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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0029], “attached to the skim” should be amended as follows: “attached to the skin”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “for attaching a patch to the skin” should be amended as follows: “for attaching a patch to [[the]] a user’s skin”.
In line 2, “in one direction and then restores in the other direction” should be amended as follows: “in one direction and then restores in [[the]] another direction”.
Accordingly, in Claim 2, line 2 should be amended as follows: “[[a]] the user”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “the curved surface” should be amended as follows: “the curved shape”.
In line 3, “to the original state” should be amended as follows: “to the preset curvature”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “is provided to be elastically deformable” should be amended as follows: “is
In line 2, “stretched together” should be amended as follows: “stretched
In lined 3-4, “restored together to the original state when the supporting unit is restored to the original state” should be amended as follows: “restored an original state when the supporting unit is restored to [[the]] an original state”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “has a coupling unit formed to which” should be amended as follows: “has a coupling unit
In lines 2-3, “the thickness of coupling unit being formed thicker than the thickness of the remaining portion of the supporting unit” should be amended as follows: “[[the]] a thickness of the coupling unit being a thickness of [[the]] a remaining portion of the supporting unit”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2, “wherein the patch-attaching unit has a bent part formed at the side of an end and connected to the coupling unit in a bent state” should be amended as follows: “wherein the patch-attaching unit has a bent part formed proximate a terminal end thereof, the bent part being [[and]] connected to the coupling unit ”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2, “coupling unit formed to which the patch-attaching” should be amended as follows: coupling unit
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “the end” should be amended as follows: “[[the]] an end”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “an end of patch-attaching unit” should be amended as follows: “an end of the patch-attaching unit”.
In line 2, “than the other portion” should be amended as follows: “than [[the]] another portion”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1 and 3, “the cross-section” should be amended as follows: “[[the]] a cross-section”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “and the pressing block is” should be amended as follows: “and the one or more pressing blocks are [[is]]”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “thickness of pressing block” should be amended as follows: “thickness of the pressing block”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2, “one or more adsorption grooves formed by depression” should be amended as follows: “one or more adsorption grooves formed by one or more depressions”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “wherein the size of the adsorption groove is formed smaller” should be amended as follows: “wherein [[the]] a size of the adsorption groove is
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2-3, “the adhesive force between the patch and the release sheet…in a state that the patch” should be amended as follows: “[[the]] an adhesive force between the patch and [[the]] a release sheet…in a state when the patch”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 1-2, 7-9, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR20180065869A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an applicator (130, 130a; Figures 1-7) for attaching a patch to a user’s skin (the limitation “for attaching a patch to a user’s skin” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; Kim discloses an applicator comprising adhesive surfaces, 135, 135a which are fully capable of, without modification, being used to adhere to a patch and to then transfer said patch to a user’s skin), the applicator comprising:
a supporting unit (referring to Figure 1, the supporting unit is the bottom half of 131), which elastically deforms in one direction and then restores in another direction (“the main body 131 should be elastically restored after being pressed…the main body 131 is made of a material that can be elastically restored”, refer to Page 5, third paragraph from the bottom of the page); and
a patch-attaching unit (135, “patch-attaching” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; Kim’s device comprises an adhesive surface at 135 that is fully capable of, without modification, being used to attach a patch to some surface, including a user’s skin), supported by the supporting unit (“135…is detachably attached to the lower surface”, refer to the last sentence of Page 4), and having a first adhesive surface (exterior/bottom surface, refer to Figure 1) formed on one side (bottom side, refer to Figure 1) for temporarily adhering a patch (the limitation “for temporarily adhering a patch” is interpreted as an intended use limitation”; one side of Kim’s patch-attaching unit comprises adhesive thereon which is fully capable of, without modification, temporarily adhering a patch thereto).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, further comprising:
a handle (top half of 130, refer to Figure 1) provided for gripping by a user (
“it can be held by a user”, refer to Page 4, fourth paragraph from the bottom of the page),
wherein the supporting unit is connected to the handle (refer to Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, wherein the supporting unit has a coupling unit (133) to which the patch-attaching unit can be coupled (“attached to the lower surface”, refer to Page 4, fifth paragraph from the bottom of the page), and a thickness of the coupling unit being thicker than a thickness of a remaining portion of the supporting unit (refer to annotated Figures 4a and 4b, below, wherein thickness T1 of the coupling unit is greater than thickness T2 of a remaining portion of the supporting unit). Although the drawings may not be to scale, they can still be relied upon for teaching the general conditions of the claim because the overall relationship is depicted.
PNG
media_image1.png
581
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the applicator of claim 7, wherein the patch-attaching unit has a bent part (bend is defined as “shape…into a curve” by Oxford Languages, Kim’s patch-attaching unit is curved/bent along an entirety thereof, as best shown in Figures 4a-4b) formed proximate a terminal end thereof (referring to Figure 4a, a terminal end is either the left end or the right end; referring to Figure 4b, the terminal end is the front end), the bent part being connected to the coupling unit (refer to Figures 4a-4b).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, wherein the supporting unit has a coupling unit (133) formed to which the patch-attaching unit can be coupled and fixed (“attached to the lower surface”, refer to Page 4, fifth paragraph from the bottom of the page).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, wherein an adhesive force exerted by the first adhesive surface on the patch is less than an adhesive force exerted by the patch on the skin of the user (it is noted that claim 1 does not positively recite a patch but rather recites that the applicator is “for attaching a patch”; therefore any limitations drawn toward adhesiveness between the patch and the applicator are interpreted as intended use; Kim’s adhesive surface is fully capable of being used with a patch such that an adhesive force exerted by the first adhesive surface on the patch is less than an adhesive force exerted by the patch on the skin of the user, if such a patch is provided. Such a relationship between the adhesive forces is required in order for Kim’s device to operate as intended, i.e. to transfer an adhesive ornament to a user’s body using an adhesive applicator; additionally, Kim explicitly discloses that the adhesive strength of the patch/sticker is “300 to 25,000 gf/in”, refer to Page 4, fourth paragraph and that the adhesive strength of the first adhesive surface is “5 to 15,000 gf/in”, refer to Page 5, eighth paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses the applicator of claim 19, wherein the adhesive force exerted by the first adhesive surface on the patch is greater than an adhesive force between the patch and a release sheet in a state when the patch is adhered to the release sheet (claims 1 and 19 do not positively recite a patch but rather recite that the applicator is “for attaching a patch”, therefore any limitations drawn toward adhesiveness between the patch and a release sheet to which the patch is attached, are interpreted as intended use; Kim’s device is fully capable of being used with a patch such that the adhesive force exerted by the first adhesive surface on the patch is greater than an adhesive force between the patch and a release sheet in a state when the patch is adhered to the release sheet, if a patch adhered to a release sheet is provided, in order for Kim’s device to operate as intended, i.e. in order for Kim’s applicator to be able to remove a patch/sticker from a release sheet in order to apply said patch/sticker to a user, the adhesive force between the patch/sticker and the release sheet must be less than that of the adhesive force between the patch and the first adhesive surface of the applicator; additionally, Kim explicitly discloses the adhesive strength of the first adhesive surface is “5 to 15,000 gf/in”, refer to Page 5, eighth paragraph and that the adhesive strength between the patch/sticker and a release sheet 111, is “300 to 25,000 gf/in”, refer to Page 4, fourth paragraph”).
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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Parker et al. (US2021/0076805).
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, as applied above. Kim does not disclose wherein the first adhesive surface has one or more adsorption grooves formed by one or more depressions. Rather, Kim discloses that the first adhesive surface may be “in the form of a sheet or a foam” (refer to Page 5, fourth paragraph) and may be “selected from an olefin resin, an acrylic resin, a urethane resin, a silicone resin, and a rubber so as to have adhesive force” (refer to Page 5, sixth paragraph) as a means for temporarily adhering two cosmetic bodies, namely an applicator and a decorative object to be attached to a user’s fingernail.
Parker discloses a means for releasably adhering two cosmetic bodies, thereby solving the same problem as that of Kim’s device, and is therefore analogous art to Kim’s device. Parker discloses a first body (10) in the form of a cosmetic pallet, and a second body (22) in the form of a godet, the first and second bodies being releasably adhered to one another via a strip of micro-suction tape (32), where micro-suction tape is formed of “millions of microscopic suction cups” (refer to Paragraph [0048]), wherein suction cups, by definition, comprise grooves formed by depressions therein. Parker’s micro-suction tape serves to “removably secure” (refer to Paragraph [0048]) the two bodies. Refer additionally to Parker Figures 1-14B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s applicator such that the first adhesive surface is a micro-suction tape, as taught by Parker, where micro-suction tape comprises one or more grooves formed by one or more depressions, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of releasably adhering two bodies.
The limitation “adsorption” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; the combination of Kim and Parker disclose an adhesive strip comprising a plurality of grooves formed therein, these grooves being fully capable of interacting with some material placed on its surface via adsorption; additionally, applicant’s specification discloses that the depressions exert negative pressure on the patch (refer to Paragraph [0073] of applicant’s disclosure), where negative pressure describes a vacuum which is the mechanism by which suction cups, also known as vacuum cups, operate; thus, it appears that applicant’s adsorption grooves are describing a vacuum/suction cup, thereby further demonstrating that negative pressure/vacuum adhesive bodies are capable of adsorption.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kim and Parker discloses the applicator of claim 16, wherein the size of the adsorption groove is formed smaller than the size of the patch (the limitation “wherein the size of the adsorption groove is formed smaller than the size of the patch” is interpreted as an intended use limitation since “the patch” is not positively recited, i.e. claim 1 recites “for attaching a patch”; per the modification addressed in claim 16, the applicator of the combination of Kim and Parker discloses an adhesive strip comprising a plurality of grooves, wherein the grooves are in place to act as a suction against a sticker/patch to be placed on a user’s body; thus, in order for the suction cup/grooves/depressions to impart a suction on the sticker/patch, they must be smaller than the ornament, otherwise the sticker/patch would fall into the groove/depression).
Claims 1-6, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidler (US3516423) in view of Kim (KR20180065869A).
Regarding claim 1, Seidler discloses an applicator (11, 21; Figures 1-10) for attaching a patch to a user’s skin (the limitation “for attaching a patch to the skin” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; Seidler discloses a “cosmetic article applicator”, refer to Column 1, lines 27-28, comprising an adhesive 18, 32, for which to attach a cosmetic article to a user’s body, where adhesive 18, 32 is fully capable of, without modification, adhering to a patch for subsequent attachment to a user’s skin), the applicator comprising:
a supporting unit (13 OR 22 OR 37); and
a patch-attaching unit (16, best shown in Figures 1-3; 31 OR 28, best shown in Figure 4; 39, best shown in Figure 5), supported by the supporting unit (refer to Figures 1-8), and having a first adhesive surface (exterior surface comprising adhesive, 18; best shown in Figures 1-3; OR exterior surface of 31 to which adhesive 32 is affixed, refer to Figure 4; OR front/exterior surface of 39, as best shown in Figure 5) formed on one side (front/exterior side with respect to the orientation of Figures 1-4, and 5) for temporarily adhering a patch (the limitation “for temporarily adhering a patch” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; Seidler discloses a strip of material comprising an adhesive surface that is fully capable of, without modification, temporarily adhering a patch, if such a patch was provided; additionally, Seidler discloses that the applicator is “most especially useful in the application of…small articles”, refer to Column 1, lines 28-29 to a user’s face/skin, refer to Column 1, line 36).
Seidler does not explicitly disclose that the supporting unit elastically deforms in one direction and then restores in another direction; however, Seidler does disclose that the supporting unit is “capable of being flexed”, (refer to claim 9) and that the supporting unit “is preferably molded of plastic material” (refer to Column 2, lines 49-50).
Kim discloses a similar applicator (130, Figures 1-7) comprising a supporting unit (referring to Figure 1, the supporting unit is the bottom half of 131), a patch-attaching unit (135) supported by the supporting unit (refer to Figure 1), having a first adhesive surface (135), and wherein the supporting unit is formed of an elastic material such that the supporting unit elastically deforms in one direction and then restores in another direction (“the main body 131 should be elastically restored after being pressed…the main body 131 is made of a material that can be elastically restored”, refer to Page 5, third paragraph from the bottom of the page), thereby enabling a user to exert force on the applicator with minimal risk of snapping/breaking the tool during use. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seidler’s applicator to be formed of an elastic material such that the supporting unit elastically deforms in one direction and then restores in another direction, as taught by Kim, since such a modification provides the advantage of reducing the likelihood of the applicator breaking during use.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, as applied above. Seidler further discloses the applicator further comprising:
a handle (14) provided for gripping by a user (the limitation “provided for gripping by a user” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; Seidler provides an elongated handle, that is intended to be used for gripping by a user),
wherein the supporting unit is connected to the handle (refer to Seidler Figures 1, 4-5, and 7-8).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 2, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the supporting unit extends from the handle on both sides and has a symmetrical shape with respect to the handle (refer to Seidler Figures 1, 4, and 7).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the supporting unit is formed as a curve shape with a preset curvature, and the curved shape is transformed into an open shape and then restored to the preset curvature (refer to Figures 5-6; alternatively, the limitation “the curved shape is transformed into an open shape and then restored to the preset curvature “, is interpreted as an intended use limitation; Seidler’s embodiment of Figures 1-4 depict a curved shape and per the modification addressed in claim 1, the applicator was modified to be formed of an elastic material, wherein when a force is applied to the curved shape of an elastic material, the curved shape will be pressed open and then when the force is removed, the curved shaped will be restored to its original shape).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 4, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the supporting unit is concavely formed toward the patch-attaching unit (refer to Seidler Figures 1, and 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the patch-attaching unit is provided to be elastically deformable, the patch-attaching unit is stretched together when the supporting unit is elastically deformed and stretched, and the patch-attaching unit is restored together to the original state when the supporting unit is restored to the original state (refer to Seidler Figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the supporting unit has a coupling unit (the limitation “coupling unit” is interpreted in light of Applicant’s disclosure, as being the distal ends of the supporting unit; referring to Seidler Figures 1-4, the distal/top portion of 15, 25, define the coupling unit; OR, referring to Figure 4, the coupling unit is 26 + the distal ends of 25; referring to Seidler Figure 5, the coupling unit is 38) to which the patch-attaching unit can be coupled and fixed (referring to Figures 1-4, the patch-attaching unit is depicted as being coupled and fixed to the coupling unit via grooves 17, and 24; referring to Figures 5-6, the patch-attaching unit is depicted as being disposed within a groove which is not labeled but is depicted by the hidden lines in Seidler Figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 9, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein the coupling unit has a fitting groove (17, Figures 1-3; 24, Figure 4; OR in Figure 4, 29 defines a dovetail joint, wherein the female portion of said joint that is disposed in 29 defines a fitting groove; in Figures 5-6, the fitting groove is not labeled but is the recess occupied by opposing end portions of patch-attaching unit 39 depicted by the hidden lines in Figure 6) into which the patch-attaching unit is coupled by fitting (refer to Figures 1-4, wherein the patch-attaching unit is depicted as being fit/sized to mate with the grooves; referring to Figure 6, the patch-attaching unit is depicted as being fit within a groove/opening).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 10, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein at least a portion of the fitting groove can be opened to the outside (referring to Figure 4, fitting groove 24 is shown to be open to the outside; referring to Figures 1-3, the fitting groove is shown to extend toward an outside such that the patch-attaching unit is affixed therein), and an end of the patch-attaching unit is coupled by sliding with the fitting groove. The claimed phrase “and an end of the patch-attaching unit is coupled by sliding with the fitting groove” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the applicator is assembled by a process involving sliding an end of the patch-attaching unit into the fitting groove in order to couple the end to the groove. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps, in this case, the implied structure is an end of the patch-attaching unit being disposed within the groove, which Seidler clearly teaches, as depicted in at least Figures 1-4. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 10, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein an end (back end with respect to Figure 4) of the patch-attaching unit (28, Figure 4) includes a portion more convexly formed (referring to Figure 4, a back end of 28 comprises a male portion of a dovetail joint, this male portion being substantially circular/convex) in a preset direction (rearward direction) than another portion (the top portion which is depicted as a flat surface), and the fitting groove has a shape that allows the convex shape of the end to be caught (refer to Figure 4, wherein the fitting groove is a concave groove that accepts the convex shape of the end of the patch-attaching unit to form a complete dovetail coupling, 29) in the direction in which an elastic restoring force is exerted when the patch-attaching unit is elastically deformed (the limitation “in the direction in which an elastic restoring force is exerted when the patch-attaching unit is elastically deformed” is interpreted as an intended use limitation. In the embodiment depicted in Seidler Figure 4, 28 is described as being formed of rubber (refer to Column 3, lines 43), where rubber is an elastic material, such that a force applied perpendicular to surface 31, will be restored in an opposing direction; Seidler’s convex shape is configured similar to the device depicted in applicant’s Figure 3, wherein the convex shape is disposed on a side of the patch-attaching unit, opposite the adhesive, and would therefore perform similar to that of applicant’s invention such that “the fitting groove has a shape that allows the convex shape of the end to be caught in the direction in which an elastic restoring force is exerted when the patch-attaching unit is elastically deformed”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Seidler and Kim disclose the applicator of claim 12, as applied above. Seidler further discloses wherein a cross-section of the end is formed extruding (extruded is interpreted as extending) in a first shape (male, circular shape, refer to Seidler Figure 4), and wherein a cross-section of the fitting groove is formed in a second shape (female, circular shape, refer to Seidler Figure 4) corresponding to the first shape of the end (refer to Seidler Figure 4 wherein the two shapes correspond to one another in that they are both circular, one being male, one being female).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, wherein the supporting unit has a first elastic modulus (every material has an elastic modulus, thus, Seidler’s supporting unit has a first elastic modulus), the patch-attaching unit has a second elastic modulus (every material has an elastic modulus, thus, Seidler’s patch-attaching unit has a second elastic modulus), the supporting unit (per the modification addressed in claim 1, the supporting unit of Seidler was modified to be elastically deformable) and the patch-attaching unit are provided to be elastically deformable (refer to Seidler Figure 6; additionally refer to Seidler Column 3, lines 60-63, which states that the band may be deflected upon actuation of the handles), respectively, and wherein the first elastic modulus is greater than the second elastic modulus (a greater elastic modulus equates to a more stiff material; the first elastic modulus of the supporting unit is depicted as being greater than/more stiff than that of the patch-attaching unit, since Seidler Figure 6 shows the supporting unit to remain rigid/stiff while the patch-attaching unit is relaxed).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 1, wherein an adhesive force exerted by the first adhesive surface on the patch is less than an adhesive force exerted by the patch on the skin of the user (it is noted that claim 1 does not positively recite a patch but rather recites that the applicator is “for attaching a patch”; therefore any limitations drawn toward adhesiveness between the patch and the applicator are interpreted as intended use and the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim is fully capable of being used in such a way that an adhesive force exerted by the first adhesive surface on the patch is less than an adhesive force exerted by the patch on the skin of the user, if one such patch was provided since the purpose of the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim is to only temporarily adhesively retain an article for subsequent application to a user’s body, in which case the adhesive force between the article and a user’s skin would need to be higher than that of the adhesive force between the first adhesive surface and the article).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 19, wherein the adhesive force exerted by the first adhesive surface on the patch is greater than an adhesive force between the patch and a release sheet in a state when the patch is adhered to the release sheet (it is noted that claims 1 and 19 do not positively recite a patch but rather recite that the applicator is “for attaching a patch”, therefore limitations drawn toward adhesiveness between the patch and a release sheet to which the patch is attached, are interpreted as intended use and the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim is fully capable of being used in such a way that the adhesive force exerted by the first adhesive surface on the patch is greater than an adhesive force between the patch and a release sheet in a state when the patch is adhered to the release sheet, if one such patch was provided on said release sheet).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Seidler and Kim as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Berglund (US6234182).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Seidler and Kim discloses the applicator of claim 10, as applied above. The combination does not disclose wherein one or more pressing blocks are placed on the fitting groove, and the pressing block is inserted into the fitting groove and presses an end of the patch-attaching unit. Rather, the combination discloses the patch-attaching unit to simply be retained in the fitting groove, between two posts of the applicator (refer to Seidler Figures 1-3, and 5-6) without any additional, external fixing means. The combination does however disclose different embodiments comprising different means for coupling the patch-attaching unit to the applicator, including the use of pins 27 and bores 24 (see Seidler Figure 4), or via engagement of protrusions 59 with depression 53 (see Seidler Figure 8), thereby demonstrating that modifying the means by which the patch-attaching unit is coupled to the groove is within the scope of the invention.
Berglund is concerned with solving the same problem as that of the combination of Seidler and Kim, which is retaining a charge of elongated material between two posts of an applicator, and is therefore analogous art to that of the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim. Berglund discloses an applicator (10, Figures 1-6) comprising first and second posts (12, 13, best shown in Figure 6) each comprising a fitting groove (15) that is configured to accept a charge of elongated material (11), this elongated material being analogous to the patch-attaching unit of the combination of Seidler and Kim, wherein the elongated material is retained in the fitting groove via one or more pressing blocks (17, best shown in Figures 1 and 3) placed on the fitting groove (best shown in Figures 1-2), and the one or more pressing blocks are inserted into the fitting groove (best shown in Figure 3) and presses an end of the elongated material disposed within the fitting groove (“said fixation…has been illustrated as obtained by means of…plug 17, inserted into and secured in a bottom hole 16”, refer to Column 3, lines 6-9) in order to securely retain the elongated material therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim, such that one or more pressing blocks are placed on the fitting groove, and the one or more pressing blocks are inserted into the fitting groove and presses an end of the elongated material disposed therein, as taught by Berglund, since such a modification would have involved simple substitution of one known coupling means (a pressing block that retains the elongated material in the groove, as taught by Berglund) for another known coupling means (insertion of the elongated material into the fitting groove with no additional external fittings, as taught by the combination of Seidler and Kim) to yield the predictable result of retaining a strip of elongated material securely between two posts for hands free use thereof. Modifying the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim such that the fitting groove comprises at least one pressing block, as taught by Berglund, provides a configuration wherein the at least one pressing block presses an end of the patch-attaching unit.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Seidler, Kim, and Berglund discloses the applicator of claim 14, as applied above. Per the modification addressed in claim 14, the at least one pressing block of Berglund was incorporated into the applicator of the combination of Seidler and Kim, wherein a sum of a thickness of the end and a thickness of the at least one pressing block is greater than an inner width of the fitting groove (refer to Berglund Figure 2, wherein the diameter/thickness of the pressing block is depicted as being greater than the inner width of the fitting groove and therefore the sum of the thickness of the end and the thickness of the pressing block is also greater than an inner width of the fitting groove), and the end is pressed and fixed when the end and the pressing block are fitted into the fitting groove (“said fixation…has been illustrated as obtained by means of…plug 17, inserted into and secured in a bottom hole 16”, refer to Column 3, lines 6-9). Thus, the combination teaches all the limitations of claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: refer to the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH WOODHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-5635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm.
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, EDELMIRA BOSQUES can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/SARAH WOODHOUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights