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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by KR 200491754.
‘754 teaches a sticker removal kit for removing a sticker from an application surface, the kit comprising: a barrier (1) comprising a panel (10), the panel having a size and a shape such that the panel is configured for covering the sticker, the panel defining a recess (portion of 10 that receives 20) on a rear side of the panel, the panel being removably couplable to the application surface; a pouch (20) being positionable in the recess of the panel; and a solvent (N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), dimethylformamide (DMF), nitromethane, acetone, and the like; release thru the release film layer) being contained in the pouch, the solvent being configured to dissolve a sticker adhesive of the sticker.
With regards to claim 2, the barrier further comprises a connector (outer perimeter of 10 is adhesive) being coupled to the rear side of the panel and being configured to mount the panel to the application surface, the connector comprising a barrier adhesive (pressure-sensitive adhesive) such that the connector is configured for connecting the panel to the application surface and forming a seal with the application surface.
With regards to claim 3, the connector has a U-shape (2 sides and bottom of 10), the connector extending along a pair of lateral edges and a lower edge of the panel.
With regards to claim 4, the barrier further comprises a barrier adhesive cover (portion of 30 that contacts perimeter of 10) being removably coupled to the barrier adhesive, the barrier adhesive cover being configured for preventing the panel from inadvertently adhering to other objects.
With regards to claim 6, the barrier further comprises a pair of removal tabs (corners of 10) being coupled to a front side of the panel, each removal tab of the pair of removal tabs being positioned adjacent to an associated lateral edge of the pair of lateral edges of the panel.
With regards to claim 7, the pouch comprises a first wall (front surface that contact sticker), a second wall (back surface that contacts 10), and a perimeter wall (edges), the perimeter wall being coupled to and extending between the first wall and the second wall, the first wall being integrally formed with the second wall and the perimeter wall.
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR’ 754 in view of Dranginis (USPN 7343639).
KR’754 teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach a scraper. Dranginis teaches a scraper for removing unwanted adherent matter. The scraper tapers to a scraping edge (40) such that the scraping edge of the scraper is configured to be inserted between the sticker and the application surface (claim 10). The scraper has a planar surface (14) and a concavely arcuate surface (28) which join at the scraping edge (40), the scraper comprising a handle (end opposite 40 where the user can hold the scraper) being positioned opposite the planar surface (claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR’754 so that it comprises a scraper as taught by Dranginis to assist in removing any remnants of the sticker that may remain after removing the barrier from the application surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12-19 are allowed.
Claims 5, 8-9 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:
Claim 5 and 12 includes the limitation that the barrier comprises a pair of retaining ledges being coupled to the rear side of the panel and extending over the recess, the pair of retaining ledges being laterally spaced from each other across the recess.
Claim 8 and 12 includes the limitation that the pouch has a pair of creases, each crease of the pair of creases being positioned at an associated junction of a junction of the first wall and the perimeter wall and a junction of the second wall and the perimeter wall, the pair of creases facilitating tearing the perimeter wall from the first wall and the second wall.
Claim 9 and 12 includes the limitation that the pouch further comprises an opener tab being coupled to the perimeter wall of the pouch.
Claim 13 includes the limitation of a method of removing a sticker from an application surface, the method comprising: with a pouch containing a solvent being positioned in a recess on a rear side of a panel, coupling the panel to the application surface such that the rear side of the panel covers the sticker and the pouch lies adjacent to the sticker; opening the pouch, thereby releasing the solvent from the pouch and into the recess such that the solvent lies against the sticker; dissolving, via the solvent, a sticker adhesive which bonds the sticker to the application surface; removing the panel from the application surface, thereby releasing the solvent from the sticker; and removing the sticker from the application surface.
The closest prior art of KR ‘754 fails to teach above limitations and method of using nor would it have been obvious to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention since there is no motivation or teaching to do so. For these reasons, the claims are indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723