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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 26, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 102 and 146 (page 2 of specification). 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at page 4, lines 16-17, both the adhesive layer and the support layer are referenced as numeral 40. It appears to be a typo, as support layer is referenced as numeral 30 at line 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "thermoplastic polymer" in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this is the thermoplastic polymer recited at line 9 of claim 1. To provide sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim the word “the” or “said” should be included before “thermoplastic”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation 15 protrusions/cm2 to 620 protrusions/cm2, and the claim also recites 45 protrusions/cm2 to 400 protrusions/cm2, and 90 protrusions/cm2 to 350 protrusions/cm2 , and 100 protrusions/cm2 to 320 protrusions/cm2 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1, 3, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0274483 (Newhouse et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Newhouse discloses a winding core covering (260) comprising:
A backing, the backing comprising an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer has a first major surface and a second major surface (see Figure 2, paragraph 0059 where it is discussed that backing layer is attached to the cylindrical tube using adhesive, which may be a two-sided transfer tape which would inherently have a first major surface and a second major surface); and
A support layer (364, base layer), wherein the support layer has a first major surface and a second major surface (see Figure 2, paragraph 0018), wherein the first major surface of the support layer is in contact with the second major surface of the adhesive layer (see paragraphs 0060-0061); paragraph 0068 also discloses that an additional compliant material layer such as open or closed cell foam may be provided on the tube surface, also meeting the limitations of a support layer; and
A web contact layer (368), the web contact layer comprising: a thermoplastic polymer (see paragraphs 0046-0049, where it is stated PTFE or others may be used), wherein the web contact layer has a first major surface and a second major surface (see Figure 3A),
Wherein the second major surface of the support layer (364) is in contact with the first major surface of the web contact layer (368) at an interface (see Figure 3A), wherein the second major surface of the web contact layer has a structured surface comprising a plurality of protrusions (loops), and wherein the protrusions have an average height of 0.4-3.0 mm (400-3000 micrometers) (see paragraph 0047), which overlaps the claimed range of 50-600 micrometers. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 3, Newhouse also discloses that the adhesive may comprise a double-sided adhesive tape (see paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 7, Newhouse also discloses that the interface is not planar (see Figure 3A showing a curved interface between support layer (base layer 364) and web contact layer (368).
Regarding claim 10, Newhouse does not specifically state that the protrusions have a hemispherical shape; however, this claim limitation would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since it is disclosed that the protrusions are loops (see paragraph 0047). A loop is a generally hemispherical in shape.
Regarding claim 11, Newhouse also discloses a cylindrical tube (410) having an outer surface and a longitudinal axis (see Figure 3A, paragraph 0060); and
A winding core covering of claim 1 adjacent the outer surface of the cylindrical tube (see Figure 3A).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0274483 (Newhouse et al.) in view of US 5,616,394 (Gorman et al.) further in view of 3M Repositionable Tapes Technical Data Sheet.
Newhouse discloses a winding core covering as discussed above. Newhouse does not disclose the thickness of the backing layer; however, it is disclosed that the backing of Newhouse comprises a base layer of a resilient looped pile fabric (see paragraph 0060). Gorman teaches that it is known for looped pile fabrics to have a backing thickness of 0.00125 to 0.025 cm (12.5 to 250 microns) (see column 5, lines 43-55), which overlaps the claimed range of 50 to 380 microns. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the support layer of the Newhouse looped pile fabric with a known thickness. In the instant claim, the backing comprises an adhesive layer and the support layer. Newhouse discloses that any suitable adhesion technique may be used to attach the support layer to the cylindrical tube, including two-sided tapes (see paragraph 0059). Newhouse shows an example where 3MTM 9425 double coated tape is used (see paragraph 0074), which has a thickness of 0.15 mm (150 microns, see 3M Repositionable Tapes Data sheet). A combination of the support layer plus such an adhesive layer would yield a range from 172.5 to 400 microns (12.5 + 150 = 172.5 microns to 250 + 150 microns = 400 microns), which still overlaps the claimed range of 50-380 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0274483 (Newhouse et al.) in view of US 5,173,356 (Eaton et al.).
Newhouse discloses a winding core as discussed above. Newhouse also discloses that the support layer may comprise a fibrous material such as polyester, polypropylene, or other fibers (see paragraph 0049); however, low density polyethylene is not specifically recited. Eaton teaches that low density polyethylene is equivalent to polyester and polypropylene in fibrous web material applications (see column 3, lines 25-39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use low density polyethylene as an alternative to polyester or polypropylene support layer due to this teaching by Eaton.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0274483 (Newhouse et al.) in view of US 2012/0241549 (Newhouse ‘549).
Newhouse ‘483 discloses a winding core covering as discussed above. Newhouse ‘483 does not state that the thermoplastic polymer comprises a triblock polymer; however, in the analogous field of winding core coverings using a woven base layer with a looped pile protruding from one side, Newhouse ‘549 teaches providing an elastomeric coating of triblock copolymer to the looped pile in order to enhance grip (see paragraphs 0062-0069, Table 2 where examples using Kraton with a styrene-isoprene-styrene structure are shown). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the looped pile protrusions of Newhouse ‘483 with a triblock copolymer in order to enhance grip, as taught by Newhouse ‘549.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0274483 (Newhouse et al.) in view of US 2012/0241549 (Newhouse ‘549) further in view of US 4,650,822 (Veazey et al.).
Newhouse ‘483 in view of Newhouse ‘549 discloses a winding core covering as discussed above. The reference does not specify that the web contact layer includes a tackifier; however, Veazey teaches it is known to include a tackifier with a thermoplastic polymer in order to improve tack properties (see column 1, lines 34-41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a tackifier to improve tack performance as taught by Veazey.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0274483 (Newhouse et al.) in view of US 5,857,641 (Goode).
Newhouse discloses a winding core covering as discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, Newhouse does not disclose a diameter of the protrusions; however, in the analogous field of attaching webs to winding cores, Goode teaches providing protrusions with a diameter of 0.02-0.2 inches (508-5080 micrometers) provides sufficient size to entangle and hold a web in place (see column 4, lines 36-67), which overlaps the claimed range of 25-760 micrometers. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 12, Newhouse also discloses that the cylindrical tube may be paper (see paragraph 0057); however, it is not stated that the cylindrical tube is cardboard. Goode teaches that it is known to use paper or cardboard as cylindrical tube in the field of attaching webs to winding cores (see column 4, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide cardboard as the cylindrical core for Newhouse as it is known in the art.
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,993,021 (Kline).
Regarding claim 1, Kline discloses a winding core covering (45) comprising:
A backing, the backing comprising an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer has a first major surface and a second major surface (see column 3, lines 49-68); and
A support layer (47), wherein the support layer has a first major surface and a second major surface (see Figure 2), wherein the first major surface of the support layer is in contact with the second major surface of the adhesive layer (see column 3, lines 49-68); and
A web contact layer (49), the web contact layer comprising: a thermoplastic polymer (see column 4, lines 35-54 where polyester is disclosed), wherein the web contact layer has a first major surface and a second major surface (see Figure 2),
Wherein the second major surface of the support layer (47) is in contact with the first major surface of the web contact layer (49) at an interface (see Figure 2), wherein the second major surface of the web contact layer has a structured surface comprising a plurality of protrusions (loops, 51), and wherein the protrusions have an average height of 0.050-0.160 cm (500-1600 micrometers) (see column 4, lines 55-66), which overlaps the claimed range of 50-600 micrometers. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 2, Kline also discloses that the backing has a thickness of 125 micrometers (see column 4, lines 35-38), which is within the claimed range of 50-380 micrometers.
Regarding claim 3, Kline also discloses that the adhesive layer comprises a double-sided adhesive tape (see column 3, lines 49-63).
Regarding claim 7, Kline also discloses that the interface is not planar (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Kline also discloses that the protrusions have an average diameter of 5 to 30 microns (see column 4, lines 55-57), which overlaps the claimed range of 25-760 microns.
Regarding claim 9, Kline also discloses that the protrusions are provided at a density of 300 to 3,000 per square cm (see column 4, lines 55-59), which overlaps the claimed range of 15-620 protrusions per square cm.
Regarding claim 10, Kline does not specifically state that the protrusions have a hemispherical shape; however, this claim limitation would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since it is disclosed that the protrusions are loops (see column 3, lines 49-59). A loop is a generally hemispherical in shape.
Regarding claim 11, Kline also discloses a cylindrical tube (43) having an outer surface and a longitudinal axis (see Figures 1 and 2); and
A winding core covering of claim 1 adjacent the outer surface of the cylindrical tube (see Figure 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749 /KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749