first speed; and a resin molded portion including the discoloration checker, the resin molded portion made of a second material discolored at a second speed faster than the first speed at which the first material of the discoloration checker discolors.
2. The resin molded component according to claim 1, wherein: the first material of the discoloration checker discolors at the first speed slower than the second speed at which the second material of the resin molded portion discolors due to at least one of ultraviolet rays, heat, or water vapor.
Conclusion
Regarding Claim(s) 11: Reasonable interpretations of the claims were not readily available based on the 112d issues explained above for determination of patentability under 35 USC 102 and 103 (consistent with MPEP 2163 & 2173).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to indicators: McDaid (US 2023/0003639 A1); Urahama et al. (US 4279213); Winskowicz et al. (US 7967702 B2); Johnson (US 10267718 B2); Kemp et al. (US 7784508 B2); Welsh (US 5603161); Williams (US 6513370 B1); Ross et al. (US 11254112 B2); Ribi (US 2013/0061798 A1); Myers et al. (US 8870083 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/TC/
24 June 2026
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights