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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species B, claims 6-18, in the reply filed on 08/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/29/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “132” has been used to designate both a first compound and a second compound (see paragraph [0024] of the present specification). 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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is shorter than 50 words in length. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-7, 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atzmon (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0214598-A1) (hereinafter, “ATZMON”).
Regarding claim 6, ATZMON teaches an ice-melting sheet device (see ATZMON generally at Abstract, paragraphs [0017], [0034] and [0039], and Figs. 4A-4B, teaching an ice-melting sheet wherein a water-soluble sheet material comprises a traction compound and a melting compound) comprising:
a water-soluble body comprised of a top surface and a bottom surface (see ATZMON at paragraphs [0034] and [0039] and Figs. 4A-4B, teaching an ice-melting sheet wherein the sheet (body) is a water-soluble adhesive material which dissolves as snow/ice melts);
a traction compound (see ATZMON at paragraphs [0006] and [0034], teaching that sand is used as a traction compound);
and a melting compound (see ATZMON at paragraphs [0020], [0034] and [0039] and claims 1-2, teaching a melting compound comprising salt crystals including NaCl, CaCl and MgCl).
Regarding claim 7, ATZMON teaches an ice-melting sheet device according to claim 6, wherein the water-soluble body is comprised of a water-soluble adhesive material (see ATZMON at paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claims 9-10, ATZMON teaches an ice-melting sheet device according to claim 6, wherein the melting compound is comprised of a rock salt, as required by claim 10, and is comprised of a calcium, a magnesium, a potassium, or a chloride compound, as required by claim 11 (see ATZMON at paragraphs [0020], [0034] and [0039] and claims 1-2).
Regarding claims 11-12, ATZMON teaches an ice-melting sheet device according to claim 6, wherein the traction compound is comprised of a sand, as required by claim 11, and is comprised of a granulated material, as required by claim 12 (see ATZMON at paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claims 13-16, ATZMON teaches an ice-melting sheet device according to claim 6, wherein the traction compound is positioned on the top surface, as required by claim 13, and in the top surface, as required by claim 14; and wherein the melting compound is positioned on the bottom surface, as required by claim 15, and in the bottom surface, as required by claim 16 (see ATZMON at paragraphs [0034] and [0036]; ATZMON teaches that the sheet is formed by spraying an adhesive material and then adding the sand and salt (traction and melting compounds) which are retained by the adhesive material, therefore the traction/melting compounds are positioned in/on a surface, which would be considered either the bottom surface or the top surface depending on which way the sheet is flipped).
Regarding claim 18, ATZMON teaches an ice-melting sheet device according to claim 6. ATZMON does not explicitly mention that the ice-melting sheet device is positioned around a roll; however, this limitation is merely directed toward an intended use of the ice-melting sheet device rather than being directed toward the ice-melting sheet device itself, and is therefore not given patentable weight in the present product claim. ATZMON teaches an ice-melting sheet device as claimed by the present claims, therefore the ice-melting sheet device of ATZMON would be expected to be able to perform the intended use of being positioned around a roll. ATZMON even explicitly teaches that the ice-melting sheet device is rolled (see ATZMON at paragraphs [0034] and [0039] and Fig. 4A), so it is clear that the ice-melting sheet device of ATZMON is capable of being positioned around a roll.
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.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable ATZMON in view of Lee (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0041910-A1) (hereinafter, “LEE”).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 6 above, ATZMON teaches an ice-melting sheet device according to claim 6.
However, ATZMON fails to explicitly teach that the water-soluble body is comprised of a water-soluble paper material.
LEE teaches an ice-melting sheet device (see LEE at Abstract and paragraphs [0005]-[0008]) wherein the base material may be any material that dissolves in water, including polymers (i.e., adhesives) or certain papers such as certain rice papers (see LEE at paragraph [0008]), and further teaches that an adhesive material may be applied to the base and then the ingredients are sprinkled over and adhered to the base (see LEE at [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ice-melting sheet device of ATZMON by simply substituting the water-soluble adhesive base sheet with a water-soluble paper base sheet, which may have an adhesive material applied on top, as taught by LEE (see LEE at paragraphs [0008] and [0011]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have made such a substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a base sheet material which will dissolve in water as the ice/snow melts (see ATZMON at paragraph [0034]; see LEE at paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 6 above, ATZMON teaches an ice-melting sheet device according to claim 6.
However, ATZMON fails to explicitly teach that the body is comprised of a perforation.
LEE teaches an ice-melting sheet device (see LEE at Abstract and paragraphs [0005]-[0008]) wherein the water-soluble base sheet includes perforations so that the device may be cut into smaller dimensions, enabling the user to select a desired size (see LEE at paragraphs [0008], [0013] and [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ice-melting sheet device of ATZMON by including perforations in the sheet as taught by LEE (see LEE at paragraphs [0013] and [0037]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include perforations for the benefit of allowing the device to be cut into smaller dimensions so that the user is able to select a desired size, as taught by LEE (see LEE at paragraphs [0013] and [0037]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Amber Orlando can be reached on (571) 270-3149. 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731