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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II (claims 6-13) in the reply filed on 7/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that citing MPEP 806.04 "Claims are definitions or descriptions of inventions. Claims themselves are never species". This is not found persuasive because th.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second drawer (claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 13 states " a contact cleaning roller mounting apparatus mounted in the housing, wherein the contact cleaning roller mounting apparatus comprises a second drawer receivable in the housing and being moveable into and out of the housing, a contact cleaning roller mounting apparatus mounted in the housing, wherein the contact cleaning roller mounting apparatus comprises a second drawer receivable in the housing and being moveable into and out of the housing, ". However, it does not appear that the specification or drawings support a second drawer being present. In fact, figure 6 shows the contact cleaning roller (220). However, it does not appear to be on a drawer or slidable in and out of the housing.
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 6-13 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.
The term “fouls against” in claim 6 renders the claim indefinite. The term "fouls against" is not a traditional term in mechanics or drawers. It is unclear the limitation being placed by the term "fouls against". "Foul" is traditionally used in sports to describe an illegal movement or play. The closest definition provided is "to tangle or come into collision with" (Merriam-Webster)..
Claim 10 recites the limitation "wherein on of the opposing core plugs" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein on of the opposing core plugs" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehmen (US 20080150407 A1) and Bell (US 20040251156 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Mehmen discloses a device capable of being an adhesive roll mounting apparatus, comprising a housing (cabinet frame, abstract) and a drawer (400) receivable in the housing and being moveable into and out of the housing, the drawer comprising at least one drawer slide (413), and a latch (108a) mounted on the drawer and moveable between a latching position (figure 23a) in which the latch fouls against a stopper element of the housing preventing the drawer being received into the housing and a disengaged position (figure 23b) in which the latch is held in a stowed position such that the drawer is received into the housing.
Mehmen failed to disclose of a roll mounting system configured to receive and retain an adhesive roll. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Bell taught of a container with a roll mounting system (50) in order to support a roll (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drawer of Mehmen to include a roll mounting system as taught by Bell in order to allow for storage and support of rolls.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
586
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 6, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Mehmen further discloses wherein the latch (108a) is pivotable between the latching and disengaged positions.
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 6, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Mehmen further discloses, wherein the at least one drawer slide (413) comprises a pair of opposing drawer slides.
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 8, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Mehmen and Bell further teach wherein the roll mounting system comprises opposed core plugs mounted one at each end of the drawer. (this would be the result of placement of Bells roll mounting system within the drawer of Mehmen. One may consider opposing assemblies of 110 and 21 as the core plugs).
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 8, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Mehmen and Bell further teach wherein one of the opposing core plugs is fixed in position in the drawer and the other of the opposing core plugs is moveable away from the fixed core plug in the drawer. (can consider Bell 110 on one end as the fixed end and can consider 21 of Bell on the other end as the moveable core plug)
Examiner Note: The feature 110 could be made integral with the bottom surface of Mehmens drawer. Or alternatively Mehmens drawer bottom can be the same as item 66 of Bell and would feature a slot for the insertion of 110. Both of these modifications would be the result of having integral features and would not be considered novel under In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.")
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 6, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Mehmen further discloses wherein the roll mounting system comprises an actuator (106a) operable to move the latch from the latching position to the disengaged position.
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 11, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Mehmen further discloses wherein one of the opposing core plugs (450) is fixed in position in the drawer and the other of the opposing core plugs (120a) is moveable away from the fixed core plug in the drawer, and the actuator (108a) is connected to the moveable core plug (120a).
Examiner Note: There is no antecedent for the opposing core plugs and no prior limitations associated with these features.
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 6, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims, the references further teach a contact cleaning system comprising the adhesive roll mounting apparatus according to claim 6 and a contact cleaning roller mounting apparatus mounted in the housing, wherein the contact cleaning roller mounting apparatus comprises a second drawer (Mehmen teaches of multiple drawers in the same housing on page 5 [0091]) receivable in the housing and being moveable into and out of the housing, the second drawer comprising a roll mounting system (taught by the combination of the roll mounting system as taught by Bell, see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale) configured to receive and retain a contact cleaning roller wherein the adhesive roll mounting apparatus and the contact cleaning roller mounting apparatus together provide a contact cleaning roller configured and located to contact a substrate to be cleaned and an adhesive roll configured and located to remove debris from the contact cleaning roller.
Examiner Note: “Configured to” indicates an intended function and does not positively recite a structural relationship or limitation.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20080150407-A1 OR US-20040251156-A1 OR US-20070252490-A1 OR US-20060101875-A1 OR US-20120138723-A1 OR US-20090134639-A1 OR US-4418120-A OR US-5388902-A OR US-8783177-B2 OR US-6237176-B1 OR US-4721347-A OR US-5775140-A OR US-5518282-A OR US-5207781-A OR US-1950738-A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights