DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the present application.
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 .
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 1-20 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.
Specifically, independent claims 1 and 2 contain multiple and overlapping sources of indefiniteness each.
Regarding independent claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the biaxially-oriented polypropylene" in indent 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a biaxially-oriented polypropylene film” is not recited until indent 8.
As best understood, for purpose of examination and to expedite prosecution the first recital will be considered as “a” biaxially-oriented polypropylene film and the second recital as “the” biaxially-oriented polypropylene film.
However, positive, in claim recitation of proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the biaxially-oriented polyester film.” in the final indent. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a biaxially-oriented polyester film” is not recited.
Is this polyester film a reference to the previously recited biaxially-oriented PET film? OR the PETG film? OR is it a newly recited element? (Please note that PET is a type of polyester; please note that PETG is also a type of polyester.)
As best understood, for purpose of examination and to expedite prosecution the biaxially-oriented polyester film will be considered as a newly recited element such as “a biaxially-oriented polyester film” or the like.
However, positive, in claim recitation of proper antecedent basis and structurally cooperative connectivity is required.
The term “above” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “above” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (see instant US publication at abstract, [0004] and [0022]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, the thrust of the invention is the specific stacking and materials of the layers in a thermometer (see e.g. prior art in instant fig. 2 vs. invention in instant fig. 4) which is portable/movable (see e.g. prior art in instant fig. 2 vs. invention in instant fig. 4 both having a handle for placement).
As such, the relative term “above” is indefinite since there is no specific up or down with a movable thermometer (please note that other terms used including at least “between” and “opposite” are definite as the placement with respect to the other elements is clear).
As best understood (based on the drawings; see e.g. fig. 4, element 11), for purpose of examination and to expedite prosecution the term above will be considered as “on a side of a portion of the polyester film opposite the substrate” or the like.
However, positive, in claim recitation of the concrete metes and bounds of the structural relationship among elements which applicant intends to limit by is required.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Due to the overlapping indefiniteness there is substantial uncertainty regarding the location and even the number of films which applicant intends to claim. Specifically, the biaxially-oriented PET film may or may not be the biaxially-oriented polyester film and it is further unclear where the biaxially-oriented polypropylene film is with respect to this/these film or films.
As best understood and due to the multiple and overlapping sources of indefiniteness as indicated above and for purpose of examination, claim 1’s layering will be considered generally as shown in instant fig. 4 with the claimed elements as follows:
__ biaxially-oriented polypropylene film
____ biaxially-oriented polyester film
____ optically transparent cover layer
____ plurality of voids containing a liquid crystal temperature sensing composition
____ substrate comprising PETG
____ first support layer
____ second support layer
PLUS ink layer in/on the thermometer
PLUS a biaxially-oriented PET film in/on the thermometer
However, positive, in claim recitation of the concrete metes and bounds of the properly referenced elements, the structural relationship among elements and proper antecedent basis which applicant intends to limit by is required.
Regarding independent claim 2:
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the biaxially-oriented polypropylene" in indent 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a biaxially-oriented polypropylene film” is not recited until indent 6.
As best understood, for purpose of examination and to expedite prosecution the first recital will be considered as “a” biaxially-oriented polypropylene film and the second recital as “the” biaxially-oriented polypropylene film.
However, positive, in claim recitation of proper antecedent basis is required.
The term “above” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “above” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (see instant US publication at abstract, [0004] and [0022]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, the thrust of the invention is the specific stacking and materials of the layers in a thermometer (see e.g. prior art in instant fig. 2 vs. invention in instant fig. 4) which is portable/movable (see e.g. prior art in instant fig. 2 vs. invention in instant fig. 4 both having a handle for placement).
As such, the relative term “above” is indefinite since there is no specific up or down with a movable thermometer (please note that other terms used including at least “between” and “opposite” are definite as the placement with respect to the other elements is clear).
As best understood (based on the drawings; see e.g. fig. 4, element 11), for purpose of examination and to expedite prosecution the term above will be considered as “on a side of a portion of the polyester film opposite the substrate” or the like.
However, positive, in claim recitation of the concrete metes and bounds of the structural relationship among elements which applicant intends to limit by is required.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Due to the overlapping indefiniteness there is substantial uncertainty regarding the location of the films/layers which applicant intends to claim.
Specifically, the biaxially-oriented polyester film and the biaxially-oriented polypropylene film are not clearly positioned with respect to the device as the wherein clause (“a biaxially-oriented polyester film, wherein the optically transparent cover layer is located between the substrate and the biaxially-oriented polypropylene film”) after the first recitation does not reference the polyester film but rather provides positional requirement for the optically transparent cover layer. It is noted that [0010] of the instant US publication states “The optically transparent cover layer may include a polyester film.” However, this concept/limitation cannot be read into the claim and if this is the intended structure it must be positively recited.
As best understood and due to the multiple and overlapping sources of indefiniteness as indicated above and for purpose of examination, claim 2’s layering will be considered generally as shown in instant fig. 4 with the claimed elements as follows:
__ biaxially-oriented polypropylene film
____ biaxially-oriented polyester film
____ optically transparent cover layer
____ plurality of voids containing a liquid crystal temperature sensing composition
____ substrate
____ support layer
PLUS ink layer in/on the thermometer stack
However, positive, in claim recitation of the concrete metes and bounds of the properly referenced elements, the structural relationship among elements and proper antecedent basis which applicant intends to limit by is required.
Claims 3-20 depend from claim 2 and are likewise rejected by dependency.
Additionally, claim 11 limits by “the polyester film is biaxially-oriented.” This is indefinite as “a biaxially-oriented polyester film” is already claimed in claim 2 from which claim 11 depends.
Is this a separate or the same biaxially-oriented polyester film?
As best understood (based on the drawings; see e.g. fig. 4, element 4?), for purpose of examination and to expedite prosecution the term above will be considered as a separate biaxially-oriented polyester film from the first recited biaxially-oriented polyester film.
However, positive in claim recitation of the concrete metes and bounds of the structural relationship among elements, as well as distinct labeling of distinct elements which applicant intends to limit by is required.
Additionally, the term “a pressure sensitive adhesive associated with at least one surface of the biaxially-oriented polypropylene layer” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “associated with at least one surface” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (see instant US publication [0021]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, the thrust of the invention is the specific stacking and materials of the layers in a thermometer (see e.g. prior art in instant fig. 2 vs. invention in instant fig. 4).
As such, the relative term “associated with at least one surface” is indefinite since such an “associated” surface provides no concrete requirement; does the term associated with at least one surface require contact with the surface? OR General orientation along the surface but not requiring contact? OR Mere placement in/on the thermometer layer stack? Some other association?
As best understood (based on the drawings; see e.g. fig. 4, element 12), for purpose of examination and to expedite prosecution the term above will be considered as “a pressure sensitive adhesive on a side surface of the biaxially-oriented polypropylene layer” or the like.
However, positive, in claim recitation of the concrete metes and bounds of the structural relationship among elements which applicant intends to limit by is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The best prior art of record:
Witonsky et al. (US 20020074074; teaching regarding a thermometer -abstract- with a PETG substrate 1 – [0035-37]; an optically transparent cover layer 4 – [0038]; voids with liquid crystal composition therebetween 3 – [0035]; a support layer 7 – [0035]; printing – [0036]; [0063]; layers of polypropylene and polyester – [0063]; see figs. 1-4),
Hof et al. (US 4362645; teaches regarding a temperature indicator using liquid crystal in voids between a clear cover layer and a substrate with additional polymer layers -abstract, figs. 9-13 and 18- including “polypropylene, Mylar, polyethyene-terephthalate nitrocellulose, polyvinyl chloride, etc.” col. 39, lines 5-10),
Smith et al. (US 20230126486; teaching regarding temperature monitoring -abstract- with liquid crystal - [0021], and layers including “polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’), oriented polypropylene (‘OPP’), biaxially oriented polypropylene (‘BOPP’)” – [0072]) and
McNaughtan et al. (US 4070912; teaches a layered temperature indicator -abstract, fig. 1- having “polyolefin films such as polyethylene and polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinylidene chloride and polyurethane” and Mylar col. 5, lines 33-40 as well as ink -col. 4, lines 20-25, see fig. 1),
fail to specifically teach the invention as claimed.
The limitations of the thermometer with the layers as best understood (see 112(b) section above) as in independent claims 1 and 2 when combined with the specific limitations regarding the biaxially-oriented films of the specific materials in independent claims 1 and 2 as well as all additional limitations therein distinguish the present invention from the combined prior art.
Hence the prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 1-20. The examiner cannot find specific teaching of the invention, nor reasons within the cited art to combine the elements of these references other than applicant’s own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
In addition, though not dispositive on this prosecution, see US PCT search and examination of record in the file wrapper on 01/15/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights