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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and claims 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (based on dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 requires the limitation of “…and has a protective strip outer surface that faces radially outward and is free of material for increasing grip between the raised protective strip and the web of fabric.” However, there is insufficient support for the raised protective strip to be free of material for increasing grip. There is no explicit mention of the raised protective strip precluding a certain material and there is no mention of this type of material in the originally filed specification. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 8 and claims 9-14 (based on dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8 requires the limitation of “…and has a protective strip outer surface that faces radially outward and is free of material for increasing grip between the raised protective strip and the web of fabric.” However, there is insufficient support for the raised protective strip to be free of material for increasing grip. There is no explicit mention of the raised protective strip precluding a certain material and there is no mention of this type of material in the originally filed specification. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 15 and claims 16-20 (based on dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 15 requires the limitation of “…and has a protective strip outer surface that faces radially outward and is free of material for increasing grip between the raised protective strip and the web of fabric.” However, there is insufficient support for the raised protective strip to be free of material for increasing grip. There is no explicit mention of the raised protective strip precluding a certain material and there is no mention of this type of material in the originally filed specification. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Hardy (US 3,826,445) in view of Von Paleske (US 2003/0080233) and Ogg et al. (US 5,671,897).
Regarding claim 1, Le Hardy teaches a yarn carriers which include a base tube which may be of any number of plies combined with an appropriate adhesive (“a tube for winding a web of fabric or similar material thereon comprising: an inner tube comprising a plurality of inner layers that are wound one upon another about a longitudinal axis of the inner tube and adhered together, the inner tube having a cylindrical inner tube outer surface”) (Col. 1, Lines 44-59; Col. 2, Lines 3-19; Fig. 1-2). An outer ply is also added to the base tube (“an outermost layer formed by a strip of material that is helically wound around the inner tube outer surface, wherein the outermost layer has a tuber outer surface”) (Col. 2, Lines 20-30; Fig. 1-2).
Le Hardy is silent with respect to the outer ply having a plurality of raised gripping portions extending radially outward from the tube outer surface by a raised gripping potion distance.
Von Paleske teaches a roll product in which a band shaped web of material is wound and the roll includes at least one protuberance protruding outward from the outer surface (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0001]). The protuberances allow for mechanically and releasably engage and hold the band-shaped web of material (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the yarn carriers of Le Hardy with the protuberances of Von Paleske in order to mechanically and releasably engage and hold the yarn to be wrapped around the carrier.
Le Hardy is additionally silent with respect to a raised protective strip formed at the outermost ply and wrapping around the outermost ply such that at least a portion of the plurality of raised gripping portions are uncovered and exposed to an exterior of the tube and wherein the raised protective strip extends radially outward form the tube outer surface by a protective strip distance and has a protective strip outer surface that faces radially outward and is free of material for increasing grip between the raised protective strip and the web of fabric.
Ogg teaches core wound paper products, such as toilet tissue and paper towels, and more particularly to cores having improved physical properties and which reduce total raw material usage. The cores improved physical properties allow for the cores to resist crushing and are formed from inner and outer plies which form a gap which is then further covered with an additional ply of material (Col. 1, Line 53-Col. 2, Line 21; Col. 5, Lines 13-23; Fig. 5). Figure 1 further shows the cores with the gap being arranged helically. Ogg additionally teaches the gaps being covered by an overlap of the inner ply and the outer ply (Col. 4, Lines 36-51; Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the carriers of Le Hardy with the protuberances of Von Paleske to further include a third ply of material, or an overlap seam, arranged helically around the carriers in order to provide improve physical properties including resisting crushing as taught by Ogg. Furthermore, Ogg fails to teach the use of any abrasive materials and would meet the limitation of wherein the raised protective strip has a protective strip outer surface that faces radially outward and is free of abrasive material.
Regarding claim 2, Le Hardy teaches the carriers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Von Paleske teaches the protuberances as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The protuberances can be formed using heating penetrating means (“wherein the plurality of raised gripping portions comprises a plurality of embossments formed in the outermost layer”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Le Hardy teaches the carriers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, Ogg teaches the inclusion of an additional ply to cover any gaps in order to improve the physical properties of the carriers. Furthermore, as discussed above, figure 1 shows the gaps which are to be covered arranged helically and the additional ply would be wrapped helically around the carriers.
Regarding claim 5, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 4. Von Paleske teaches the protuberances as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Ogg teaches the inclusion of an additional ply to cover any gaps in order to improve the physical properties of the carriers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciate that in order for the protuberances to mechanically and releasably engage and hold the yarn to be wrapped around the carrier, the strip would need to be in a different location than the protuberances.
Regarding claim 6, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, Ogg teaches the covering of the gaps may be formed via an overlap seam as illustrated in figure 3.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Hardy (US 3,826,445) in view of Von Paleske (US 2003/0080233) and Ogg et al. (US 5,671,897) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McClellan (US 4,026,690).
Regarding claim 7, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 1 in view of Ogg which teaches the use of overlap seams.
Le Hardy and Ogg are silent with respect to the overlap seams being formed by one of the plurality of inner layers of the inner tube where a first edge of the one of the plurality of inner layers is applied to an underlying layer and a second edge of the one of the plurality of inner layers is applied to the one of the plurality of inner layers over the first edge and overlaps the first edge, and wherein the raised protective strip is formed in a raised portion of the outermost layer that overlies the overlap seam.
McClellan teaches helically wound forming tubes for glass fibers (Col. 1, Lines 6-8). The tubes are formed to be stronger through the use of overlapped joints (Col. 2, Lines 23-36). Figure 5 illustrates the use of these overlapped jointed including a spiral overlapped joint in intermediate plies resulting in providing maximum strength to the tubes (Col. 5, Lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the carriers of Le Hardy to further include an overlapped joint between intermediate plies in order to provide maximum strength to the carriers as taught by McClellan. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this overlapped joint results in a raised protective strip as shown in figure 5 of McClellan.
Claims 8-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Hardy (US 3,826,445) in view of Von Paleske (US 2003/0080233) and Ogg et al. (US 5,671,897).
Le Hardy teaches a yarn carriers which include a base tube which may be of any number of plies combined with an appropriate adhesive (“a tube for winding a web of fabric or similar material thereon comprising: an inner tube comprising a plurality of inner layers that are wound one upon another about a longitudinal axis of the inner tube and adhered together, the inner tube having a cylindrical inner tube outer surface”) (Col. 1, Lines 44-59; Col. 2, Lines 3-19; Fig. 1-2). An outer ply is also added to the base tube (“an outermost layer formed by a strip of material that is helically wound around the inner tube outer surface, wherein the outermost layer has a tuber outer surface”) (Col. 2, Lines 20-30; Fig. 1-2).
Le Hardy is silent with respect to the outer ply having a plurality of raised gripping portions extending radially outward from the tube outer surface by a raised gripping potion distance.
Von Paleske teaches a roll product in which a band shaped web of material is wound and the roll includes at least one protuberance protruding outward from the outer surface (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0001]). The protuberances allow for mechanically and releasably engage and hold the band-shaped web of material (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the yarn carriers of Le Hardy with the protuberances of Von Paleske in order to mechanically and releasably engage and hold the yarn to be wrapped around the carrier.
Le Hardy is additionally silent with respect to a raised protective strip formed at the outermost ply and wrapping around the outermost ply such that at least a portion of the plurality of raised gripping portions are uncovered and exposed to an exterior of the tube and wherein the raised protective strip extends radially outward form the tube outer surface by a protective strip distance and has a protective strip outer surface that faces radially outward and is free of material for increasing grip between the raised protective strip and the web of fabric.
Ogg teaches core wound paper products, such as toilet tissue and paper towels, and more particularly to cores having improved physical properties and which reduce total raw material usage. The cores improved physical properties allow for the cores to resist crushing and are formed from inner and outer plies which form a gap which is then further covered with an additional ply of material (Col. 1, Line 53-Col. 2, Line 21; Col. 5, Lines 13-23; Fig. 5). Figure 1 further shows the cores with the gap being arranged helically. Ogg additionally teaches the gaps being covered by an overlap of the inner ply and the outer ply (Col. 4, Lines 36-51; Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the carriers of Le Hardy with the protuberances of Von Paleske to further include a third ply of material, or an overlap seam, arranged helically around the carriers in order to provide improve physical properties including resisting crushing as taught by Ogg. Furthermore, Ogg fails to teach the use of any abrasive materials and would meet the limitation of wherein the raised protective strip has a protective strip outer surface that faces radially outward and is free of abrasive material.
Regarding claim 9, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, Ogg teaches the covering of the gaps may be formed via an overlap seam as illustrated in figure 3.
Regarding claim 11, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 8. Von Paleske teaches the protuberances as discussed above with respect to claim 8. The protuberances can be formed using heating penetrating means (“wherein the plurality of raised gripping portions comprises a plurality of embossments formed in the outermost layer”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 8. Von Paleske teaches the protuberances as discussed above with respect to claim 8. The protuberances can be formed using heating penetrating means (“wherein the plurality of raised gripping portions comprises a plurality of perforations formed in the outermost layer”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 13, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 8. Von Paleske teaches the protuberances as discussed above with respect to claim 8. Rummage teaches the strip as discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Le Hardy is silent with respect to the protuberances having a height which is greater than the strip.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to optimize the ----heights of the protuberances and the strips taught by Von Paleske and Ogg as the inventions directed to core or tubes which are used to hold fabrics or bands of material, and the Applicant's invention is also directed towards the same (See claim 1; Paragraphs [0005]-[0008]). As such, the height of the protuberances being greater than the strip as claimed is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, because the of the size of the protuberances and strip are designed in order to mechanically hold and snag fibers as discussed above, the heights would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 14, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 8. Von Paleske teaches the protuberances as discussed above with respect to claim 8. Rummage teaches the strip as discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Le Hardy is silent with respect to the protuberances having a height of 0.013 to 0.022 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to optimize the ----heights of the protuberances taught by Von Paleske as the invention is directed to core or tubes which are used to hold fabrics or bands of material, and the Applicant's invention is also directed towards the same (See claim 1; Paragraphs [0005]-[0008]). As such, the height of the protuberances is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, because the of the size of the protuberances and strip are designed in order to mechanically hold and snag fibers as discussed above, the height would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Hardy (US 3,826,445) in view of Von Paleske (US 2003/0080233) and Ogg et al. (US 5,671,897) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of McClellan (US 4,026,690).
Regarding claim 10, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 8 in view of Ogg which teaches the use of overlap seams.
Le Hardy and Ogg are silent with respect to the overlap seams being formed by one of the plurality of inner layers of the inner tube where a first edge of the one of the plurality of inner layers is applied to an underlying layer and a second edge of the one of the plurality of inner layers is applied to the one of the plurality of inner layers over the first edge and overlaps the first edge, and wherein the raised protective strip is formed in a raised portion of the outermost layer that overlies the overlap seam.
McClellan teaches helically wound forming tubes for glass fibers (Col. 1, Lines 6-8). The tubes are formed to be stronger through the use of overlapped joints (Col. 2, Lines 23-36). Figure 5 illustrates the use of these overlapped jointed including a spiral overlapped joint in intermediate plies resulting in providing maximum strength to the tubes (Col. 5, Lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the carriers of Le Hardy to further include an overlapped joint between intermediate plies in order to provide maximum strength to the carriers as taught by McClellan. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this overlapped joint results in a raised protective strip as shown in figure 5 of McClellan.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Hardy (US 3,826,445) in view of Von Paleske (US 2003/0080233) and Ogg et al. (US 5,671,897).
Regarding claim 15, Le Hardy teaches a yarn carriers which include a base tube which may be of any number of plies combined with an appropriate adhesive (“a tube for winding a web of fabric or similar material thereon comprising: an inner tube comprising a plurality of inner layers that are wound one upon another about a longitudinal axis of the inner tube and adhered together, the inner tube having a cylindrical inner tube outer surface”) (Col. 1, Lines 44-59; Col. 2, Lines 3-19; Fig. 1-2). An outer ply is also added to the base tube (“an outermost layer formed by a strip of material that is helically wound around the inner tube outer surface, wherein the outermost layer has a tuber outer surface”) (Col. 2, Lines 20-30; Fig. 1-2). Furthermore, as illustrated in figure 2, the method of forming the carrier includes forming the innermost layers followed by forming the outermost layer (“method of forming a tube”) (Col. 1, Line 41-43).
Le Hardy is silent with respect to the outer ply having a plurality of raised gripping portions extending radially outward from the tube outer surface by a raised gripping potion distance.
Von Paleske teaches a roll product in which a band shaped web of material is wound and the roll includes at least one protuberance protruding outward from the outer surface (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0001]). The protuberances allow for mechanically and releasably engage and hold the band-shaped web of material (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the yarn carriers of Le Hardy with the protuberances of Von Paleske in order to mechanically and releasably engage and hold the yarn to be wrapped around the carrier.
Le Hardy is additionally silent with respect to a raised protective strip formed at the outermost ply and wrapping around the outermost ply such that at least a portion of the plurality of raised gripping portions are uncovered and exposed to an exterior of the tube and wherein the raised protective strip extends radially outward form the tube outer surface by a protective strip distance and has a protective strip outer surface that faces radially outward and is free of material for increasing grip between the raised protective strip and the web of fabric.
Ogg teaches core wound paper products, such as toilet tissue and paper towels, and more particularly to cores having improved physical properties and which reduce total raw material usage. The cores improved physical properties allow for the cores to resist crushing and are formed from inner and outer plies which form a gap which is then further covered with an additional ply of material (Col. 1, Line 53-Col. 2, Line 21; Col. 5, Lines 13-23; Fig. 5). Figure 1 further shows the cores with the gap being arranged helically. Ogg additionally teaches the gaps being covered by an overlap of the inner ply and the outer ply (Col. 4, Lines 36-51; Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the carriers of Le Hardy with the protuberances of Von Paleske to further include a third ply of material, or an overlap seam, arranged helically around the carriers in order to provide improve physical properties including resisting crushing as taught by Ogg. Furthermore, Ogg fails to teach the use of any abrasive materials and would meet the limitation of wherein the raised protective strip has a protective strip outer surface that faces radially outward and is free of abrasive material.
Regarding claim 16, Le Hardy teaches the carriers as discussed above with respect to claim 15. As discussed above, Ogg teaches the inclusion of an additional ply to cover any gaps in order to improve the physical properties of the carriers. Furthermore, as discussed above, figure 1 shows the gaps which are to be covered arranged helically and the additional ply would be wrapped helically around the carriers.
Regarding claim 17, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 15. As discussed above, Ogg teaches the covering of the gaps may be formed via an overlap seam as illustrated in figure 3.
Regarding claim 19, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 15. Von Paleske teaches the protuberances as discussed above with respect to claim 8. The protuberances can be formed using heating penetrating means (“wherein the plurality of raised gripping portions comprises a plurality of embossments formed in the outermost layer”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 20, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 15. Von Paleske teaches the protuberances as discussed above with respect to claim 8. The protuberances can be formed using heating penetrating means (“wherein the plurality of raised gripping portions comprises a plurality of perforations formed in the outermost layer”) (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0039]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Hardy (US 3,826,445) in view of Von Paleske (US 2003/0080233) and Ogg et al. (US 5,671,897) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of McClellan (US 4,026,690).
Regarding claim 18, Le Hardy teaches the carrier as discussed above with respect to claim 15 in view of Ogg which teaches the use of overlap seams.
Le Hardy and Ogg are silent with respect to the overlap seams being formed by one of the plurality of inner layers of the inner tube where a first edge of the one of the plurality of inner layers is applied to an underlying layer and a second edge of the one of the plurality of inner layers is applied to the one of the plurality of inner layers over the first edge and overlaps the first edge, and wherein the raised protective strip is formed in a raised portion of the outermost layer that overlies the overlap seam.
McClellan teaches helically wound forming tubes for glass fibers (Col. 1, Lines 6-8). The tubes are formed to be stronger through the use of overlapped joints (Col. 2, Lines 23-36). Figure 5 illustrates the use of these overlapped jointed including a spiral overlapped joint in intermediate plies resulting in providing maximum strength to the tubes (Col. 5, Lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the carriers of Le Hardy to further include an overlapped joint between intermediate plies in order to provide maximum strength to the carriers as taught by McClellan. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this overlapped joint results in a raised protective strip as shown in figure 5 of McClellan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 3 requires “A tube for winding a web of fabric or similar material thereon, comprising: an inner tube comprising a plurality of inner layers that are wound one upon another about a longitudinal axis of the inner tube and adhered together, the inner tube having a cylindrical inner tube outer surface; an outermost layer formed by a strip of material that is helically wound around the inner tube outer surface, wherein the outermost layer has a tube outer surface and a plurality of raised gripping portions extending radially outward from the tube outer surface by a raised gripping portion distance; and a raised protective strip formed at the outermost layer and wrapping around the outermost layer such that at least a portion of the plurality of raised gripping portions are uncovered and exposed to an exterior of the tube, and wherein the raised protective strip extends radially outward from the tube outer surface by a protective strip distance, wherein the raised gripping portion distance is less than the protective strip distance.”
The limitations of claim 3 overcomes the teachings of Le Hardy, Von Paleske and Ogg such that while Von Paleske teaches protuberances considered identical to the raised gripping portions and Ogg teaches the strip considered to be identical to the raised protective strip, there are no teachings regard the height of the protuberances in relation to the strips. Additionally, a further search has failed to produce a reference which would render this limitation as obvious.
Therefore, claim 3 is allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-12, applicant provides arguments that the amendment, being the raised protective strip being free of material for increasing grip between the raised protective strip and the web of fabric, to claims 1, 8 and 15 has full written support in the instant specification such that the specification fails to describe any treatments, coatings or texturing, and the drawings show a smooth surface (i.e. free of any grip enhancing material).
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments regarding this feature due to applicant’s specification failing to teach the raised protective surface explicitly excluding any of these grip increasing materials, failing to positively recite any of these materials being included, and the materials of the raised gripping portions and the raised protective strip being formed from the same materials and would inherently have some means for increasing grip with the web of fabric.
Firstly, as noted in the previous office action with respect to the abrasive material, applicant’s specification fails to explicitly identify the raised protective strip excluding any material which increases grip with a web of fabric. This limitation is not defined anywhere with respect to the drawings or in direct relation to a description of the raised protective strip.
Applicant may also have support for this limitation if the specification positively recites a coating or material which increases grip for the raised protective strip. MPEP 2173.05(i): Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. However, applicant’s specification fails to positively recite the inclusion of these materials for increasing grip. As such, the claims may not exclude a material which is not adequately described in the specification.
Lastly, it appears as though the raised gripping portions and the raised protective strips appear to be formed from the same material and would inherently act in the same manner. The raised gripping portions appear to be formed from a paperboard material (PGPUB, Paragraph [0018]). The raised protective strip also appears to be formed from a paperboard material (Paragraph [0020]). Each of the figures (figures 1-4) additionally shows the raised protective strip extending above the various raised gripping portions, for the purposes of protection during formation of the tubes (Paragraph [0022]). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the identical materials of the raised gripping portions and the raised protective strip would act in identical manners as well wherein the raised protective strip would have a material for increasing grip with a web of fabric.
Therefore, the examiner contends that applicant does not have full written support for the limitation of “is free of material for increasing grip between the raised protective strip and the web of fabric” such that the specification does not adequately describe the exclusion or inclusion of such a material.
On pages 12-16, applicant further provides arguments that the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 are not taught by the combination of Le Hardy, Von Paleske and Ogg. Specifically, applicant provides two separate arguments that Ogg is not analogous art and does not operate or is not designed for the same reasons as applicant’s invention. Firstly, Ogg is not analogous art such that such that applicant’s invention is directed to paperboard tubes which are used as carriers for winding webs of fabric and Ogg is directed to cores for paper products such as tissue papers or paper towels which is fundamentally different. Furthermore, the inclusion of the raised protective strips are designed to prevent flattening of the raised gripping portions whereas the configurations of the cores of Ogg are designed to prevent crushing during, a different mode of operation. Lastly, even if Ogg was to be considered analogous art, the configuration would change the principle operation of Von Paleske by covering the protrusions.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments such that the teachings of Ogg are still applicable to the combination of Le Hardy and Von Paleske. Firstly, each of the inventions, both the prior art and the instant invention, are directed towards paperboard cores for materials to be applied to them (Le Hardy, Col. 1, Lines 44-58; Von Paleske, Paragraph [0019]; Ogg, Col. 3, Lines 36-44). As discussed above, the cores of the instant invention are also formed from paperboard materials. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that each of the inventions are directed to cores which are formed from paperboard products.
Turning to the teachings of the problems solved by Ogg, it is noted that the cores are not just required to have sufficient crush strength during consumer use, but also during formation of the cores to be wound with products. This is evidenced in the background section which describes having cores needing sufficient crush strength in order to prevent bursting on a mandril and when wrapped during shipping (Col. 1, Line 32-Col. 2, Line 22). As such, the improved crush strength of the cores is a desired features from the formation of the products to consumer use which is motivation in order to combine with Le Hardy and Von Paleske.
Ultimately, the examiner contends that the combination of Le Hardy with the protuberances of Von Paleske and the overlap seams of Ogg would teach, and render obvious, each of the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. The current rejection is made FINAL.
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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights