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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but in light of amendments, they are not persuasive.
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)(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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Avery Dennison (JP2011-525248 or WO2009/149225).
Dennison teaches a method for manufacturing an appliqué, the method comprising:
printing a graphic layer on a first surface of a base layer, the graphic layer having a graphic printed in reverse on the base layer (page 14, 10th paragraph);
directly disposing an adhesive layer on the graphic layer;
disposing a removable liner on the adhesive layer (page 4, 3rd paragraph; Figure 8).
adhering the adhesive layer to a surface; and
removing the base layer from the graphic layer to leave the graphic layer adhered to the surface by the adhesive layer (page 3, 7th paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery Dennison (JP 2011-525248).
Dennison teaches a method for manufacturing an appliqué to a surface, the method comprising:
disposing an adhesive layer on a first removable liner;
providing a graphic layer on the adhesive layer, the graphic layer having a graphic printed right reading on the adhesive (page 4, 3rd paragraph; page 7, 5th paragraph).
Dennison teaches that a printed film is laminated or coated to the
adhesive layer. It would be obvious therefore to directly print a graphic layer on the adhesive layer.
9. Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennison as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Penance et al. (US 4,614,677)
The teachings of claim 25 are as described above.
With respect to claim 26, although not taught by Dennison, it would have been obvious to dispose a second removable liner on the graphic layer, and thus protect the graphic layer until transfer (Penance: column 2, lines 5-6).
With respect to claim 27, although not solely taught by Dennison, it would have been obvious, according to Dennison in view of Penance et al., to teach removing a removable liner from the adhesive layer, adhering the adhesive layer to a surface, and removing a second removable liner from the graphic layer (Dennison: abstract; Penance: column 3, lines 26-30).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 SONYA M SENGUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6019. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/SONYA M SENGUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights