Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/694,098

HOLLOW TUBE ADHESIVE TAPE DISPENSER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 21, 2024
Examiner
RIVERA, JOSHEL
Art Unit
1746
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
3M Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
624 granted / 851 resolved
+8.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
872
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 851 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Row (US Patent 6,502,616) in view of Maresh (US Patent 5,624,527). With regards to claim 1, Row discloses a collapsed adhesive tube dispenser comprising: A tape roll unwind supported at a first end (Figure 2 item 14) A mandrel extending in the machine direction having a mandrel first end and a mandrel second end, the mandrel second end being cantilevered and unsupported (Figure 2 item 22) An exterior forming die positioned between the first end and the second end, the exterior forming die having a shaping portion with a threading slot (Figure 2 item 60) A compression roller located near the second end (Figure 2 items 30 and 40) Row discloses that the dispenser comprises a handle (Figure 2 item 100). Row fails to explicitly disclose that the dispenser comprises a baseplate. Maresh discloses an adhesive tube dispenser (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Row, where Maresh teaches that the dispenser comprises a baseplate having a first end, a second end and a center line extending longitudinally in the machine direction (Figure 1 item 95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a baseplate, as suggested by Maresh, in Row’s dispenser. The rationale being that, as stated by Maresh, a baseplate would allow a user to facilitate the use of the dispenser with one hand (column 7 lines 49 – 52). With regards to claim 2, the teachings of Row and Maresh are presented above. Additionally, Row teaches that the mandrel tapers and a diameter of the mandrel second end is smaller than a diameter of the first end (as seen in Figure 2 and Figure 3 item 22). With regards to claim 5, the teachings of Row and Maresh are presented above. Additionally, Row teaches that the mandrel second end is positioned in or extends through the shaping portion (as seen in Figure 2 item 22). With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Row and Maresh are presented above. Additionally, Row teaches that the machine direction location of the exterior forming die between the first end and the second end is adjustable (Figures 2 and 3 item 60). With regards to claim 8, the teachings of Row and Maresh are presented above. Additionally, Row teaches that the shaping portion comprises a linear lead in portion (Figure 2 item 102) and a circular portion that transitions to an edge tuck (Figure 2 item 20). With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Row and Maresh are presented above. Additionally, Row teaches that the shaping portion has a lead in chamfer and a lead out chamfer that make line contact at a forming edge (as seen in Figure 9). Claim Objections Claims 3, 4, 7 and 10 - 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14 - 20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art made of record does not teach or suggest and adhesive tape structure where a collapsed tubular structure encases a secondary material. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm. 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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. /JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746 /MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600097
PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING A SHAPED OBJECT THROUGH FILAMENT WINDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594406
SERRATION BALLOON
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594751
FILM STICKING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589565
TIRE BUILDING MACHINE AND METHOD FOR INSPECTING A TIRE COMPONENT PRODUCED IN SAID TIRE BUILDING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583215
Method for Bonding Film to Lens
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+6.8%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 851 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month