3DETAILED 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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner would note that the application sites recited (j-1), (j-2), (j-5), (j-8) and (j-9) are interpreted merely as nomenclature to differentiate the first, second and third application sites and do not require any set order/number of application sites/lengths.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasch et al. (US 20090029101) in view of Contini (US 3806388), Underwood (US 3787264) or Luckett (US 3554829), and Strain et al. (US 20180029817).
As to claim 1, Rasch discloses a consumer sized rolls (wound web material with a tail end edge) of single- or multi-ply materials (Abstract; Fig. 1-4). Rasch discloses that the web has a first and second outer edge along the machine direction with a plurality of discrete application sites comprising a bonding material disposed along the tail edge and spaced from the tail at a distance of 5mm to 250 mm (Id.; ¶46).
Although the distance from the tail edge disclosed by Rasch partially overlaps the recited range of 0-5mm, Rasch fails to specifically disclose that the application sites may be placed at zero to 5mm from the tail edge as currently claimed. Conti (Fig. 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d), Underwood (Fig. 4) and Luckett (Fig. 1 and 2) discloses a tail sealed roll wherein adhesive is placed where it touches both side edges and the tail edge of the roll. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the placement of discrete application sites of Contini, Underwood or Luckett in the product taught by Rasch because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known conventional and successful discrete application site spacing for a sealed tail edge in a consumer sided product roll. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The above references as combined fail specifically teach or disclose that the discrete application/bonding sites are placed in a pattern that has alternating distances from the end edge. Strain discloses consumer sized rolls wherein the discrete application/bonding sites are may be placed in a pattern that has adjacent sites with alternating distances from the end edge (Fig. 27 below) as an alternative to a linear bonding pattern (Fig. 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the adhesive/bonding material application site pattern with alternating distances of Strain in the product taught by the above references as combined because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional adhesive bonding pattern for use with a consumer sized roll. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to utilize a staggered pattern of Strain as opposed to a linear pattern because Strain discloses that they are known functional equivalents.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
266
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The recited size of the application sites would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing since limitations relating to size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, Rasch discloses that the adhesive application sites may have a circular shape (Fig. 3, 4; ¶39), with a length/diameter of 1.27cm (12.77 mm), which falls into the recited range of a length of 10-50 mm and width of 10-25 mm.
The product of the above references as combined would place application sites along the side edges of the tail end of the material falling within the recited range of 0-50mm from the side edges.
As to claim 2, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The product of the above references as combined would place application sites within the claimed range of 2mm and below from the tail edge.
As to claims 3 and 4, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above.
As to claim 5, the product of claim 4 is taught as seen above. Rasch discloses that the roll may have a third application site which straddles the MD center axis. Luckett discloses that it is known and conventional to utilize a center application site straddling the MD center axis which has a length in the MD direction greater than the application sites which reside on the side edges of the tail end.
As to claim 6, the product of claim 4 is taught as seen above. Claim 6 is rejected for partially the same reasons as claim 5 above, since making the MD length of the center application site less than that of the side application sites would amount to a reversal of parts which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
As to claims 7-11, the product of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Rasch discloses that the roll may be a paper towel or sanitary tissue roll (¶ 25) and can be either single- or multi-ply roll (¶ 59).
Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above. Strain discloses that the consumer sized roll would have at least two respective bonding sites at the edges of roll in the CD direction that are further away from the end/tail edge of the web from respective adjacent sets of bonding sites as currently claimed. As seen in Fig. 26 below, a first and second bond sites are located at the lateral edges in the CD direction of the of the roll, with a third bond site located adjacent to the MD center axis and is spaced at a length from the tail end greater than the length that the first and second bond sites are spaced from the tail end.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st)][AltContent: textbox (2nd)][AltContent: textbox (3rd)]
PNG
media_image2.png
266
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to the recitation that the application sites have a length greater than the width of the application site, Rasch discloses in Fig. 4 that the application sites 18 may have a pentagon shape with would give it a greater height/length in the machine direction than the width in the cross direction.
As to claim 16, the product of claim 15 is taught as seen above. Rasch discloses that the first and second application sites are equidistant from their respective first and second side edges (Id.).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 1 and 15 above. Strain discloses in Fig. 26 below, a first, second, third, and fourth discrete application sites comprising bonding material disposed along the tail end edge; wherein a first application site comprises bonding material and is disposed adjacent to the first outer edge and is spaced from the tail end edge an MD length, (j-1), and off to a first side of an MD center axis of the roll; wherein the second application site comprises bonding material and is disposed adjacent to the second outer edge and is spaced from the tail end edge an MD length, (j-9), and off to a second side of the MD center axis of the roll; wherein the third application site comprises bonding material and is disposed between the first application site and the MD center axis and is spaced from the tail end edge an MD length, (j-2); wherein the fourth application site comprises bonding material and is disposed between the second application site and the MD center axis and is spaced from the tail end edge an MD length, (j-8); wherein (j-2) is greater than (j-1) and wherein (j-8) is greater than (j-9); and wherein the first application site and the third application sight together at least partly form a first pocket, and wherein the second application site and the fourth application site together at least partly form a second pocket.
[AltContent: textbox (3rd)][AltContent: textbox (4th)][AltContent: textbox (2nd)][AltContent: textbox (1st)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
266
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 18, the roll of claim 17 is taught as seen above. Strain discloses that the first and fourth sites are the same distance from the tail end, with the second and third sites being the same distance from the tail end (Id.).
As to claim 19, the roll of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The recited size of the application sites and spacing between sites, so that a human finger could be inserted under the tail end of the roll, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing since limitations relating to size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 20, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Claim 20 recites that the application site MD length is greater than the CD length such that the application site pattern has a shear strength in the MD direction such that the tail doesn’t come unbonded from the roll during manufacturing but the bond strength along the CD direction allows a user to separate the tail end edge from the roll. Rasch discloses in Fig. 4 that the application sites 18 may have a pentagon shape with would give it a greater height/length in the machine direction than the width in the cross direction. Hence, the method of the above references as combined would result in a staggered bonding pattern with application sites that have a greater length in the machine direction than that of the cross direction as recited by claim 20 and would perform in the same manner as recited by Applicant since the current claims recite an application with dimensions of 10.0001 mm in the machine direction and 10 mm in the cross direction. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will address only those arguments pertinent to the rejection above.
Applicant argues on pages 7-9 that none of the prior art teaches or discloses the recited length and width of the application sites in claim 1. Applicant argues that the recited dimensions are specifically chosen as part of a “delicate balance” to ensure that multiple advantages were able to be achieved such that the roll stayed bonded during the manufacturing process. This argument is not persuasive because, as seen in the rejection above, limitations related to size (length and width of the application site) are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Hence, one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the size of the adhesive application site according to the required peel strength required according to the material bonded by the adhesive, the strength of the adhesive, and or the size/weight of the material and change the size of the adhesive application site accordingly. In arguendo, Rasch discloses that the adhesive application sites may have a circular shape (Fig. 3, 4; ¶39), with a length/diameter of 1.27cm (12.77 mm), which falls into the recited range of a length of 10-50 mm and width of 10-25 mm.
In response to applicant's argument on pages 9-10 that the staggered regions allow for the formation of “pockets” that a user may insert a finger to pull the tail edge away from the application/bonding sites, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Argues on pages 10-13 that modifying the bond pattern of Rasch with the staggered pattern of Strain would go against Rasch’s goal of bond regions drying/setting prior to processing by having the application zones arranged along a single cross axis. This argument is not persuasive because Rasch discloses that one of the problems with the adhesive not setting is related to water-based adhesives (¶6). Applicant’s conclusion that Rasch teaches that only application sites arranged along a single cross axis is not persuasive since Rasch is silent as to the effect a staggered pattern would have on the adhesive pattern setting.
Applicant further argues that the rejection has not established why it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rasch with the colored application site pattern of Strain through some sort of “substitution”. This argument is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, Strain clearly discloses that a staggered and linear bonding pattern are known functional equivalent bonding patterns for bonding the tail end of a of a roll of web material and thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a linear bonding pattern with a known conventional and functional equivalent staggered bonding pattern as taught by Strain. The colors disclosed by Strain in the staggered bonding pattern does not affect the bonding effectiveness of the bonding pattern.
Applicant argues on pages 15-18 that the prior art of record fails to teach or disclose that the application sites have a greater MD length than the CD length. This argument is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, Rasch discloses in Fig. 4 that the application sites 18 may have a pentagon shape with would give it a greater height/length in the machine direction than the width in the cross direction.
Applicant’s arguments that the rejection fails to address the limitations of claims 15 and 17 are not persuasive in light of the more detailed rejection above explaining how the pattern of Strain falls under the recited bonding patterns of claims 15 and 17.
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 CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, PHILLIP 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745