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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on January 20, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10 are amended; claims 11, 12, 14-16, and 24 are cancelled; resulting in claims 1-10, 13, 17-23, and 25-27 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, it is suggested to amend the limitation reciting “wherein the single film layer and the laminate is microporous” to --wherein the single film layer and the laminate are microporous-- in order to improve the clarity of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the status of claim 10 is shown as “(Original)” even though claim 10 is currently amended to add the word “single” to maintain proper antecedent basis for the claimed single film layer. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as amended.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-10, 13, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta (EP 0779162 B1, cited on IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Nitta teaches a recording sheet comprising a support (I; facestock, laminate) and an image-recording/receiving layer (II; topcoat) formed on a surface (first surface) thereof ([0012], Fig. 1). The support has a laminated structure comprising a nonwoven fabric sheet (A’; non-woven layer) as a back layer and a stretched resin film (B; single film layer) bonded to a surface of the nonwoven fabric sheet ([0012], [0017]). An adhesive treatment (adhesive layer) can be applied to the back side of the recording sheet (second surface of the facestock) to convert the recording sheet into an adhesive label (label construction) [0070].
Nitta teaches that the nonwoven fabric sheet (A’) can be formed of fibers of a thermoplastic resin, e.g., polypropylene (second polymer, polypropylene polymer) [0025]. The stretched resin film (B) may be a stretched film of a thermoplastic resin or a microporous synthetic paper comprising a stretched resin film having microvoids therein [0034]. Examples of thermoplastic resins useful as materials for the synthetic paper include polyolefin resins such as ethylene-propylene copolymers (first polymer, polypropylene copolymer), wherein the synthetic papers can include inorganic particles such as calcium carbonate, talc, titanium oxide, barium sulfate, or the like (opacifying agent) ([0035], [0037]-[0038]). Nitta teaches that polyethylene has a melting point of 121-124°C, while polypropylene has a melting point of 164-167°C ([0037]-[0038]), such that the polypropylene homopolymer (second polymer) in the nonwoven fabric sheet has a melting point at least 5°C greater than the melting point of the ethylene-propylene copolymer (first polymer) in the stretched resin film.
Nitta further teaches that the thickness of the synthetic paper is from 20 to 300 µm, where microporous synthetic papers having a thickness smaller than 20 µm are difficult to produce, but thicknesses exceeding 300 µm are difficult to supply in the form of a roll [0040]. Nitta teaches an embodiment in which the nonwoven fabric sheet is made of spun bond Unisel (manufactured by Teijin Ltd.), which contains PET and PP fibers and has a thickness of 57 µm ([0025], [0105], Table 1). Nitta therefore discloses that the support (facestock) has a total thickness in the approximate range of 77 µm to 357 µm, which overlaps the claimed range of 50 µm to 150 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Nitta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Nitta teaches that the presence of the nonwoven fabric sheet (A’; non-woven layer) serves to improve the tear resistance and to prevent curling of the recording sheet ([0014]), the reference does not expressly teach a layer configuration in which the laminate comprises one single film layer and two non-woven layers, wherein the single film layer is between the two non-woven layers.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adhesive label of Nitta by providing another nonwoven fabric sheet on the other side of the stretched resin film, such that the stretched resin film is between the two nonwoven fabric sheets, in order to further improve the tear resistance and curling resistance of the adhesive label. It is well settled that duplication of parts holds no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 5, Nitta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Nitta teaches that the stretched resin film (B; single film layer) may be a microporous synthetic paper ([0034]-[0035]), such that the stretched resin film and the support (laminate) containing the stretched resin film are microporous.
Regarding claims 6-9, Nitta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the microporous synthetic paper of the stretched resin film (B) may be a biaxially stretched film, or a synthetic paper comprising a biaxially stretched base layer and a uniaxially stretched film laminated on at least one side of the base layer [0035]. Either of the biaxially stretched film or the uniaxially stretched film can be taken to correspond to the claimed single film layer, which is oriented in a machine direction or is biaxially oriented. The support (laminate) containing such oriented films is therefore also either oriented in a machine direction or biaxially oriented.
Regarding claim 10, Nitta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. With respect to the limitation requiring that the single film layer is a blown film, it is noted that this limitation is a product-by-process limitation directed to a method of forming the single film layer. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production; if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.
Nitta teaches that the stretched resin film (B; single film layer) may include a biaxially stretched thermoplastic resin film and/or a uniaxially stretched thermoplastic resin film [0035]. Nitta therefore teaches a stretched resin film having a substantially identical structure to that of the claimed single film layer formed by a blown film process, where the biaxially stretched film or the uniaxially stretched film satisfies the limitation requiring that the single film layer is stretched in the machine direction.
Regarding claim 13, Nitta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Nitta teaches that the thermoplastic resins useful as materials for the synthetic paper include polyolefin resins such as ethylene-propylene copolymers (first polymer, polypropylene-polyethylene copolymer) [0037].
Regarding claims 18-21, Nitta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. With respect to the limitations in claims 18-21 directed to the cavitating agent, it is noted that claim 1 sets forth an alternative limitation in which the single film layer comprises at least one of an opacifying agent and a cavitating agent. Given that Nitta teaches that the stretched resin film can contain opaque pigments as inorganic particles, the limitations in claims 1 and 18-21 are satisfied by the presence of an opacifying agent.
Regarding claim 22, Nitta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the ink-receiving layer (II; topcoat) can be applied at a spread rate (coatweight level) of from 5 to 50 g/m2 ([0053]), which overlaps the claimed range of less than 10 gsm. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 23, Nitta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the ink-receiving layer (II; topcoat) can contain an ink-setting agent such as an acrylic copolymer, or can contain an acrylurethane resin (urethane acrylic polymer) ([0052], [0071]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta (EP 0779162 B1, cited on IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jensen et al. (US 5,662,985, previously cited).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Nitta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Nitta teaches that the recording sheet can include an adhesive on the back side thereof in order to convert the recording sheet into an adhesive label ([0070]), the reference does not teach that a release liner is applied to a portion of the second surface of the adhesive layer.
Jensen et al. teaches a label facestock structure comprising a polymeric film having an adhesive anchor layer on a first side thereof and an ink base layer on a second side thereof (Abstract). A pressure sensitive adhesive is located between the adhesive anchor layer of the facestock and a release surface of a release liner (col 2, Ln 48-54; col 10, Ln 25-28). Release liners contemplated are silicone release coated substrates, where substrates include polyester (such as polyethylene terephthalate, PET), polyethylene coated kraft-brand paper (PCK), or the like (col 10, Ln 52-64). Jensen et al. teaches that when the film is to be secured to an object, the release liner is removed from the film and the exposed adhesive surface is placed onto the object, wherein all of the adhesive remains with the facestock when it is removed from the release liner (col 2, Ln 48-59; col 12, Ln 43-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective 39. filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adhesive label of Nitta by applying a release liner made of PCK or PET to the adhesive layer, as suggested by Jensen et al., for the purpose of temporarily protecting the adhesive layer prior to use.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta (EP 0779162 B1, cited on IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Campbell (US 2003/0012911, newly cited).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Nitta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Nitta teaches that the recording sheet can include an adhesive on the back side thereof in order to convert the recording sheet into an adhesive label ([0070]), the reference does not teach that the adhesive layer comprises an acrylic polymer.
Campbell teaches an adhesive label suitable for processing through a laser printer, comprising a tear resistant layer with a liquid topcoating that dries into a printable layer, wherein the adhesive layer is permanently adhered to the other side of the tear resistant layer (Abstract). Campbell teaches that the adhesive layer includes layers comprising a permanent adhesive or non-permanent adhesive, where the adhesive can be of various types which can withstand the heat generated by a laser printer, wherein examples include acrylic emulsion pressure-sensitive adhesives [0024].
Given that Nitta teaches that its recording sheet may also be used for laser printing ([0002]), 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 adhesive label of Nitta by selecting an acrylic emulsion adhesive as the material of the adhesive layer, as suggested by Campbell, in order to ensure that the adhesive layer can withstand the heat generated by a laser printer.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta (EP 0779162 B1, cited on IDS) in view of Campbell (US 2003/0012911, newly cited).
Regarding claim 27, Nitta teaches a recording sheet comprising a support (I; facestock, laminate) and an image-recording/receiving layer (II; topcoat) formed on a surface (first surface) thereof ([0012], Fig. 1). The image-recording/receiving layer may be a coating layer (IIc) for laser printing, on which a printed image (laser-printed indicia) can be formed with a laser printer ([0046], [0082]). The support has a laminated structure comprising a nonwoven fabric sheet (A’; non-woven layer) as a back layer and a stretched resin film (B; single film layer) bonded to a surface of the nonwoven fabric sheet ([0012], [0017]). An adhesive treatment (adhesive layer) can be applied to the back side of the recording sheet (second surface of the facestock) to convert the recording sheet into an adhesive label (label construction) [0070].
Nitta teaches that the nonwoven fabric sheet (A’) can be formed of fibers of a thermoplastic resin, e.g., polypropylene (second polymer, polypropylene polymer) [0025]. The stretched resin film (B) may be a stretched film of a thermoplastic resin or a microporous synthetic paper comprising a stretched resin film having microvoids therein [0034]. Examples of thermoplastic resins useful as materials for the synthetic paper include polyolefin resins such as ethylene-propylene copolymers (first polymer, polypropylene copolymer), wherein the synthetic papers can include inorganic particles such as calcium carbonate, talc, titanium oxide, barium sulfate, or the like (opacifying agent) ([0035], [0037]-[0038]). Nitta teaches that polyethylene has a melting point of 121-124°C, while polypropylene has a melting point of 164-167°C ([0037]-[0038]), such that the polypropylene homopolymer (second polymer) in the nonwoven fabric sheet has a melting point at least 5°C greater than the melting point of the ethylene propylene copolymer (first polymer) in the stretched resin film.
Nitta further teaches that the thickness of the synthetic paper is from 20 to 300 µm, where microporous synthetic papers having a thickness smaller than 20 µm are difficult to produce, but thicknesses exceeding 300 µm are difficult to supply in the form of a roll [0040]. Nitta teaches an embodiment in which the nonwoven fabric sheet is made of spun bond Unisel (manufactured by Teijin Ltd.), which contains PET and PP fibers and has a thickness of 57 µm ([0025], [0105], Table 1). Nitta therefore discloses that the support (facestock) has a total thickness in the approximate range of 77 µm to 357 µm, which overlaps the claimed range of 50 µm to 150 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Although Nitta teaches an adhesive label having an adhesive layer on a back side thereof, Nitta differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach a storage drum comprising a container and the label.
Similar to Nitta, Campbell teaches an adhesive label suitable for processing through a laser printer, comprising a tear resistant layer with a liquid topcoating that dries into a printable layer, wherein the adhesive layer is permanently adhered to the other side of the tear resistant layer (Abstract). Campbell teaches that the label can comprise permanent or non-permanent adhesive which allows the label to be adhered to various surfaces, such as steel (metal), fiber, and plastic drums ([0025]-[0026], Fig. 3). Campbell further teaches that such labels may be attached to large containers or drums in which bulk chemicals are packaged in order to display hazard warnings and properties of the chemicals therein [0008].
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 adhesive label of Nitta by selecting an appropriate adhesive to allow the label to be adhered to the surface of a storage drum made of plastic or metal, as taught by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the adhesive label taught by Nitta to a storage drum, as suggested by Campbell, in order to enable hazard warnings and properties of the chemicals stored within the drum to be displayed on an outer surface thereof.
Response to Arguments
Response-Specification
The previous objection to the specification is overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to paragraph [0037] in the response filed January 20, 2026, correcting the typographical error.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the remarks filed January 20, 2026, have been considered but are moot because they do not address the new combination of references being used in the rejections above. In light of the amendments to claim 1, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Vander Velden et al. and Kathal et al. are withdrawn, and new rejections based on Nitta are presented in the office action above to address the new combination of limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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