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
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 4/21/26. Claims 1-8 and 18-20 are withdrawn. Claims 9-12, 14, 16, and 17 have been amended. Claims 9-17 are pending rejection below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 9-17 in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-8 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/17/25.
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.
Claim(s) 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez USPA_20230136940_A1 in view of Rodriguez USPN_5637170.
1. Regarding Claim 9, Rodriguez discloses a composite comprising a substrate formable for wrapping around an empty web spool, a length of the substrate sufficient to wrap the substrate around an empty web spool multiple times; a first zone coated region comprising a spool face adhesive on a first side of the substrate; a second zone coated region comprising a release coating of the first side of the substrate, the second zone coated region occupying a majority of the first side of the substrate that is not included in the first zone coated region; and a paper web adhesive coating on a second side of the substrate, the paper web adhesive coating comprising an adhesive comprising sufficient binding strength to burst a paper web being spooled on a full web spool (claim 9), and multiple tear away perforations that can be construed as strips that extend across the substrate (elements 111-113 of Fig. 1A; paragraph 0051).
2. However, Rodriguez does not disclose the newly added claimed feature of having a strip laterally positioned across the substrate between adjacent portions of the composite adhesive sheet that are configured to cover a circumference of a web spool face of the empty web spook, where the tear away strip is removable to bifurcate a portion of the composite adhesive sheet from a roll of the composite adhesive sheet.
3. Rodriguez discloses such a strip (Figs. 1 & 2, Abstract, column 2, lines 14-45; column 4, lines 3-10; column 5, lines 16 – column 6, line 12; Claims). Rodriguez further discloses that its invention provides mechanized gripping area remote from the edge of the assembly being fed into the nip between a collecting spool and web drive roller (Abstract).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention, of Rodriguez, by including the newly added limitations, of Rodriguez. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain an improvement in mechanized gripping area remote from the edge of the assembly being fed into the nip between a collecting spool and web drive roller.
5. Regarding Claim 16, Rodriguez in view of Rodriguez suggests a method of preparing a turn-up composite, the method comprising cutting a substrate to a width target comprising a width of a spool face reduced by a margin distance for one or both ends, and a length based on a number of desired wraps of substrate around the spool face multiplied by a circumference of a paper spool; applying a spool face adhesive to a length of a first side of the substrate equal to or less than a circumference of the spool face; applying a release formulation to an uncoated portion of the first side of the substrate; and applying a paper web adhesive to a second side of the substrate (USPA_20230136940 Claim 16).
6. Regarding Claim 10, Rodriguez in view of Rodriguez suggests having a number of perforations (USPA_20230136940 paragraph 0051).
7. Regarding Claim 11, Rodriguez in view of Rodriguez suggests a spacing between multiple perforations is not equal to a circumference of the empty paper web spool (USPA_20230136940 paragraph 0018).
8. Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Rodriguez in view of Rodriguez suggests an angular cut-out at an end of the paperband composite may be placed upon the empty web spool to start a winding of the paperband composite onto the empty web spool and align angular cut-out in the paperband composite with a position to start a winding of the paperband composite onto the empty web spool in a spiral pattern (USPA_20230136940 paragraph 0018).
9. Regarding Claim 14, Rodriguez in view of Rodriguez suggests a spool face adhesive may have a tensile strength sufficient to hold a paperband composite in place on an empty web spool but not be sufficient to cause damage to a spool face when the paperband composite is removed (USPA_20230136940 paragraph 0019).
10. Regarding Claim 15, Rodriguez in view of Rodriguez suggests a paper web adhesive coating may form a bond having a tensile strength sufficient to adhere to a paper web during a turn-up operation and adhere the wrapped paperband composite to the empty web spool when the paperband composite is torn along a perforation in the paperband composite (USPA_20230136940 paragraph 0020).
11. Regarding Claim 17, Rodriguez in view of Rodriguez suggests cutting an edge of the substrate at an angle to a side edge to form a start of the turn-up paperband composite that may be applied to the spool face (USPA_20230136940 Claim 17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 May 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights