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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 01/21/2026.
Applicant’s cancelation of claim 6 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending and examined below.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of reference Cardinal (3,877,655). Due to the introduction of new rejections, this action is made NON-FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by reference Cardinal et al. (3,877,655).
Regarding claim 1, Cardinal discloses a method of forming a gum roll (20), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a strip stock (14) having a first end, a first surface, and a second surface opposite to the first surface;
coupling the first end to a core fixture (22) so the first surface interfaces with the core fixture (22),
rotating the core fixture (22) to wind the strip stock (14) onto the core fixture (22) such that the first surface interfaces with the second surface to form a gum roll (20);
removing the core fixture (22) from the gum roll (20); and
inserting a structural core (36) into the gum roll (20).
(Figure 1, 4 and Column 3 lines 15-20, Column 4 lines 5-12, lines 25-28)
Examiner notes that the claimed invention does not require any direct or contiguous connection between the claimed structures; the claim(s) merely recite “coupling”, and “interfaces with” this language is not limited to a direct attachment and does not prohibit any intermediary structure between claimed structural limitations. Accordingly Examiner notes the spindle (22) meets the claimed limitation of a core fixture, rotating the core fixture (22) to wind the strip stock onto the core fixture (22) via the central arbor (34) as the strip (14) is coupled to core fixture (22) via the central arbor (34).
Regarding claim 7, Cardinal discloses the structural support core (36) interfaces via the central arbor (34) with the first surface. (Column 4 lines 25-28)
Regarding claim 9, Cardinal discloses the strip stock (14) is formed of highly dispersible precipitated silicas. (Column 1 lines 13-20)
Regarding claim 11, Cardinal discloses a fixture assembly (22, 32, 33) includes a first fixture plate (32), a second fixture plate (33), and a core fixture (22), and wherein the first fixture plate (32) and the second fixture plate (33) are coupled to the core fixture (22) via the arbor (34). (Figure 4 and Column 4 lines 5-8)
Regarding claim 13, Cardinal discloses the first fixture plate (32) and the second fixture plate (33) are spaced apart by a fixture width, wherein the gum roll (20) defines a roll thickness, and wherein the fixture width is approximately equal to the roll thickness. (Column 6 lines 19-22)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by reference Shimazaki (6,938,850).
Regarding claim 20, Shimazaki discloses a method of forming a gum roll, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a strip stock (62, 68) having a first end, a first surface, and a second surface opposite to the first surface;
coupling the first end to a core fixture (76) of a fixture assembly (72) so that first surface interfaces with the core fixture (76),
wherein the fixture assembly (72) includes a first fixture plate (78) and a second fixture plate (78) coupled to the core fixture (76) and spaced apart by a fixture width; and
rotating the core fixture (76) to wind the strip stock (62, 68) onto the core fixture (76) such that the first surface interfaces with the second surface to form a gum roll,
wherein the strip stock (62, 68) defines a stock width approximately equal to the fixture width.
(Figure 1, 3 and Column 3 lines 6-8, Column 6 lines 26-35, Column 8 lines 11-19)
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.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Cardinal et al. (3,877,655) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Thayer (2,984,425).
Regarding claim 2, Cardinal discloses the outer roll diameter of the gum roll (20) being greater than the diameter of the core fixture (22). (Figure 1)
However, Cardinal do not disclose the step of cutting the strip stock.
Thayer disclose a method of forming a roll, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a strip stock (20) having a first end;
coupling the first end to a core fixture (22);
rotating the core fixture to wind the strip stock onto the core fixture; and
cutting the strip stock to form a second end.
(Figure 2 and Column 3 lines 35-40, 57-64, Column 4 lines 4-7)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Cardinal by incorporating the cutting step as taught by Thayer, since column 11 lines 45-50 of Thayer states such a modification would allow for more efficient and reliable winding of the strip stock.
Regarding claim 4, Cardinal modified by Thayer disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not explicitly disclose the outer roll diameter that is between 10-60 inches.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the outer roll diameter between 10-60 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 6 paragraph 37 of the Specification, the outer roll diameter is disclosed to be between 10-60, 20-50, 22-26, or 23.5 inches. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Cardinal and Thayer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Cardinal modified by Thayer disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not explicitly disclose the outer roll diameter that is between 20-50 inches.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the outer roll diameter between 20-50 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 6 paragraph 37 of the Specification, the outer roll diameter is disclosed to be between 10-60, 20-50, 22-26, or 23.5 inches. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Cardinal and Thayer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Cardinal modified by Thayer disclose at least one of the first fixture plate (Cardinal – 32) or the second fixture plate (Cardinal – 33) includes a fixture slot (Cardinal – 40), wherein the method further comprises the step of cutting the strip stock to form a second end when the gum roll (Cardinal – 20) is wound to an outer roll diameter, and wherein the strip stock (Cardinal – 20) is visible through the fixture slot (Cardinal – 40) at the outer roll diameter. (Cardinal – Figures 1, 4 and Column 4 lines 5-8) (Thayer – Column 4 lines 4-7)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Cardinal et al. (3,877,655) in view of reference Thayer (2,984,425) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of reference Allgood et al. (2003/0075459).
Regarding claim 3, Cardinal modified by Thayer disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose crimping the second end.
Allgood et al. disclose a method for packaging coiled goods (20), the method comprising the step of crimping the second end to a final roll of material. (Figure 2 and Page 1 paragraph 12)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Cardinal by incorporating the crimping step as taught by Allgood et al., since page 1 paragraph 12 of Allgood et al. states such a modification would provide effective means of retaining the roll in the wound configuration.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Cardinal et al. (3,877,655) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Eyre et al. (6,047,523).
Regarding claim 8, Cardinal discloses the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose providing a skid.
Eyre et al. disclose a method for packaging coiled material (16) vertically, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a skid (32) having a stacking surface (20);
positioning a core of the coiled material (16) substantially perpendicular to the stacking surface (20); and
wrapping the coiled material (16) and the skid (32) in a ploy film (18).
(Figures 1, 3 and Column 3 lines 51-56)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Cardinal by incorporating the providing skid and wrapping the coiled material steps as taught by Eyre et al., since column 3 lines of Eyre et al. states such a modification would allow a means of packaging a plurality of coiled material in a rigid fashion.
Regarding claim 10, Cardinal modified by Eyre et al. disclose wrapping the gum roll (Cardinal – 20) in poly film (Eyre et al. – 18). (Eyre et al. – Column 3 lines 51-56)
Claims 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Cardinal et al. (3,877,655) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of reference White et al. (2010/0215438).
Regarding claim 12, Cardinal discloses the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the at least one of the first fixture plate or the second fixture plate is removable.
White et al. disclose a method of forming a roll, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a fixture assembly (16) including: a first fixture plate (72); a second fixture plate (74); and a core fixture (70),
wherein the first fixture plate (72) and the second fixture plate (74) are coupled to the core fixture (70),
removing at least one of the first fixture plate (72) or the second fixture plate (74) form the core fixture (70).
(Figure 1 and Page 3 paragraph 41, 44)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Cardinal by incorporating the removal step as taught by White et al., since page 3 paragraph 44 of White et al. states such a modification would allow the coiled material to be removed while allowing the fixture assembly to stay mounted to the drive assembly.
Regarding claim 16, Cardinal discloses a method of forming a gum roll (20), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a strip stock (14) having a first end, a first surface, and a second surface opposite to the first surface;
coupling the first end to a core fixture (22) via a central arbor (34) [See note above regarding rejection of claim 1] of a fixture assembly (22, 32, 33) so the first surface interfaces with the core fixture (22),
wherein the fixture assembly (22, 32, 33) include a first fixture plate (32) and a second fixture plate (33) coupled to the core fixture (22) via the central arbor (34); and
rotating the core fixture (22) to wind the strip stock (14) onto the core fixture (22) such that the first surface interfaces with the second surface to form a gum roll (20).
(Figure 1, 4 and Column 3 lines 15-20, Column 4 lines 5-12, lines 25-28)
Similarly to claim 1, claim 16 does not require any direct coupling and/or attachment and does not prohibit intermediary structure between the claimed elements.
However, Cardinal does not disclose the step of removing at least one of the first fixture plate or the second fixture plate.
White et al. disclose a method of forming a roll, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a fixture assembly (16) including: a first fixture plate (72); a second fixture plate (74); and a core fixture (70),
wherein the first fixture plate (72) and the second fixture plate (74) are coupled to the core fixture (70),
removing at least one of the first fixture plate (72) or the second fixture plate (74) form the core fixture (70).
(Figure 1 and Page 3 paragraph 41, 44)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Cardinal by incorporating the removal step as taught by White et al., since page 3 paragraph 44 of White et al. states such a modification would allow the coiled material to be removed while allowing the fixture assembly to stay mounted to the drive assembly.
When modifying Cardinal in view of White et al., the method is interpreted to comprise the steps of removing at least one of the first fixture plate or the second fixture plate form the core fixture, and removing the gum roll from the core fixture.
Regarding claim 17, Cardinal modified by White et al. disclose the first fixture plate (Cardinal – 32) and the second fixture plate (Cardinal – 33) are spaced apart by a fixture width, wherein the gum roll (Cardinal – 20) defines a roll thickness, and wherein the fixture width is approximately equal to the roll thickness. (Cardinal – Figure 1)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Cardinal et al. (3,877,655) in view of reference White et al. (2010/0215438) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of reference Thayer (2,984,425).
Regarding claim 18, Cardinal discloses at least one of the first fixture plate (32) or the second fixture plate (33) includes a fixture slot (40). (Figures 1, 4 and Column 4 lines 5-8)
However, Cardinal modified by White et al. do not disclose the step of cutting the strip stock.
Thayer disclose a method of forming a roll, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a strip stock (20) having a first end;
coupling the first end to a core fixture (22);
rotating the core fixture to wind the strip stock onto the core fixture; and
cutting the strip stock to form a second end.
(Figure 2 and Column 3 lines 35-40, 57-64, Column 4 lines 4-7)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Cardinal by incorporating the cutting step as taught by Thayer, since column 11 lines 45-50 of Thayer states such a modification would allow for more efficient and reliable winding of the strip stock.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Cardinal et al. (3,877,655) in view of reference White et al. (2010/0215438) as applied to claims 1 and 16 respectively, and further in view of reference Bruck et al. (3,912,186).
Regarding claim 15, Cardinal discloses the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose applying a radial force.
Bruck et al. disclose a method of forming a roll, the method comprising the steps of applying a radial force to the second surface as a strip stock (1) is wound onto a core fixture. (Figure 1 and Column 3 lines 34-41)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Cardinal by incorporating the applying radial force step as taught by Bruck et al., since column 1 lines 8-12 of Bruck et al. states such a modification would produce crease-free gum roll.
Regarding claim 19, Cardinal modified by White et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose applying a radial force.
Bruck et al. disclose a method of forming a roll, the method comprising the steps of applying a radial force to the second surface as a strip stock (1) is wound onto a core fixture. (Figure 1 and Column 3 lines 34-41)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Cardinal by incorporating the applying radial force step as taught by Bruck et al., since column 1 lines 8-12 of Bruck et al. states such a modification would produce crease-free gum roll.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Shimazaki (6,938,850) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of reference Bruck et al. (3,912,186).
Regarding claim 21, Shimazaki discloses the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose applying a radial force.
Bruck et al. disclose a method of forming a roll, the method comprising the steps of applying a radial force to the second surface as a strip stock (1) is wound onto a core fixture. (Figure 1 and Column 3 lines 34-41)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Shimazaki by incorporating the applying radial force step as taught by Bruck et al., since column 1 lines 8-12 of Bruck et al. states such a modification would produce crease-free gum roll.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancelation of claim 6 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending and examined below.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with reference Cardinal (3,877,655), Applicant' s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is based on a new interpretation of the references. Due to the introduction of new rejections, this action is made NON-FINAL.
Applicant states:
Specifically, Cardinal fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a method of forming a gum roll including “rotating the core fixture to wind the strip stock onto the core fixture such that the first surface interfaces with the second surface to form a gum roll,” and “removing the core fixture from the gum roll,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Prior to the winding process, Cardinal discloses the spindle (22) is coupled to the central arbor (34). During the winding process, both the spindle and central arbor rotate as the strip stock is wound around both the spindle and the central arbor. After the winding process, Cardinal discloses the spindle (22) is removed from the central arbor (34). Cardinal is interpreted to disclose removing the core fixture from the gum roll.
Therefore, Cardinal does disclose the steps of rotating the core fixture to wind the strip stock onto the core fixture such that the first surface interfaces with the second surface to form a gum roll, and removing the core fixture from the gum roll as recited in independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 July 31, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights