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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 21, 2026 has been entered.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites, “The roll of claim 1, wherein the first application site is equally divided into first and second sections via a dividing line running along the MD, the first section being adjacent to the first outer edge, and wherein a second application site is equally divided into first and second sections via a dividing line running along the MD, wherein the first section of the second application site is adjacent to the second outer edge and wherein the first section of the second application site has a different basis weight than the second section.” It is unclear as to which “second section” is referred to at the end of claim 11. Is it the second section of the first application site, or the second section of the second application site? For purposes of examination it is presumed that Applicant meant to cite that it is the second section of the second application site as disclosed in Fig. 22B.
Claim 13 recites in lines 4-5, “wherein the second section is disposed between the first and second sections..”. It is unclear how the second section can be disposed between itself. For purposes of examination it is presumed that Applicant meant to recite that the second section is placed between the first and third section recited in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-10 and 15-20 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
Rasch discloses in Fig. 4 that the discrete application site can be in the form of triangle or a pentagon, which when divided in the center in the MD by a line in the CD would create sections which would comprise of a different amount of bonding material as compared to an adjacent section of the discrete application site.
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 7-10, 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
If claim 11 recited that the second application site was a continuous shape and when divided into equal portions by a line in the MD and that the first section of the second application site has a different basis weight than the second section of the second application site, this would overcome the closest prior art of record of Rasch et al. (US 20090029101) which does not teach an application site with a continuous shape that is subdivided into sections with differing bonding material basis weights as disclosed in Fig. 22B and page 26, line 9 to page 27, line 20 of the current application.
If claim 13 recited that the first application site was a continuous shape and when divided into three equal portions/sections by a line in the CD and that one of the portions/sections has different basis weight or more/less adhesive than another section of the application site, this would overcome the closest prior art of record of Rasch et al. (US 20090029101) which does not teach or disclose the subdivided continuous shape into three equal portions that may have different amounts of adhesive from one another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will address only those arguments pertinent to the rejection above.
Applicant argues on pages 2-4 that none of the prior art teaches or discloses, “wherein one or more of the plurality of discrete application sites are divided into a plurality of sections via one or more dividing lines running along at least one of the CD or the MD, wherein at least one of the plurality of sections within one discrete application site comprises a different amount of bonding material as compared to an adjacent one of the plurality of sections within the one discrete application site.” This argument is not persuasive because, as seen in the rejection above, Rasch discloses in Fig. 4 that the discrete application site can be in the form of triangle or a pentagon, which when divided in the center in the MD by a line in the CD would create sections which would comprise of a different amount of bonding material as compared to an adjacent section of the discrete application site.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights