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 .
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 handle must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes there does not appear to be an item number disclosed specifically for the handle; Only a handle end 14.
Additionally, Examiner notes a removable contact sheet disposed over the lower surface of the adhesive pad and each strip of the pair of the parallel adhesive strips. Specifically, existing Figure 3 appears to illustrate an adhesive pad with three removable contact sheets; For example a first contact sheet disposed over the lower surface of the adhesive pad, a second contact sheet disposed over a first strip of the pair of parallel strips, and a third contact strip disposed over a second strip of the pair of parallel strips. To reiterate, a removable contact sheet disposed over the lower surface of the adhesive pad and each strip of the pair of the parallel adhesive strips (claim 20) does not appear to be shown.
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 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.
Claims 7-9, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7, 9 and 15 recite the limitation the handle. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 8 and 16-17 do not cure the deficiency. Examiner notes that while claim 1 establishes antecedent basis for a handle end, Applicant has not sufficiently established antecedent basis for a handle. Claims 8 and 16-17 do not cure the deficiency. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation further comprising a removably contact sheet disposed over the lower surface of the adhesive pad and each of the pair of parallel adhesive strips. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends to claim a single contact sheet disposed over both the lower surface of the adhesive pad and each of the pair of parallel adhesive strips or if each respective surface, i.e., the lower and each strip of the pair of parallel strips, has a contact sheet disposed over it. Correction/clarification is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5-17 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,063,924 B2 hereinafter ‘924 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. ‘924 anticipates the claims in the following manner:
Claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of ‘924
Claim 5 is anticipated by claim 1 of ‘924
Claim 6 is anticipated by claim 3 of ‘924, as it depends from claim 1
Claim 7 is anticipated by claim 4 of ‘924, as it depends from claim 1
Claim 8 is anticipated by claim 5 of ‘924, as it depends from claims 4 and 1
Claim 9 is anticipated by claim 6 of ‘924, as it depends from claim 1
Claim 10 is anticipated by claim 7 of ‘924, as it depends from claim 1
Claim 11 is anticipated by claim 8 of ‘924, as it depends from claim 1
Claim 12 is anticipated by claim 9 of ‘924, as it depends from claims 2 and 1
Claim 13 is anticipated by claim 10 of ‘924, as it depends from claim 1
Claim 14 is anticipated by claim 11 of ‘924, as it depends from claims 10 and 1
Claim 15 is anticipated by claim 12 of ‘924, as it depends from claims 11, 10 and 1
Claim 16 is anticipated by claim 13 of ‘924, as it depends from claims 12, 11, 10 and 1
Claim 17 is anticipated by claim 14 of ‘924, as it depends from claims 12, 11, 10 and 1
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2025 have been fully considered. Examiner notes the following in light of the 7/29/2025 claim amendments:
The objection to claim 20 is moot/overcome.
The arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1 is persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. Likewise, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2-3, 7-9 and 18-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the non-statutory double patenting have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection stands. See the Double Patenting section for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 18-19 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.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642