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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the mailing date of this office action, there has been no information disclosure statement entered into the file. The Applicant is reminded of their duty to disclose. See MPEP 2001.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character characters 1000, 1002, 1004, 1006, and 1008 have been used to designate both method steps (see Fig. 7) and a label and its structural features (see Fig. 15).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-18 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 and 13, the preamble limitation reciting “for use with containers” is indefinite because the claim does not clearly set forth how the labeling system is intended to be used “with containers”. In particular, it is noted that the labeling system requires the features of (a) a linerless label and (b) a substrate for receiving the label, such that it is not clear how the linerless label and substrate together are intended to be used with containers.
It is not clear whether the intended use limitation in the preamble is meant to refer to an intended use of only the linerless label, where the linerless label is to be ‘used with containers’, or if this limitation is intended to refer to the claimed substrate, where the containers are an embodiment of the substrate to which the label is intended to be applied.
In looking to the instant specification, the receipts and labels (i.e., linerless labels) are said to be designed to be permanently attached to the containers with which they are used [0032]. For example, a user may print the receipt or label at the point of purchase and use the receipt or label to seal a package or container that stores the food in a tamper-resistant or tamper-proof manner [0047]. Fig. 15 is said to illustrate an embodiment of a label which may be used as a receipt for sealing a bag or other container.
In each of the embodiments in which the label is used with a container, there is no disclosure of a separate “substrate” in the labeling system. Therefore, the preamble limitation reciting “for use with containers” is interpreted in light of the instant specification to mean that the linerless labels (rather than the labeling system) are intended for use with containers. However, given that the claim already requires a substrate for receiving the label, the limitation requiring that the linerless labels are intended for use with containers does not further limit the structure of the claimed product.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the limitations reciting “wherein the at least one linerless label is adapted for use as a receipt, and wherein the receipt is adapted to seal a package to which it is attached in a tamper-proof manner by creating a closure that can only be removed by damaging or destroying the package, the receipt, or both the package and the receipt” is indefinite in light of the limitations of claims 1 and 13 requiring that the system includes “a substrate for receiving the label and to which the label becomes permanently bound after the label has been attached to the substrate”.
Similar to the issues presented with respect to claims 1 and 13 above, it is not clear based on the language of the claims whether the “package” to which the linerless label is attached is an embodiment of the substrate set forth in claims 1 and 13, or if the “package” set forth in claims 3 and 14 is intended to be a separate object to which the label is attached in addition to the claimed substrate.
As explained above, in each of the embodiments in which the receipt is adapted to seal a package, there is no disclosure of a separate “substrate” in the labeling system. Therefore, the limitation requiring that the receipt (i.e., the linerless label) is “adapted to seal a package…” is interpreted in light of the instant specification to mean that the package is an embodiment of the claimed substrate for receiving the label.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the limitations reciting “wherein the second adhesive contains a predetermined amount of a humectant, and wherein the humectant includes glycerin, propylene glycol, or a combination thereof” is indefinite in light of the instant specification and in combination with the limitations of claim 1 and 13 requiring that the adhesive is either substantially dry or tacky prior to being activated or moist or wet after being activated and that the labeling system includes an activator for activating the adhesive and controlling the rate of drying thereof.
In looking to Table 1 of the instant specification, Systems 1 and 3 set forth exemplary embodiments of remoistenable adhesive systems. In System 1 (Remoistenable Adhesive), an adhesive containing polyvinyl alcohol and dextrin is used with an activator formula containing water, water + PG, water + glycerin, or water + alcohol, where the activator formula is said to control the rate of drying. In System 3 (Wet Applied Remoistenable Adhesive), an adhesive containing polyvinyl alcohol, dextrin, and a humectant (e.g., glycerin, propylene glycol) is not used with any activator formula, where the adhesive system exhibits very slow drying due to the presence of humectant and is said to form a permanent wet bond.
System 1 differs from the claimed invention in that the adhesive does not contain a humectant. System 3 differs from the claimed invention in that, although a humectant is included in the adhesive, no activator is used. System 3 also forms a “permanent wet bond”, which appears to differ from the invention of claims 1 and 13 in that the adhesive is not “substantially dry or tacky prior to being activated” or “moist or wet after being activated”. Rather, the presence of humectant in the adhesive appears to inhibit drying of the adhesive, such that no activator is required. Given that a humectant is a hygroscopic (i.e., water-attracting) substance that is used to retain moisture, it is not clear how the adhesive can be present in a dry or tacky state when a humectant is included therein.
In light of the above, the instant specification does not appear to disclose an embodiment according to claims 6 and 17 in which the labeling system includes both (c) an adhesive containing a humectant including glycerin and propylene glycol and (d) an activator for activating the adhesive and controlling the rate of drying thereof. Moreover, it is noted that there is no embodiment disclosed in the instant specification in which the activator includes water, water with glycerin, water with propylene glycol, or water with alcohol in combination with an adhesive containing a humectant which includes glycerin, propylene glycol, or a combination thereof. Clarification from the Applicant is respectfully requested.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, the limitation reciting “wherein the second adhesive contains a predetermined amount of primer, and wherein the primer includes silica” is indefinite in light of the instant specification, as it is not clear what structure is required by the claim.
The current language of the claim appears to indicate that the primer is a component of the adhesive; however, the primer described in the instant specification appears to be applied onto the label facestock as a distinct layer prior to application of the adhesive layer. In Table 2 of the instant specification, exemplary configurations of a receipt and a shipping label are shown as having primer layers formed between a paper or plastic substrate layer and a remoistenable adhesive layer. Therefore, the primer does not appear to be a component of the adhesive, but rather appears to be formed between the facestock of the linerless label and the adhesive when the adhesive is deposited on the label prior to attaching the label to the substrate.
Moreover, it is noted that the common definition of the term “primer” refers to a first coat or layer of paint, size, etc. given to any surface as a base, sealer, or the like (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/primer), such that it is not clear how the material of the primer (e.g., silica) can be considered a “primer” if it is included in the adhesive as a component thereof. For the purposes of applying prior art, any silica material that is either included in the adhesive composition or as a separate layer adjacent to the layer of adhesive will be considered to meet this limitation of claims 7 and 18.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation reciting “wherein the second adhesive is an acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive” is indefinite in combination with the limitations of claim 1 requiring that the adhesive is either substantially dry or tacky prior to being activated and moist or wet after being activated, and that the system includes an activator for activating the adhesive and controlling the rate of drying thereof.
The common meaning of the term “pressure-sensitive adhesive” is an adhesive which forms a bond when pressure is applied to bond the adhesive with a surface, where no solvent, water, or heat is needed to activate the adhesive (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure-sensitive_adhesive). Based on the conventional meaning of pressure-sensitive adhesives as they are understood in the art, it is not clear how a pressure-sensitive adhesive could be “activated” by an activator to convert from a dry or tacky state to a moist or wet state. The limitations of claim 1 appear to implicitly require that the adhesive is a “remoistenable” adhesive that is converted from a dry state to a wet state, which is substantially different from a pressure-sensitive adhesive that is not ever present in a dry state.
Furthermore, the instant specification does not appear to disclose any embodiment in which an activator is used in combination with a pressure-sensitive adhesive as claimed. In looking to the instant specification at Table 1, an exemplary adhesive system (System 2) uses an acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive as a permanent adhesive. However, no activator is included in the embodiment of System 2. The combination of limitations in claims 1 and 8 therefore do not appear to correspond to the invention disclosed in the specification.
Due to the indefiniteness of claim 8, the metes and bounds of the claim are not able to be determined, and therefore, prior art is unable to be applied.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the limitations reciting “wherein the substrate is a bag, box, or other container used for storing and transporting food and other items” is indefinite because the phrases “other container” and “other items” are not clearly defined by the claims. Absent further clarification, these limitations are interpreted to be met by any substrate in the form of a bag, a box, or a container that is capable of storing and transporting food or any items.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation reciting “wherein the receipt is applied to the substrate at a point of purchase” is indefinite because the term “the receipt” lacks proper antecedent basis as there is no prior recitation of a receipt in either of claims 13 or 15. Dependent claim 14 sets forth that the at least one linerless label is configured for use as a receipt, such that it is not clear whether claim 15 is intended to depend from claim 14. For the purposes of applying prior art, claim 15 will be interpreted to mean that the at least one linerless label is applied to the substrate at a point of purchase.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 16, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claims 1 and 13.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-19 of copending Application No. 17/825,115 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claims 1 and 10 of the instant invention, claim 16 of copending Application No. 17/825,115 recites a labeling system for use with containers, comprising: (a) at least one linerless label, wherein the at least one linerless label is configured to receive printing thereon; (b) a substrate for receiving the label and to which the label becomes permanently bound after the label has been attached to the substrate; (c) at least two materials deposited on the substrate-contacting side of the linerless label prior to attaching the linerless label to the substrate, (i) wherein the first material is a repositionable adhesive, (ii) wherein the second material is remoistenable adhesive, and (d) an activator for activating the remoistenable adhesive and controlling the drying rate thereof, wherein the activator includes water, water with a predetermined amount of glycerin, water with a predetermined amount of propylene glycol, or water with a predetermined amount of predetermined alcohol. Therefore, the repositionable adhesive of the first material corresponds to the claimed second adhesive which is substantially dry or tacky prior to being activated and moist or wet after being activated.
Regarding claim 2 of the instant invention, claim 16 of copending Application No. 17/825,115 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above, and further recites that the at least one linerless label includes a paper layer. Claim 17 of copending Application No. 17/825,115 further recites that the at least one linerless label further includes a thermal coating layer, indicating that the linerless label includes thermal paper.
Regarding claim 3 of the instant invention, claim 16 of copending Application No. 17/825,115 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above, claim 18 of copending Application No. 17/825,115 further recites that the at least one linerless label is configured for use as a receipt, wherein the receipt is configured to seal the substrate to which it is attached in a tamper-proof manner by creating a closure that can only be removed by damaging or destroying the substrate, the receipt, or both the substrate and the receipt.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant invention, claim 16 of copending Application No. 17/825,115 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above, claim 19 of copending Application No. 17/825,115 further recites that the substrate is a bag or box used for storing and transporting food.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Boom et al. (US 2021/0130035) in view of Jeske (US 2020/0005681).
Regarding claim 1, Van Boom et al. teaches an embodiment in which a bag (90) having an opening (92) which is closed by repositionable pressure sensitive adhesive tags (95) made of thermal paper printed with information (96), wherein the bag surface (91) is provided with areas (97) coated with a composition which transforms the repositionable tags into tamper evident labels with such adhesive bonding to the bag that the bag cannot be opened without tearing the labels ([0073], Fig. 7A). Van Boom et al. teaches a similar embodiment, shown in Fig. 7B, in which a bag (101) has upper edges (102) folded over and attached to the exterior surface (104) of the bag by a repositionable pressure sensitive adhesive tag (105) made of lightweight paper printed with information (106), wherein the bag surface (104) is provided with an area coated with a composition which transforms the repositionable tags into tamper evident labels with such adhesive bonding to the bag that the bag cannot be opened without tearing the labels [0074].
Van Boom et al. therefore teaches a method of transforming a printable paper product, such as a label, and in particular a linerless label, bearing a repositionable or temporary pressure sensitive adhesive into one performing like a semi-permanent or permanent adhesive [0008]. Prior to attachment of the pressure sensitive adhesive labels (95, 105) onto the bags (90, 101) shown in the embodiments of Figs. 7A and 7B, the labels and bags correspond to the claimed linerless label and substrate, respectively, which together constitute the claimed labeling system. Van Boom et al. teaches that the bag (substrate) is capable of receiving the label, and that the label becomes permanently bound to the bag after being attached thereto.
Although Van Boom et al. teaches that the repositionable adhesive (first adhesive) is deposited on the label prior to attaching the label to the bag and may be located on the label in discrete areas surrounded by areas of non-adhesive ([0008], [0052], [0055]), the reference does not expressly teach that a second adhesive which is either substantially dry or tacky prior to being activated and moist or wet after being activated is deposited on the linerless label prior to attaching the label to the substrate, or an activator for activating the second adhesive and controlling the rate of drying thereof.
However, in the analogous art of linerless labels, Jeske teaches a label (100) with a first adhesive (103) and a second adhesive (104) arranged on a backside (102) thereof in first and second patterns of alternating diagonally-directed bars ([0001], [0015], [0022], Figs. 1A-1C). Jeske teaches that the first adhesive (second adhesive) may be a moisture-activated adhesive, while the second adhesive may be a pressure-sensitive adhesive [0020]. The moisture-activated second adhesive is therefore substantially dry prior to being activated and moist or wet after being activated. Jeske further teaches that the adhesive on the label may increase in stickiness when applied to packaging that is warm, wet, or covered with condensate ([0006]-[0007]). The condensate or wetness of the packaging therefore corresponds to the claimed activator which is capable of activating the moisture-activated adhesive and controlling the rate of drying thereof depending on the amount of moisture present.
By applying such a combination of multiple adhesives, the labels can maintain stickiness (i.e., adhesive strength) when applied to dry, cool packaging and can increase in stickiness when applied to packaging that is warm, wet, or covered with condensate ([0006]-[0007]). The condensate or wetness of the packaging therefore corresponds to the claimed activator which is capable of activating the remoistenable adhesive and controlling the rate of drying thereof depending on the amount of moisture present. Jeske further teaches that by including a moisture-activated adhesive, the amount of pressure-sensitive adhesive required on the backside of the label can be reduced, thereby reducing the buildup of adhesive materials on the mechanical components of the printer such that the labels can be processed more efficiently through the printer (e.g., a thermal printer) [0027].
Given that Van Boom et al. and Jeske both teach adhesive labels for bonding to food packaging containers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the linerless label taught by Van Boom et al. by including a second adhesive which is a moisture-activated adhesive that is substantially dry or tacky prior to being activated and moist or wet after being activated, as well as an activator such as moisture or condensate, as suggested by Jeske, in order to enable the labels to have good adhesion to both dry and wet surfaces, such as food packaging containers.
Regarding claim 2, Van Boom et al. in view of Jeske teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Van Boom et al. further teaches that the adhesive labels are typically made from thermal paper [0051].
Regarding claim 3, Van Boom et al. in view of Jeske teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in the embodiments of Figs. 7A and 7B, Van Boom et al. teaches that the tags (95, 105; linerless label) are configured to seal the bag (90, 101; substrate) to which it is attached in a tamper-proof manner by creating a closure that can only be removed by destroying the bag or the label ([0018], [0030], [0040], [0073]-[0074]). Given that Van Boom et al. teaches that the labels can be made from thermal paper which is suited for use in point-of-sale (POS) printers at a restaurant or fast food located to print information relating to the food ordered, the customer, and the delivery location ([0051], [0073]), the labels are considered to be capable of being used as a receipt as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Van Boom et al. in view of Jeske teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Jeske teaches that the moisture-activated adhesive (second adhesive) may be an aqueous or water-based adhesive ([0019]), the reference does not expressly teach that the moisture-activated adhesive is a food grade material.
However, it is noted that both Van Boom et al. and Jeske teach their adhesive labels being applied to food packaging containers, wherein Van Boom et al. further teaches that coatings applied to the container must meet a safety standard for food contact surfaces (Van Boom, [0041]; Jeske, [0026]). It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a food grade material for the moisture-activated adhesive of Jeske in order to ensure that the adhesive label can be used in food contact applications such as for sealing food packaging containers.
Regarding claim 10, Van Boom et al. in view of Jeske teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, the condensate or wetness of the packaging taught by Jeske corresponds to the claimed activator which is capable of activating the moisture-activated adhesive, wherein the condensate includes water.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Van Boom et al. in view of Jeske teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Van Boom et al. further teaches that the bag (95, 105; substrate) may be a delivery bag containing food, and that the adhesive system allows for ease of handling such that the adhesive remains repositionable when needed due to its relatively low tack that does not stick to hands or gloves while the product is being used or otherwise handled ([0007], [0073]). The label is therefore capable of being attached to a substrate manually.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Boom et al. (US 2021/0130035) in view of Jeske (US 2020/0005681) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gablowski et al. (US 2020/0090554).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Van Boom et al. in view of Jeske teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Jeske teaches that the moisture-activated adhesive (second adhesive) may be an aqueous or water-based adhesive ([0019]), the reference does not expressly teach that the second adhesive contains a predetermined amount of polyvinyl alcohol or dextrin.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive labels, Gablowski et al. teaches an activatable adhesive label comprising an adhesive layer which is activatable by moisture or water [0014]. Similar to Van Boom et al., Gablowski et al. teaches that the activatable adhesive has a fast initial adhesion but also a permanent adhesion, wherein the adhesive for the adhesive layer may be selected from polyvinyl alcohols, starch derivatives (e.g., dextrin), and the like ([0009], [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the labeling system of Van Boom et al. in view of Jeske by including materials such as polyvinyl alcohol and dextrin in the moisture-activatable adhesive, given that Gablowski et al. teaches that such materials are suitable for use in moisture-activatable adhesive labels to provide a fast initial adhesion upon activation and permanent adhesion.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Boom et al. (US 2021/0130035) in view of Jeske (US 2020/0005681) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jadhav et al. (US 2020/0399507).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Van Boom et al. in view of Jeske teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Jeske teaches that the moisture-activated adhesive (second adhesive) may be an aqueous or water-based adhesive ([0019]), the reference does not expressly teach that the second adhesive contains a predetermined amount of polyvinyl alcohol or a humectant including glycerin or propylene glycol.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive labels, Jadhav et al. teaches system for producing labeled articles comprising a web of label stock including a facestock capable of receiving printed indicia, an adhesive layer that includes a water-activated adhesive, an activation liquid, and a plurality of articles to be labeled ([0061]-[0063]). The water-activated adhesive comprises an aqueous emulsion of vinyl acetate, polyvinyl alcohol, and glycerin (humectant) (Abstract). The adhesive has no significant tack prior to being activated, and the tack can be activated by application of water, moisture, or water vapor, which allows the adhesive to adhere to various substrates via a strong, permanent bond (Abstract, [0020], [0023]). Jadhav et al. teaches that when an activation liquid is applied to the provided adhesive, the polar liquid and the tackifying elements (e.g., glycerin and polyvinyl alcohol) of the adhesive form a tacky suspension material [0020]. Jadhav further teaches that the adhesive has the ability to stay in a tacky state long enough to allow application of the linerless label to an item, such as a container or article, before the adhesive loses its tackiness [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the labeling system of Van Boom et al. in view Jeske by including materials such as polyvinyl alcohol and glycerin in the moisture-activatable adhesive, given that Jadhav et al. teaches that such materials are suitable for use in moisture-activatable adhesive labels to provide a tacky material having a sufficient open time to allow application of the adhesive label to an item such as a container or an article.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Boom et al. (US 2021/0130035) in view of Jeske (US 2020/0005681) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimobayashi (JP 2000-265134, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 7, Van Boom et al. in view of Jeske teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, but the combination of references does not expressly teach that labeling system comprises a primer, wherein the primer includes silica.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive labels, Shimobayashi teaches a primer composition for an adhesive tape or sheet, wherein the primer layer serves to provide high adhesion between a support and an adhesive layer [0004]. Shimobayashi teaches that a primer layer containing a specific amount of fine particles of a specific particle size significantly improve the adhesion between the substrate and the adhesive layer, wherein the fine particles may include silica ([0005], [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the linerless label of Van Boom et al. in view of Jeske by forming a primer layer containing silica in the linerless label, as taught by Shimobayashi et al., in order to improve adhesion between the label substrate and the adhesive layer.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Boom et al. (US 2021/0130035) in view of Gablowski et al. (US 2020/0090554).
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Van Boom et al. teaches an embodiment in which a bag (90) having an opening (92) which is closed by repositionable pressure sensitive adhesive tags (95) made of thermal paper printed with information (96), wherein the bag surface (91) is provided with areas (97) coated with a composition which transforms the repositionable tags into tamper evident labels with such adhesive bonding to the bag that the bag cannot be opened without tearing the labels ([0073], Fig. 7A). Van Boom et al. teaches a similar embodiment, shown in Fig. 7B, in which a bag (101) has upper edges (102) folded over and attached to the exterior surface (104) of the bag by a repositionable pressure sensitive adhesive tag (105) made of lightweight paper printed with information (106), wherein the bag surface (104) is provided with an area coated with a composition which transforms the repositionable tags into tamper evident labels with such adhesive bonding to the bag that the bag cannot be opened without tearing the labels [0074].
Van Boom et al. therefore teaches a method of transforming a printable paper product, such as a label, and in particular a linerless label, bearing a repositionable or temporary pressure sensitive adhesive into one performing like a semi-permanent or permanent adhesive [0008]. Prior to attachment of the pressure sensitive adhesive labels (95, 105) onto the bags (90, 101) shown in the embodiments of Figs. 7A and 7B, the labels and bags correspond to the claimed linerless label and substrate, respectively, which together constitute the claimed labeling system. Van Boom et al. teaches that the bag (substrate) is capable of receiving the label, and that the label becomes permanently bound to the bag after being attached thereto.
Van Boom et al. further teaches that the bag (95, 105; substrate) may be a delivery bag containing food, and that the adhesive system allows for ease of handling such that the adhesive remains repositionable when needed due to its relatively low tack that does not stick to hands or gloves while the product is being used or otherwise handled ([0007], [0073]). The label is therefore capable of being attached to a substrate manually.
Although Van Boom et al. teaches that the repositionable adhesive (first adhesive) is deposited on the label prior to attaching the label to the bag and may be located on the label in discrete areas surrounded by areas of non-adhesive ([0008], [0052], [0055]), the reference does not expressly teach that a second adhesive which is either substantially dry or tacky prior to being activated and moist or wet after being activated is deposited on the linerless label prior to attaching the label to the substrate, or an activator for activating the second adhesive and controlling the rate of drying thereof.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive labels, Gablowski et al. teaches an activatable adhesive label comprising an adhesive layer which is activatable by moisture or water [0014]. Gablowski et al. teaches that the adhesive layer is not sticky in the dry state and is activatable by adding water, water vapor, or another fluid (activator) so that the adhesive layer is converted to an adhesive state [0014]. After evaporation of the fluid, the adhesive layer is not sticky again [0014]. Therefore, the fluid is considered to control the rate of drying of the adhesive. Similar to Van Boom et al., Gablowski et al. teaches that the adhesive has a fast initial adhesion but also a permanent adhesion, wherein the adhesive for the adhesive layer may be selected from polyvinyl alcohols, starch derivatives (e.g., dextrin), and the like ([0009], [0016]), which are commonly recognized as food grade materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the labeling system of Van Boom et al. by including a remoistenable adhesive comprising materials such as polyvinyl alcohol and dextrin in combination with an activator fluid which includes water, given that Gablowski et al. teaches that such materials are suitable for use in activatable adhesive labels to provide a fast initial adhesion upon activation and permanent adhesion.
Regarding claim 14, Van Boom et al. in view of Gablowski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. As shown in the embodiments of Figs. 7A and 7B, Van Boom et al. teaches that the tags (95, 105; linerless label) are configured to seal the bag (90, 101; substrate) to which it is attached in a tamper-proof manner by creating a closure that can only be removed by destroying the bag or the label ([0018], [0030], [0040], [0073]-[0074]). Given that Van Boom et al. teaches that the labels can be made from thermal paper which is suited for use in point-of-sale (POS) printers at a restaurant or fast food located to print information relating to the food ordered, the customer, and the delivery location ([0051], [0073]), the labels are considered to be capable of being used as a receipt as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Van Boom et al. in view of Gablowski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. The limitation requiring that the receipt is applied to the substrate at a point of purchase is a functional limitation directed to the intended use of the claimed linerless label and is accorded limited weight as the functional language does not further limit the structure of the product. Nevertheless, Van Boom et al. teaches that the adhesive labels are typically made from thermal paper which is suited for use in point-of-sale (POS) printers ([0051]), such that the label is configured to be printed and applied to the substrate at a point of purchase.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Boom et al. (US 2021/0130035) in view of Gablowski et al. (US 2020/0090554) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Jadhav et al. (US 2020/0399507).
Regarding claim 17, Van Boom et al. in view of Gablowski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Although Gablowski et al. teaches that the adhesive for the adhesive layer may include polyvinyl acetates, polyvinyl alcohols, or the like ([0016]), the reference does not expressly teach that the second adhesive contains a humectant including glycerin or propylene glycol.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive labels, Jadhav et al. teaches system for producing labeled articles comprising a web of label stock including a facestock capable of receiving printed indicia, an adhesive layer that includes a water-activated adhesive, an activation liquid, and a plurality of articles to be labeled ([0061]-[0063]). The water-activated adhesive comprises an aqueous emulsion of vinyl acetate, polyvinyl alcohol, and glycerin (humectant) (Abstract). The adhesive has no significant tack prior to being activated, and the tack can be activated by application of water, moisture, or water vapor, which allows the adhesive to adhere to various substrates via a strong, permanent bond (Abstract, [0020], [0023]). Jadhav et al. teaches that when an activation liquid is applied to the provided adhesive, the polar liquid and the tackifying elements (e.g., glycerin and polyvinyl alcohol) of the adhesive form a tacky suspension material [0020]. Jadhav further teaches that the adhesive has the ability to stay in a tacky state long enough to allow application of the linerless label to an item, such as a container or article, before the adhesive loses its tackiness [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the labeling system of Van Boom et al. in view Gablowski et al. by including a humectant such as glycerin in the moisture-activatable adhesive, given that Jadhav et al. teaches that such materials are suitable for use in moisture-activatable adhesive labels to provide a tacky material having a sufficient open time to allow application of the adhesive label to an item such as a container or an article.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Boom et al. (US 2021/0130035) in view of Gablowski et al. (US 2020/0090554) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Shimobayashi (JP 2000-265134, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 18, Van Boom et al. in view of Gablowski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above, but the combination of references does not expressly teach that labeling system comprises a primer, wherein the primer includes silica.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive labels, Shimobayashi teaches a primer composition for an adhesive tape or sheet, wherein the primer layer serves to provide high adhesion between a support and an adhesive layer [0004]. Shimobayashi teaches that a primer layer containing a specific amount of fine particles of a specific particle size significantly improve the adhesion between the substrate and the adhesive layer, wherein the fine particles may include silica ([0005], [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the linerless label of Van Boom et al. in view of Gablowski et al. by forming a primer layer containing silica in the linerless label, as taught by Shimobayashi et al., in order to improve adhesion between the label substrate and the adhesive layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785