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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed 6/12/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-15, 28, 35, 36, 39 and 41 are pending. Claims 16-27, 29-34, 37, 38, 40 and 42 are cancelled. Claims 13 and 14 are amended. No new matter is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that JIANG discloses a packing tape dispenser having a fundamentally different structural design than CHU or OH. JIANG requires a concaved space where the cutting blade is recessed and where protruding strips must fit during the cutting operation, and is a critical design constraint. In contrast, neither CHU or OH have any such enclosed concave space. The blades of CHU and OH operate in open space with effectively unlimited clearance around the blade. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that tilting the blade at an angle of 12 to 25 degrees, as taught by CHU would increase the blades effective footprint within the constrained concave space.
Examiner does agree that presenting the blade of JIANG in the concave space at an angle of between 12 and 25 degrees would increases its projected footprint within the concave space. However, such an increase is not believed to destroy the principle operation of JIANG given that space can still be made on both sides of the blade to accommodate the protruding strips, and the space between the protruding strips can be made to accommodate the blade. The modifications required to accommodate a larger projected footprint appears to be within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art.
More to this point, simply adjusting the spacing between parts so that they fit together is also reasonably expected to work.
Applicant argues that inclination angle, A1, in OH is measured between the cutting edge front end and the tape travel direction. The claimed second angle, however, is measured between the Z-axis (which is parallel to the blade base) and the cutting edge axis.
Examiner disagrees .
[AltContent: textbox (Axis parallel to base of blade)][AltContent: textbox (A2)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
488
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in figure 6 annotated above, angle A1 is between 60 and 80 degrees (Paragraph [0051]). This angle is measured along side end 42, which is perpendicular to the blade base (rather than parallel to it). Thus, angle A2 (annotated above), when measured parallel to the blade base, would be between 10 and 30 degrees, which is less than 80 degrees, as claimed.
However, because the Examiner did not point out the complement angle (e.g., angle A2) prosecution is being reopened.
Applicant argues that the difference in angles between that of claim 2 and that of CHU et al. to be considered “close enough” according to the MPEP.
Examiner respectfully agrees. Claim 2 has a range of “about 3 degrees to about 8 degrees” (emphasis added). Instant specification discloses that “about” includes up to 10% difference (See instant published paragraph [0020]). Thus, there is a clear upper bound for “about 8 degrees).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
______________________________________________________________
Claims 1-7, 10 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 13-19 of copending Application No. 18/288,647 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
With respect to claim 1¸ copending Application No. 18/288,647 claims a tape applicator; wherein the cutting section comprises: a cutting head comprising a base surface and a cutting blade extending from the base surface, the cutting blade having a blade base where the cutting blade intersects with and extends from the base surface, and the cutting blade having a cutting edge disposed above the base surface; a pinching head comprising a first pinching projection and a second pinching projection separated by a blade slot; a Y-axis extending from a midpoint of the blade base and extending orthogonal to the base surface, a longitudinal blade axis extending from the midpoint to a center point of the cutting edge, and a first angle greater than 0 degrees between the Y-axis and the longitudinal blade axis; a Z-axis tangent to the base surface, passing through the midpoint, and parallel to the blade base, a cutting edge axis passing through the center point and tangent to the cutting edge, and a second angle less than 80 degrees between the Z-axis and the cutting edge axis; and[[an]]the adhesive tape spool unwind for dispensing [[an]]the adhesive tape, wherein at least one of the cutting head and the pinching head is movable from a first position with the cutting blade disposed outside of the blade slot to a second position with the cutting blade disposed at least partially within the blade slot (Claim 13).
With respect to claim 2, copending Application No. 18/288,647 claims the first angle is between 3 and 8 degrees (Claim 14).
With respect to claim 3, copending Application No. 18/288,647 claims a second angle of between 10 and 18 degrees (Claim 15).
Claim 4 is claimed in claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/288,647.
Claim 5 is claimed in claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/288,647
Claim 6 is claimed in claim 18 of copending Application No. 18/288,647.
Claim 7 is claimed in claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/288,647
With respect to claim 10, copending Application No. 18/288,647 claims a guide wheel in the adhesive tape path that is located between the adhesive spool unwind and the tape applicator head such that the adhesive tape moving along the adhesive tape path will wrap at least a portion of an outer circumference of the guide wheel (Claim 9)
With respect to claim 15¸ copending Application No. 18/288,647 claims a tape applicator; wherein the cutting section comprises: a cutting head comprising a base surface and a cutting blade extending from the base surface, the cutting blade having a blade base where the cutting blade intersects with and extends from the base surface, and the cutting blade having a cutting edge disposed above the base surface; a pinching head comprising a first pinching projection and a second pinching projection separated by a blade slot; a Y-axis extending from a midpoint of the blade base and extending orthogonal to the base surface, a longitudinal blade axis extending from the midpoint to a center point of the cutting edge, and a first angle greater than 0 degrees between the Y-axis and the longitudinal blade axis; a Z-axis tangent to the base surface, passing through the midpoint, and parallel to the blade base, a cutting edge axis passing through the center point and tangent to the cutting edge, and a second angle less than 80 degrees between the Z-axis and the cutting edge axis; and[[an]]the adhesive tape spool unwind for dispensing [[an]]the adhesive tape, wherein at least one of the cutting head and the pinching head is movable from a first position with the cutting blade disposed outside of the blade slot to a second position with the cutting blade disposed at least partially within the blade slot (Claim 13).
A guide wheel in the adhesive tape path that is located between the adhesive spool unwind and the tape applicator head such that the adhesive tape moving along the adhesive tape path will wrap at least a portion of an outer circumference of the guide wheel (Claim 9)
An adhesive tape and spool (Claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 3-5, 10, 15, 28, 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG (US 2016/0122150) in view of CHU et al. (US 2018/0370749) and OH (US 2016/0304309)
With respect to claim 1, JIANG discloses a tape applicator (Abstract) comprising a cutting head, 102 (Figure 1) comprising a base surface and a cutting blade, 110, extending from the base surface; the cutting blade having a blade base that intersects with and extends from the base surface. The blade having a cutting edge disposed above the base surface (Paragraph [0014]-[0016]; Figure 2B, annotated below). The applicator further comprises a pinching head, 130, (Paragraphs [0015], [0016]) comprising a first pinching projection, 134, and a second pinching projection , 138, separated by a slot (Paragraphs [0015], [0016]) such that the cutting blade is disposed outside of the slot (Figure 2a) and moved to a second cutting position with the blade within the slot (Figure 2B; Paragraph [0016]).
[AltContent: textbox (Cutting edge above base surface, when device is flipped)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Blade extending from base surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cutting head base surface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
256
240
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JIANG further discloses a tape spool, 150, (Paragraph [0014]) for dispensing the adhesive tape and the cutting blade
JIANG does not explicitly disclose the claimed first angle. CHU et al. discloses a tape dispenser (Abstract). The cutting angle (Figure 7; and equivalent to measuring the first angle as claimed) is between 12 and 25 degrees (Paragraph [0043]). Such an angle leads to saving labor when cutting the tape (Paragraph [0044]).
JIANG does not explicitly disclose the claimed second angle. OH discloses a tape dispenser (Abstract). The cutting blade 40, is angled (Figure 6; and equivalent to measuring the second angle as shown in instant figure 5) of between 60 and 85 degrees (Paragraph [0009], [0020] and [0051]) in order to more easily cut the tape.
OH shows that the angle A1 is measured with respect to cutting blade side 42, which is perpendicular to the blade base. The complementary angle (e.g., 90 Degrees minus angle A1) is thus between 10 and 30 degrees. This is represented by angle A2 in annotated figure 6, below).
[AltContent: textbox (Axis parallel to base of blade)][AltContent: textbox (A2)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
488
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in figure 6 annotated above, angle A1 is between 60 and 80 degrees (Paragraph [0051]). This angle is measured along side end 42, which is perpendicular to the blade base (rather than parallel to it). Thus, angle A2 (annotated above), when measured parallel to the blade base, would be between 10 and 30 degrees, which is less than 80 degrees, as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the first angle of the cutting blade of JIANG with an angle of between 12 and 25 degrees, as taught by CHU et al., and to also provide a second angle of between 10 and 30 degrees, as taught by OH, so that the tape is easier to cut.
With respect to claim 3, HO discloses that the second angle, angle A2 (annotated above in the rejection of claim 1), when measured parallel to the blade base, would be between 10 and 30 degrees.
With respect to claim 4, JIANG shows that the cutting blade is in alignment with the blade slot (Figures 2a and 2b).
With respect to claim 5¸ JIANG shows that the adhesive tape is between the pinching head and the base surface when pinching head is in the second position (Figures 2a and 2b).
With respect to claim 10, JIANG does not explicitly disclose the claimed tape guide wheel. OH discloses a guide wheel, 30, disposed proximate to the cutting head and in the tape path (Figure 3) so as to guide withdrawal of the tape (Paragraphs [0003] and [0040]-[0043]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a guide roller in the tape path, and near the tape head of JIANG, as taught by OH so as to guide the tape from the roll to the tape head.
With respect to claim 15¸ JIANG discloses a tape applicator (Abstract) comprising a cutting head, 102 (Figure 1) comprising a base surface and a cutting blade, 110, extending from the base surface; the cutting blade having a blade base that intersects with and extends from the base surface. The blade having a cutting edge disposed above the base surface (Paragraph [0014]-[0016]; Figure 2B, annotated below). The applicator further comprises a pinching head, 130, (Paragraphs [0015], [0016]) comprising a first pinching projection, 134, and a second pinching projection separated by a slot (Paragraphs [0015], [0016]) such that the cutting blade is disposed outside of the slot (Figure 2a) and moved to a second cutting position with the blade within the slot (Figure 2B; Paragraph [0016]).
[AltContent: textbox (Cutting edge above base surface, when device is flipped)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Blade extending from base surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cutting head base surface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
256
240
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JIANG further discloses an adhesive tape and tape spool, 150, (Paragraphs [0013], [0014]) for dispensing the adhesive tape and the cutting blade
JIANG does not explicitly disclose the claimed first angle. CHU et al. discloses a tape dispenser (Abstract). The cutting angle (Figure 7; and equivalent to measuring the first angle as claimed) is between 12 and 25 degrees (Paragraph [0043]). Such an angle leads to saving labor when cutting the tape (Paragraph [0044]).
JIANG does not explicitly disclose the claimed second angle. OH discloses a tape dispenser (Abstract). The cutting blade 40, is angled (Figure 6; and equivalent to measuring the second angle as shown in instant figure 5) of between 60 and 85 degrees (Paragraph [0009] and [0020]) in order to more easily cut the tape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the first angle of the cutting blade of JIANG with an angle of between 12 and 25 degrees, as taught by CHU et al., and to also provide a second angle of between 60 and 85 degrees, as taught by OH, so that the tape is easier to cut.
JIANG does not explicitly disclose the claimed tape guide wheel. OH discloses a guide wheel, 30, disposed proximate to the cutting head and in the tape path (Figure 3) so as to guide withdrawal of the tape (Paragraphs [0003] and [0040]-[0043]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a guide roller in the tape path, and near the tape head of JIANG, as taught by OH so as to guide the tape from the roll to the tape head.
With respect to claim 28, JIANG discloses a tape applicator (Abstract) comprising a cutting head, 102 (Figure 1) comprising a base surface and a cutting blade, 110, extending from the base surface; the cutting blade having a blade base that intersects with and extends from the base surface. The blade having a cutting edge disposed above the base surface (Paragraph [0014]-[0016]; Figure 2B, annotated below). The applicator further comprises a pinching head, 130, (Paragraphs [0015], [0016]) comprising a first pinching projection, 134, and a second pinching projection separated by a slot (Paragraphs [0015], [0016]) such that the cutting blade is disposed outside of the slot (Figure 2a) and moved to a second cutting position with the blade within the slot (Figure 2B; Paragraph [0016]).
[AltContent: textbox (Cutting edge above base surface, when device is flipped)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Blade extending from base surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cutting head base surface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
256
240
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JIANG further discloses an adhesive tape and tape spool, 150, (Paragraphs [0013], [0014]) for dispensing the adhesive tape and a cutting blade. The adhesive side of the tape engages the pinching head while the non-adhesive side of the tape with the cutting bladed based on the movement of the pinching head (Paragraphs [0013], [0016]) and cutting said tape with the cutting blade based on this movement.
JIANG does not explicitly disclose the claimed first angle. CHU et al. discloses a tape dispenser (Abstract). The cutting angle (Figure 7; and equivalent to measuring the first angle as claimed) is between 12 and 25 degrees (Paragraph [0043]). Such an angle leads to saving labor when cutting the tape (Paragraph [0044]).
JIANG does not explicitly disclose the claimed second angle. OH discloses a tape dispenser (Abstract). The cutting blade 40, is angled (Figure 6; and equivalent to measuring the second angle as shown in instant figure 5) of between 60 and 85 degrees (Paragraph [0009] and [0020]) in order to more easily cut the tape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the first angle of the cutting blade of JIANG with an angle of between 12 and 25 degrees, as taught by CHU et al., and to also provide a second angle of between 60 and 85 degrees, as taught by OH, so that the tape is easier to cut.
JIANG does not explicitly disclose the claimed tape guide wheel. OH discloses a guide wheel, 30, disposed proximate to the cutting head and in the tape path (Figure 3) so as to guide withdrawal of the tape (Paragraphs [0003] and [0040]-[0043]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a guide roller in the tape path, and near the tape head of JIANG, as taught by OH so as to guide the tape from the roll to the tape head.
OH further discloses placing the applicator on the work surface (Paragraphs [0003], [0004]), moving the applicator along the work surface for applying the adhesive tape to the work surface (Paragraph [0004]), then cutting the tape (e.g., by moving the pinching heat of JIANG, as taught above) (Paragraphs [0005], [0006]).
With respect to claim 35, JIANG discloses coupling the adhesive tape with a spool, 120, and threading the tape through the dispenser (Paragraphs [0014] and [0016]). OH discloses that the tape is received by the tape guide wheel, which is disposed proximate to the cutting head in the tape path (Paragraphs [0003] and [0040]-[0043]).
With respect to claim 36, OH discloses at least one guide roller (Paragraph [0003]) for sliding the applicator on the first surface at a displaced angle (Paragraphs [0001]-[0005]).
________________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG (US 2016/0122150) in view of CHU et al. (US 2018/0370749) and OH (US 2016/0304309) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 10, 15, 28, 35 and 36 above, and further in view of LANGERAK (US 2004/0129386).
With respect to claims 6 and 7¸ modified JIANG does not explicitly disclose a push button for actuating the pinching head for cutting the tape. LANGERAK discloses a tape dispenser (Abstract). The pivot arm, 34, is connected to a push button, 32, to effect cutting of the tape (Paragraph [0032]; Figure 5). The button is accessible from outside of a housing while the lever is inside the housing (Figures 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a housing for the components of the dispenser of JIANG, and a push bottom to move the lever to perform cutting, as taught by LANGERAK so that the tape can be protected from contaminates.
Moreover, the pinching head of JIANG performs the cutting operation. Thus, the button would be coupled to the pinching head.
______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 8, 9, 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG (US 2016/0122150) in view of CHU et al. (US 2018/0370749) and OH (US 2016/0304309) as applied to claims 1-5, 10, 15, 28, 35 and 36 above, and further in view of LIPOWSKY (US 0,833,470).
With respect to claims 8 and 9, modified JIANG does not explicitly disclose the claimed brackets and springs. LIPOWSKY discloses a sheet cutting machine (Title). Within the recess housing the cutting blade, g, (formed by a and a’) there are provided a first bracket, e, and a second bracket, e’ (Figures 2-4), that are spaced apart from the base surface of the recess in the cutting head. Between each of the brackets and the base surface are placed springs, f and f’, such that the cutting blade is disposed between the brackets. During cutting (second position of JIANG), the two projections (equivalent to projections 134 and 138 of JIANG) are provided with contact portions, z and z’, that contact respective brackets to displace those brackets and force the tape to be cut by the blade (lines 25-83; Figures 2-4). Such a cutting mechanism is simple, inexpensive and cheap (lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the cutting head of JIANG with a first bracket extending from the base surface of the cutting head, the first bracket defining a first contact portion that is spaced apart from the base surface; a first spring member disposed between the base surface and the first contact portion; a second bracket extending from the base surface, such that the cutting blade is disposed between the first bracket and the second bracket, the second bracket defining a second contact portion that is spaced apart from the base surface; and a second spring member disposed between the base surface and the second contact portion wherein the adhesive tape is held between the first pinching projection and the first contact portion, and the second pinching projection and the second contact portion when at least one of the cutting head and the pinching head is in the second position, as taught by LIPOWSKY in order to provide simple, inexpensive and cheap cutting.
With respect to claims 39 and 41¸ modified JIANG does not explicitly disclose the claimed brackets and springs. LIPOWSKY discloses a sheet cutting machine (Title). Within the recess housing the cutting blade, g, (formed by a and a’) there are provided a first bracket, e, and a second bracket, e’ (Figures 2-4), that are spaced apart from the base surface of the recess in the cutting head. Between each of the brackets and the base surface are placed springs, f and f’, such that the cutting blade is disposed between the brackets. During cutting (second position of JIANG), the two projections (equivalent to projections 134 and 138 of JIANG) are provided with contact portions, z and z’, that contact respective brackets to displace those brackets and force the tape to be cut by the blade (lines 25-83; Figures 2-4). Such a cutting mechanism is simple, inexpensive and cheap (lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the cutting head of JIANG with a first bracket extending from the base surface of the cutting head, the first bracket defining a first contact portion that is spaced apart from the base surface; a first spring member disposed between the base surface and the first contact portion; a second bracket extending from the base surface, such that the cutting blade is disposed between the first bracket and the second bracket, the second bracket defining a second contact portion that is spaced apart from the base surface; and a second spring member disposed between the base surface and the second contact portion wherein the adhesive tape is held between the first pinching projection and the first contact portion, and the second pinching projection and the second contact portion when at least one of the cutting head and the pinching head is in the second position, as taught by LIPOWSKY in order to provide simple, inexpensive and cheap cutting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: VULPITTA et al. (US 2016/0122151) discloses turning boards, 138 and 132 for folding over the edges of the adhesive tape (Paragraphs [0036] and [0036]), the cutting head is not necessarily disposed between the tape guide wheel and the turning board, per se.
Moreover, as identified in the Response to Arguments, the art does not approach the claimed range identified in claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights