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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recitation in claims 5, 10, and 18 of “the target paper has at least two adhesive papers” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that applicant’s specification discloses the claimed “target paper” as part number 2 in applicant’s drawings. Applicant’s drawings does not show “at least two adhesive papers”. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West (6019375).
Regarding claim 1, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a target paper with double target pattern surfaces, comprising: a release paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) with one surface having a release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14) (Col. 4, Lines 53-63); and an adhesive paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 12) (Col. 4, Lines 39-50) stuck onto the release layer (14)(Col. 4, Lines 66-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-16).
West does not teach a surface of the adhesive paper opposite to the release paper and either of two surfaces of the release paper in a thickness direction are provided with a target pattern respectively.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “a surface of the adhesive paper opposite to the release paper and either of two surfaces of the release paper in a thickness direction are provided with a target pattern respectively” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate (the adhesive paper) is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 2, West (Figures 1-4) teaches the release paper comprises a base paper layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42), and the release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14) is provided on a surface of the base paper layer (Col. 4, Lines 2-8).
Regarding claim 3, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a surface of the base paper layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) not provided with the release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “a target pattern” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate (the base paper layer) is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 4, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a surface of the base paper layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) not provided with the release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
West does not teach the target pattern each comprises at least two chromatic zones, and the chromatic zones have a same color type and different chrominances.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the target pattern each comprises at least two chromatic zones, and the chromatic zones have a same color type and different chrominances” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 6, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a release paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) with one surface having a release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
West does not teach the target pattern has a main target center.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the target pattern has a main target center” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 7, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a release paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) with one surface having a release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
West does not teach the target pattern further comprises a plurality of auxiliary target centers, and the plurality of auxiliary target centers are arranged around the main target center.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the target pattern further comprises a plurality of auxiliary target centers, and the plurality of auxiliary target centers are arranged around the main target center” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 8, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a surface of the base paper layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) provided with the release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
West does not teach a target pattern.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the target pattern” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a release paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) with one surface having a release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
West does not teach the target pattern each comprises at least two chromatic zones, and the chromatic zones have a same color type and different chrominances.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the target pattern each comprises at least two chromatic zones, and the chromatic zones have a same color type and different chrominances” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 11, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a release paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) with one surface having a release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
West does not teach the target pattern has a main target center.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the target pattern has a main target center” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 12, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a release paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) with one surface having a release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
West does not teach the target pattern further comprises a plurality of auxiliary target centers, and the plurality of auxiliary target centers are arranged around the main target center.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the target pattern further comprises a plurality of auxiliary target centers, and the plurality of auxiliary target centers are arranged around the main target center” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 14, West (Figures 1-4) teaches the release layer (14) is a colored layer (Col. 4, Lines 53-63).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “to constitute the target pattern” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 15, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a release paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) with one surface having a release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
West does not teach the target pattern each comprises at least two chromatic zones, and the chromatic zones have a same color type and different chrominances.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the target pattern each comprises at least two chromatic zones, and the chromatic zones have a same color type and different chrominances” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 16, West (Figures 1-4) teaches the target paper has a target center.
West does not teach the target pattern has a color chrominance gradually darkening or gradually lightening in a direction away from the target center.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the target pattern has a color chrominance gradually darkening or gradually lightening in a direction away from the target center” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 17, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a release paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) with one surface having a release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
West does not teach various regions of the respective target pattern have different printing densities of pigment dots.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “various regions of the respective target pattern have different printing densities of pigment dots” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 19, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a release paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) with one surface having a release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
West does not teach the target pattern has a main target center.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the target pattern has a main target center” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 20, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a release paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) with one surface having a release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
West does not teach the target pattern further comprises a plurality of auxiliary target centers, and the plurality of auxiliary target centers are arranged around the main target center.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the target pattern further comprises a plurality of auxiliary target centers, and the plurality of auxiliary target centers are arranged around the main target center” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
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.
Claims 5, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (6019375).
Regarding claim 5, West (Figures 1-4) teaches the target paper has an adhesive papers (Fig. 3, Part No. 12) (Col. 4, Lines 39-50), in which the adhesive paper serves as a main target sticker.
West does not teach the target paper has at least two adhesive papers, the other adhesive papers serve as auxiliary target stickers, and at least one of the auxiliary target stickers is provided with the target pattern.
It is noted that the prior art of West teaches adhering layers of a target paper using adhesive (See West: Col. 5, Lines 66-67; Col. 6, Lines 1-3 and Lines 51-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide West with the target paper has at least two adhesive papers and the other adhesive papers serve as auxiliary target stickers as a means of mere duplication of parts (See: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “at least one of the auxiliary target stickers is provided with the target pattern” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 10, West (Figures 1-4) teaches the target paper has an adhesive paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 12) (Col. 4, Lines 39-50), in which the adhesive paper serves as a main target sticker.
West does not teach the target paper has at least two adhesive papers, the other adhesive papers serve as auxiliary target stickers, and at least one of the auxiliary target stickers is provided with the target pattern.
It is noted that the prior art of West teaches adhering layers of a target paper using adhesive (See West: Col. 5, Lines 66-67; Col. 6, Lines 1-3 and Lines 51-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide West with the target paper has at least two adhesive papers and the other adhesive papers serve as auxiliary target stickers as a means of mere duplication of parts (See: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “at least one of the auxiliary target stickers is provided with the target pattern” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 18, West (Figures 1-4) teaches the target paper has an adhesive paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 12) (Col. 4, Lines 39-50), in which the adhesive paper serves as a main target sticker.
West does not teach the target paper has at least two adhesive papers, the other adhesive papers serve as auxiliary target stickers, and at least one of the auxiliary target stickers is provided with the target pattern.
It is noted that the prior art of West teaches adhering layers of a target paper using adhesive (See West: Col. 5, Lines 66-67; Col. 6, Lines 1-3 and Lines 51-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide West with the target paper has at least two adhesive papers and the other adhesive papers serve as auxiliary target stickers as a means of mere duplication of parts (See: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “at least one of the auxiliary target stickers is provided with the target pattern” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (6019375) in view of Sharrock (20150001802).
Regarding claim 13, West (Figures 1-4) teaches a release paper (Fig. 3, Part No. 16) (Col. 5, Lines 36-42) with one surface having a release layer (Fig. 3, Part No. 14).
West does not teach the release layer is a transparent layer to reveal the target pattern provided on the base paper layer.
Sharrock (Figures 1-2) teaches the release layer (Fig. 2, Part No. 13) is a transparent layer (Para. 0011).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “to reveal the target pattern provided on the base paper layer” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter (the target pattern) and the substrate is not new and obvious as it is known to have indicia on a target surface (See for example: Sharrock, Lee (20220146237), Tanoury (20220099415), Chia (20220074716), Ervin (20180010892), Gamez (20070262529), Mujic (5415415)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide West with the release layer is a transparent layer as taught by Sharrock as a means of providing layered target assembly with a transparent laminate layer that is substantially transparent to visible light but is only semi-transparent (e.g., semi-opaque) to UV light (Sharrock: Para. 0010-0011).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, EUGENE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
