DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 9/30/2025.
The Examiner notes claims 22-41 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 22, 36-37, & 40 is/are currently amended; all other claims are original or previously presented. Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details..
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.
Claim(s) 22-32 & 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Rodriguez (US 20130000850), hereinafter Rodriguez.
Regarding claim 22. Suzuki discloses an apparatus for applying an adhesive layer to an adhesive roll in a contact cleaning device [Fig 1; 1 is an apparatus that can apply an adhesive layer to an adhesive roll], the apparatus comprising
a housing [Fig 2; 14] …; and
an applicator [Fig 4; 30, 50, T, 66, & 32 form an applicator] arranged and configured to apply at least one adhesive layer to an outer surface of the adhesive roll as the adhesive roll rotates [Fig 1-2 & 4; 14 can apply an adhesive layer to an outer surface; the Examiner notes that the outer surface can be of an adhesive roll but it is not required as the adhesive roll is not positively claimed].
Suzuki may not explicitly disclose a housing configured to receive the adhesive roll and allow the adhesive roll to rotate.
However Rodriguez teaches an apparatus for applying an adhesive layer to a roll [Fig 2; 20 applies an adhesive layer (11a) to an adhesive roll (22); Velcro is considered an adhesive as it fastens to things together and can pick up and grab debris as the nothing is specified about what the adhesive is or what it is being used to adhere to]; wherein the outer surface has a circumference [Fig 2; 22 has an outer surface with a circumference] and the applicator [Fig 2; 13 & 21 form an applicator] is configured to apply a length of the adhesive layer sufficient to circumferentially cover at least a portion of the circumference [Fig 2; a portion of 22 is covered by 11a which is applied from 13 & 21].
How Rodriguez teachings apply to Suzuki is it would replace 70 & 74 of Suzuki with the roller system of 21 & 22 of Rodriguez. The housing would then be configured to receive the adhesive roll (22 of Rodriguez) and allow the adhesive roll to rotate [Fig 2 of Rodriguez].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing as disclosed by Suzuki to be configured to receive the adhesive roll and allow the adhesive roll to rotate as taught by Rodriguez for the purpose of providing another roller between the removal of the adhesive layer from a release surface and applying the adhesive layer for use which enables the side of the adhesive layer that is sealed between the adhesive layer and release surface to be the outward facing surface for use as it will not have been exposed to the air and will have maximum adhesion [Rodrigues: Fig 2; ¶26].
Regarding claim 23. Suzuki as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the applicator applies the at least one adhesive layer as a film of adhesive material [Suzuki: Fig 4; Abstract; “A” is double coated adhesive tape (i.e. a film of adhesive material)].
Regarding claim 24. Suzuki as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the outer surface has a circumference [Rodriguez: Fig 2; 22 has an outer surface with a circumference] and the applicator is configured to apply a length of the adhesive layer sufficient to circumferentially cover at least a portion of the circumference [Rodriguez: Fig 2; a portion of 22 is covered by 11a which is applied from 13 & 21].
Regarding claim 25 & 28. Suzuki as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the applicator is configured to apply a length of the adhesive sufficient to circumferentially cover substantially one circumference.
However it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the adhesive layer applied to the adhesive roller as taught by Suzuki as modified to have the applicator be configured to apply a length of the adhesive sufficient to circumferentially cover substantially one circumference as per MPEP 2143(E), choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: the length of the adhesive layer can be from 1 degree of a circle’s arc to 360 degrees of a circle’s arc. Therefore, since modifying Suzuki as modified to have the applicator be configured to apply a length of the adhesive sufficient to circumferentially cover substantially one circumference can be made without any change in the operation of Suzuki as modified there will be reasonable expectations of success.
Claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 24 & 25.
Regarding claim 26. Suzuki as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the outer surface has an axial length and the applicator is configured to apply the adhesive layer sufficient to circumferentially cover at least a portion of the axial length [Suzuki: the adhesive layer has a width and therefore would cover at least a portion of the axial length of an outer surface].
Regarding claim 27. Suzuki as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 26, wherein the applicator is configured to apply the adhesive layer sufficient to circumferentially cover substantially the axial length [Suzuki: ¶59 & Rodriguez: Fig1; the adhesive layer can have an axial length (i.e. width) sufficient to match the corresponding axial length of the outer surface].
Regarding claim 29. Suzuki as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the applicator is configured and arranged to transfer the at least one adhesive layer to the adhesive roll [Suzuki: Fig 4-6].
Regarding claim 30. Suzuki as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the applicator comprises a roll of adhesive layer, releasably supported on a release surface, wherein the roll is wound around a core [Suzuki: Fig 3-4; 58 is a roll of adhesive layer releasably supported on a release surface which is wound around 30].
Regarding claim 31. Suzuki as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 30, wherein the roll comprises a continuous layer of adhesive layer releasably supported on a release surface [Suzuki: Fig 3-4; ¶16; 58 can have a continuous layer of adhesive layer supported on a release surface as it is known in the art by having no spaces between adhesive layer section that touch each other or a cutting device that would cut the adhesive layer to length as required].
Regarding claim 32. Suzuki as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 31, wherein the release surface is formed of a substrate comprising paper or film [Suzuki: Fig 3; D is a band (i.e. film)].
Regarding claim 36. Suzuki as modified teaches a cartridge comprising the housing and the applicator according to claim 22 operably mounted in the housing [Suzuki: Fig 4; 14 is a cartridge with a housing (20) that houses the applicator from claim 22].
Regarding claim 37. Suzuki as modified teaches the cartridge according to claim 36, wherein the adhesive roll is mounted in the housing adjacent the applicator such that the applicator is operable to selectively apply the at least one adhesive layer to an outer surface of the adhesive roll [The adhesive roll (22) taught by Rodriguez would be placed between the applicator (70 & 74) and P of Suzuki. Therefore the adhesive roll (22) of Rodriguez would be mounted to the housing (20) of Suzuki and would be adjacent to the applicator (70 & 74) of Suzuki such that the applicator can selectively apply at least one adhesive layer to the outer surface of the adhesive roll].
Regarding claim 38. Suzuki as modified teaches the cartridge according to claim 37, wherein the housing comprises an opening through which a portion of the adhesive roll projects [Suzuki: Fig 1-2; the adhesive must pass through an opening so as to be applied to P].
Claim(s) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Rodriguez further in view of Braun (DE 102022209792 A1), hereinafter Braun.
Regarding claim 33. Suzuki as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 32, but is silent in regards to wherein the release surface comprises a release agent.
However Braun teaches an adhesive film with a release surface comprises a release agent [¶14 of the translation; the carrier has the release surface and comprised polyethylene to release the adhesive layer].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the release surface as taught by Suzuki as modified to have the release surface comprises a release agent as taught by Braun for the purpose of sufficient strength for applying and removing the adhesive film [Braun: ¶14 of the translation].
Regarding claim 34. Suzuki as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 33, wherein the release agent comprises a silicone or a polyethylene coating [Braun: ¶14 of the translation].
Regarding claim 35. Suzuki as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 22, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the adhesive layer comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive.
However Braun teaches the adhesive layer comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive [¶14 of the translation; the adhesive layer is a pressure sensitive adhesive].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive layer as disclosed by Suzuki as modified to have the adhesive layer comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive as taught by Braun as a known alternative for the adhesive in Suzuki which is not specified. It is noted that a pressure sensitive adhesive would not require the use of other compounds or catalysts to use the adhesive layer other than applying pressure [Braun: ¶14 of the translation; pressure is applied to the adhesive for use to fix contaminates to the adhesive].
Claim(s) 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corrado et al. (US 20060272678) further in view of Suzuki in view of Rodriguez, hereinafter Corrado.
Regarding claim 39. Corrado discloses an apparatus for contact cleaning of a substrate surface [Fig 13-15; 800], …and a contact cleaning roller [12] operably engageable with the adhesive roll [840a].
Corrado may not explicitly disclose comprising the cartridge of claim 36.
However Suzuki as modified teaches the cartridge of claim 36 and Corrado teaches the use of a similar cartridge [811] to remove a used adhesive layer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as disclosed by Corrado to use another cartridge to apply an adhesive layer to the adhesive roller as taught by Suzuki as modified for the purpose not having to replace the adhesive roll when the multiple applied layers are all removed, which is the current operation of Corrado, but only replace the roll of new adhesive layer in the cartridge. This would enable the adhesive roll to keep operating while the applicator received a new roll of adhesive layer. Further by applying then removing adhesive layers the diameter of the adhesive roll would be consistent and would not require any adjustment to dimensions and tolerance during use.
Regarding claim 40. Corrado discloses an apparatus [800] for contact cleaning of a substrate surface [Fig 13-15], comprising: a contact cleaning roller adapted to collect debris from the substrate surface [Fig 13-15; 12 is a contact cleaning roll that cleans a substrate surface]; an adhesive roll according to claim 22 [840a], operably engageable with the contact cleaning roller [Fig 13-15; ¶61-¶62];…, wherein the applicator is adapted such that the applicator selectively applies the at least one adhesive layer to an outer surface of the adhesive roll.
Corrado may not explicitly disclose and the applicator according to claim 22, wherein the applicator is adapted such that the applicator selectively applies the at least one adhesive layer to an outer surface of the adhesive roll.
However Rodriguez teaches an applicator [Fig 2; 21 & 14 form an applicator] arranged and configured to apply at least one adhesive layer to an outer surface of the adhesive roll [Fig 2; 21 & 14 can apply an adhesive layer to an outer surface of 22]. This is the reverse process that Corrado uses to remove an adhesive layer from the adhesive roll.
Therefore by the teachings of Rodriguez there is another 811 of Corrado that selectively engages 840a of Corrado as an applicator, and said applicator is adapted such that the applicator selectively applies the at least one adhesive layer to an outer surface of the adhesive roll.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Corrado to have an applicator according to claim 22, wherein the applicator is adapted such that the applicator selectively applies the at least one adhesive layer to an outer surface of the adhesive roll as taught by Rodriguez for the purpose of not having to replace the adhesive roll when the multiple applied layers are all removed, which is the current operation of Corrado, but only replace the roll of new adhesive layer in the cartridge. This would enable the adhesive roll to keep operating while the applicator received a new roll of adhesive layer. Further by applying then removing adhesive layers the diameter of the adhesive roll would be consistent and would not require any adjustment to dimensions and tolerance during use.
Regarding claim 41. Corrado as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 22, further comprising a member configured and arranged to urge the adhesive layer onto the outer surface of the adhesive roll [Corrado: ¶63 & Corrado as modified: the applicator which has the same structure as the remover (811) would have a member to advance or retracted to bring the applicator into and out of contact with the outer surface].
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 102 103 Rejection
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 5, filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejections, see above for more details.
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 AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 EST].
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights