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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 4/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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 3 and 9 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.
Claim 3 recites “walls, wall lines, and/or connecting webs.” These are completely unconnected to the pressing element and it is unclear if they are positively claimed as part of the pressing element or are simply comparisons that are not part of the device. Examiner assumes this states the cavities in the pressing element are wider than at least some walls forming the pressing element but this is absolutely not clear from the current claim language. Applicant must connect the wall lines etc. to the pressing element.
Claim 9 recites PET, PLA and TPU95a are apparently short-hand for polyethylene terephthalate, polylactic acid, and thermoplastic polyurethane with Shore A hardness of 95. Applicant should fully identify these materials at least once for clarity in the claims before using their acronym.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (US 11,225,350) in view of DE202015106745, wherein all textual citations are to the English translation provided).
Regarding Claims 1, 2 and 10 Koch et al. teaches a pressing element for pressing labels onto bottles in a labeling machine (See Abstract, col. 2, lines 60-61, and col. 5, 16-25, wherein the tamp pad is a pressing element as claimed, usable in a labeling device for applying labels to bottles), comprising:
a pressing pad [120] comprising a front-face pressing contour [128] configured to press the labels onto a surface of wall sections of the bottles (See col. 5, lines 6-25, wherein the appendages [128] are a contoured surface for applying pressure to objects such as bottles); and
a rear-face securing section [122] configured to fasten the pressing element to an associated support (See col. 4, lines 24-27), wherein a region of the pressing contour is elastically flexible with respect to the securing section (See col. 7, lines 30-33 and lines 60-63, and it is clear the appendages are flexible relative to the base structure as their design is to flex on the base), wherein the pressing pad and the securing section are integrally formed together (See col. 4, lines 32-35, wherein the base [122] and pressing contour may be integral) and are made of at least one additively layered material (See col. 8, lines 7-10, and note plastic is an additive material), and wherein elastically deformable cavities are formed in the pressing pad (See col. 8, lines 3-4 and Figs. 3F, showing a plurality of elongated elastically deformable cavities, the direction of elongation being the longitudinal direction in claim 2).
Koch et al. teaches fastening to a base and thus reasonably indicates it is configured to be fastened to said base, which may be part of an arm (and note the arm is not claimed). However, even assuming such language implies an actual fastening device (and note none is explicitly claimed), this is well-known in similar label pressing pads. DE202015106745 teach a similar pressing pad with locking mechanisms integrally formed with the remainder of the pressing pad in a 3D printing process, i.e. additive layer methods, that secure the press to an arm [16],[13] in a labeling device (See page 1, paragraph [0001], page 10, paragraph [0027], page 19, paragraph [0055] and Fig. 9a, teaching a similar pressing pad with fasteners/locking mechanisms integrally formed in 3D printing and having fasteners [14] to secure it to an arm; note these fasteners [14] are reasonably considered rails that run in the same direction as the appendages, i.e. the longitudinal direction, as in claim 10). Thus, even if a fastening portion and additive layering are required, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize such methods and such an integral fastening device on the base. Such methods and structures are well-known to integrally form similar label pressing pads and provide elements to facilitate securing to the base in the labeling machine, i.e. such as an arm.
Regarding Claims 3-4, Examiner notes the figures show the cavities wider than the side walls, wherein the cavities extend into the base (See Fig. 3F). Further, a top sheet [330] may also be integrally formed on the appendages, effectively creating new cavities between the base and the sheet (See Fig. 3H and col. 10, lines 10-20). This indicates the appendages section can have cavities between the appendages and within the appendages, making this section almost all cavities. Although the volume of cavities is not taught, the teaching of Koch et al. would appear to indicate embodiments where the cavities are at least half the volume of the pressing pad are within the scope of its teachings. Examiner notes the appendages section is always illustrated as being larger in volume than the base. If the pressing pad is 75% cavities, which seems reasonable since the appendages and the space between them under the sheet are reasonably considered as cavity space, and 70% of the volume of the pressing pad is the appendage portion, which certainly is obvious given the illustrations and the fact the appendages are taught to implement pressing and the base is merely to support them, this would make the pad 52.5% cavities even if the base is completely solid, and it need not be as shown in Fig. 3F. Thus, more than 50% cavities certainly would appear to be within the scope of what is taught in Koch et al. and would have at least been obvious to save on material costs while implementing flexible appendages under a sheet [330]. Examiner submits it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use routine experimentation to arrive at the best amount of cavity sapce, such as that which is claimed, in order to meet customer specifications or consumer demands.
Regarding Claim 5, Koch et al. illustrates all appendages as having adjacent wall lines when formed as cavities (See Fig. 3F).
Regarding Claim 6, Koch et al. illustrates a concave outer contour (See Fig. 3D).
Regarding Claim 7, Koch et al. teaches the base may be a rigid material whereas the appendages are flexible, compressible, and/or deformable material (See col. 4, lines 28-41), and also teaches the appendages themselves may have different hardnesses (See col. 8, lines 16-32). Further, DE202015106745 teaches 3D printing easily enables the implementation of different hardness in different location of a pressing pad (See pages 8-9, paragraph [0024]). Thus, at the very least, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the appendage portion softer than the base in Koch et al. This relationship would have predictably enabled the appendage section to conform to what it presses as the base supports it, the desired outcome in Koch et al.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. and DE202015106745 as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of EP3854709 and Hansen et al. (US 10,388,436).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Koch et al. and DE202015106745 teach the method of Claim 1 as described above. Koch et al. further teaches the base [122] and appendages [128] may each be made of the same material (See col. 4, lines 35-36), specifically “a flexible material, such as silicone, silicon rubber, plastic, foam, … or the like” (See col. 8, lines 8-10). Koch et al. doesn’t specifically teach thermoplastic polyurethanes such as TPU95a, but this is an elastic thermoplastic material known to behave like a tough rubber. EP3854709 indicates 3D printed materials can act similar to foams and 3D printing is well-known to enable shaping of elastic material into desired complex shapes for label pressers (See page 10, paragraph [0026] and page 12, paragraph [0032]), which echoes the teachings of DE202015106745. Further, TPU95a, i.e. thermoplastic polyurethane, is well-known as a common material used in 3D printing that is a known alternative to foams and rubbers (See, for example, Hansen et al., col. 6, lines 25-27). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize TPU95a as the material for forming the pressing pad of Koch et al. Koch et al. teaches rubbers, foams, and plastics are suitable materials, and it has been established 3D printing is an ideal forming method. TPU95a is a plastic material well-suited for 3D printing and that is known to function similarly to foams and rubbers. As such, TPU95a would have predictably been a suitable material to achieve the desired properties of the presser in Koch et al. while facilitating use of desirable forming methods such as 3D printing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FR3132508 (see English translation) teaches a nearly identical concept to the instant invention, i.e. 3D printing high cavity space label pressers with TPU, and was filed prior to the instant priority date, but was published later only in France and thus is not available as prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights