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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
1. Applicant argues that Gong does not teach and is incompatible with having a “slick surface” as defined in pg. 4 lines 13-17 of the Specification filed on 07/24/2026 or [0035] of the PGPub. The Examiner agrees that Gong does not teach and is incompatible with this definition of a “slick surface” and rejections involving Gong are withdrawn, however the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the definition of a “slick surface”. The cited definition defines a “slick surface” as “a uniform surface free of recesses, protrusions, knurls, holes, asperities and other obvious non-uniformities, and with a surface roughness of less than 100 μm”. In using this definition from the Specification, the surface roughness must be considered as well, and therefore any surface with a “slick” property in the claims will have all the properties as defined in pg. 4 lines 13-17 of the Specification filed on 07/24/2026 or [0035] of the PGPub.
2. Independent claims 1, 16, and 17 contain limitations not previously considered, notably the structural limitation “at least one compression roller arranged downstream of sad at least one liquid water-based glue dispenser (claim 1 lines 12-13; claim 16 lines 11-12, and claim 17 lines 11-12), which thus requires further search and consideration and mandates that this office action be a Final Rejection.
3. Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections involving Gong are moot given the withdrawal of the rejections involving Gong.
Claim Interpretation
4. Any surface with a “slick” property in the claims will be defined as having “a uniform surface free of recesses, protrusions, knurls, holes, asperities and other obvious non-uniformities, and with a surface roughness of less than 100 μm” as defined in pg. 4 lines 13-17 of the Specification filed on 07/24/2026 or [0035] of the PGPub US 2025/0032324.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
5. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 11, noted above any “slick” surface must be interpreted as having “a surface roughness of less than 100 μm” to be consistent with the definition as found in the Specification. Since the “support surface” has already been defined as “slick” in claim 1, claim 11 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1 upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 11, albeit directed to the “slick cylindrical outer surface”.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 11, albeit directed to the “slick cylindrical outer surface” of a second compression roller, the second compression roller having antecedent basis in claim 4.
6. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2012/0247681) in view of Hundorf et al. (US 2010/0051166; hereafter Hundorf) and Buetow (NPL Webpage- “Surface Roughness of Rollers”; dated 1/2/0215; PDF included with Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches an apparatus for producing an absorbent sanitary article (title) best generally depicted in Figure 3 comprising a support surface (inner region- IT; [0045]; see Figure 6) that is part of a drum (drum main body- 510) that is configured to form a multilayer web of an absorbent sanitary article comprising a top sheet (top sheet- 2 or top sheet continuous body- 121) a back sheet web (back sheet- 3 or sheet-like back-sheet continuous body -122) and an absorbent core (absorber- 4) placed between said top sheet web and said back sheet web ([0026]; see Figure 1). These sheets are fed to the drum in a continuous fashion with ([0032], [0039]; elements 121, 122, and plural absorber- 4 are all shown being fed to the drum 510 in Figure 12). The drum fits the 112(f) interpretation of a forming unit. Yamamoto teaches of 2 compression rollers (back-sheet pressing mechanism- 560; noted as a “roll mechanism”) that as seen in Figure 3 is adjacent to the support surface of the drum that uniformly compresses the multilayer web ([0039]; two rollers appear in Figure 3). The unlabeled compression rollers are shown with a cylindrical outer surface shape in Figure 11.
Yamamoto teaches that glue (adhesive) is applied to the top sheet web prior to being fed to the forming unit ([0034]), which by extension would mean that the compression roller is arranged downstream of any glue dispenser, but does not teach specifically of a glue dispenser. Since Yamamoto teaches the use of glue, at least one glue dispenser would be needed to enable the use of Yamamoto’s apparatus. Hundorf teaches that a nozzle is a preferred glue dispenser due to the advantages of being able to apply glue in a thin but wide manner ([0103]). A nozzle is capable of applying a liquid adhesive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to incorporate a nozzle as suggested by Hundorf for the advantages of being able to apply glue in a thin but wide manner and to enable the apparatus of Yamamoto.
Regarding the “slick” limitation pertaining to the support surface and the cylindrical outer surface of the compression rollers of Yamamoto, there is no statement by Yamamoto that these surfaces have recesses, protrusions, knurls, holes, asperities and other obvious non-uniformities. As seen in Figure 11, the unlabeled compression rollers have a uniform surface, and seen in Figure 2 the support surface is also a uniform surface. Yamamoto does not teach the surface roughness of these surfaces, but it should be noted that both are rollers. Buetow teaches that an effective surface roughness of rollers in manufacture is between 35 and 65 microinches (pg. 2 para. 1), which converts into a range of 0.889 and 1.651 micrometers. This is less than 100 micrometers as claimed by Applicant. It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of a lower surface roughness is durability and good release properties (pg. 1 para. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention for the rollers of Yamamoto to have a surface roughness between 0.889 and 1.651 micrometers for the advantage of roller durability and good release properties.
The multilayer web, sheets, cores, and glue are considered material or article worked upon by an apparatus. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. As this pertains to the limitations of claim 1, the nozzle of Hundorf is capable of applying liquid glue, and therefore would also be capable of dispensing a liquid water-based glue. The ability of the glue to impregnate the top sheet would depend on the properties of the glue, and if the right glue is selected, this glue would penetrate the top sheet and therefore the glue dispenser is capable of, or in other words configured to impregnate the top sheet with a liquid water-based glue. Further the properties of the glue determine how the glue reacts to being under pressure, and again, with the correct glue the compression rollers would cause a reduction in penetration to the absorbent cores, and therefore the compression rollers are configured to do so. These functional limitations do not differentiate the claimed apparatus over the prior art, and as such the combined references teach all of the structural limitations of claim 1, and thus render it obvious.
Regarding claim 2, as seen in Figure 3 of Yamamoto, the compression rollers are part of the back-sheet pressing mechanism- 560, which includes an unlabeled piston for adjusting the position of the rollers in relation to the support surface.
Regarding claim 4, as seen in Figure 3 of Yamamoto, two compression rollers are taught, with the second compression roller (left compression roller in Figure 3) is adjacent to said support surface and arranged downstream of said first compression roller (right compression roller in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, as seen in Figure 3 of Yamamoto, the first compression roller is mounted at a first distance from said support surface and said second compression roller is mounted at a second distance from said support surface which is less than said first distance. Further, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 2, these rollers are attached to an unlabeled piston, and as such are adjustable. In consequence, their placement becomes functional language and their exact placement is a “Manner of Operating the Device”, which as per MPEP 2114.II does not differentiate over the prior art- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, the support surface (inner region- IT; [0045]; see Figure 6) is part of a drum (drum main body- 510).
Regarding claim 10, as seen in Figure 3 of Yamamoto, the compression rollers are part of the back-sheet pressing mechanism- 560, which includes an unlabeled piston for adjusting the position of the rollers in relation to the support surface.
Regarding claims 11-13, the support surface and cylindrical outer surface of the compression rollers are slick as defined as having a surface roughness of less than 100 micrometers as established in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, as seen in Figure 3 of Yamamoto, the compression rollers are part of the back-sheet pressing mechanism- 560, which includes an unlabeled piston for adjusting the position of the rollers in relation to the support surface. In consequence, their placement becomes functional language, and their exact placement is a “Manner of Operating the Device”, which as per MPEP 2114.II does not differentiate over the prior art- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Regarding claim 16, Yamamoto teaches an apparatus for producing an absorbent sanitary article (title) best generally depicted in Figure 3 comprising a support surface (inner region- IT; [0045]; see Figure 6) that is part of a drum (drum main body- 510) that is configured to form a multilayer web of an absorbent sanitary article comprising a top sheet (top sheet- 2 or top sheet continuous body- 121) a back sheet web (back sheet- 3 or sheet-like back-sheet continuous body -122) and an absorbent core (absorber- 4) placed between said top sheet web and said back sheet web ([0026]; see Figure 1). These sheets are fed to the drum in a continuous fashion with ([0032], [0039]; elements 121, 122, and plural absorber- 4 are all shown being fed to the drum 510 in Figure 12). The drum fits the 112(f) interpretation of a forming unit. Yamamoto teaches of a compression roller (back-sheet pressing mechanism- 560; noted as a “roll mechanism”) that as seen in Figure 3 is adjacent to the support surface of the drum that compresses the multilayer web into the support surface ([0039]; left roller of element 560 as seen in Figure 3 has contact with drum- 510). The unlabeled compression roller is shown with a cylindrical outer surface shape in Figure 11.
Yamamoto teaches that glue (adhesive) is applied to the top sheet web prior to being fed to the forming unit ([0034]), which by extension would mean that the compression roller is arranged downstream of any glue dispenser, but does not teach specifically of a glue dispenser. Since Yamamoto teaches the use of glue, at least one glue dispenser would be needed to enable the use of Yamamoto’s apparatus. Hundorf teaches that a nozzle is a preferred glue dispenser due to the advantages of being able to apply glue in a thin but wide manner ([0103]). A nozzle is capable of applying a liquid adhesive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to incorporate a nozzle as suggested by Hundorf for the advantages of being able to apply glue in a thin but wide manner and to enable the apparatus of Yamamoto.
Regarding the “slick” limitation pertaining to the support surface and the cylindrical outer surface of the compression roller of Yamamoto, there is no statement by Yamamoto that these surfaces have recesses, protrusions, knurls, holes, asperities and other obvious non-uniformities. As seen in Figure 11, the unlabeled compression roller has a uniform surface, and seen in Figure 2 the support surface is also a uniform surface. Yamamoto does not teach the surface roughness of these surfaces, but it should be noted that both are rollers. Buetow teaches that an effective surface roughness of rollers in manufacture is between 35 and 65 microinches (pg. 2 para. 1), which converts into a range of 0.889 and 1.651 micrometers. This is less than 100 micrometers as claimed by Applicant. It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of a lower surface roughness is durability and good release properties (pg. 1 para. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention for the rollers of Yamamoto to have a surface roughness between 0.889 and 1.651 micrometers for the advantage of roller durability and good release properties.
The multilayer web, sheets, cores, and glue are considered material or article worked upon by an apparatus. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. As this pertains to the limitations of claim 1, the nozzle of Hundorf is capable of applying liquid glue, and therefore would also be capable of dispensing a liquid water-based glue. The ability of the glue to impregnate the top sheet would depend on the properties of the glue, and if the right glue is selected, this glue would penetrate the top sheet and therefore the glue dispenser is capable of, or in other words configured to impregnate the top sheet with a liquid water-based glue. Further the properties of the glue determine how the glue reacts to being under pressure, and again, with the correct glue the compression roller would cause a reduction in penetration to the absorbent cores, and therefore the compression roller is configured to do so. These functional limitations do not differentiate the claimed apparatus over the prior art, and as such the combined references teach all of the structural limitations of claim 1, and thus render it obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Yamamoto teaches an apparatus for producing an absorbent sanitary article (title) best generally depicted in Figure 3 comprising a support surface (inner region- IT; [0045]; see Figure 6) that is part of a drum (drum main body- 510) that is configured to form a multilayer web of an absorbent sanitary article comprising a top sheet (top sheet- 2 or top sheet continuous body- 121) a back sheet web (back sheet- 3 or sheet-like back-sheet continuous body -122) and an absorbent core (absorber- 4) placed between said top sheet web and said back sheet web ([0026]; see Figure 1). These sheets are fed to the drum in a continuous fashion with ([0032], [0039]; elements 121, 122, and plural absorber- 4 are all shown being fed to the drum 510 in Figure 12). The drum fits the 112(f) interpretation of a forming unit. Yamamoto teaches of a compression roller (back-sheet pressing mechanism- 560; noted as a “roll mechanism”) that as seen in Figure 3 is adjacent to the support surface of the drum that uniformly compresses the multilayer web into the support surface ([0039]; left roller of element 560 as seen in Figure 3 has contact with drum- 510). The unlabeled compression roller is shown with a cylindrical outer surface shape in Figure 11.
Yamamoto teaches that glue (adhesive) is applied to the top sheet web prior to being fed to the forming unit ([0034]), which by extension would mean that the compression roller is arranged downstream of any glue dispenser, but does not teach specifically of a glue dispenser. Since Yamamoto teaches the use of glue, at least one glue dispenser would be needed to enable the use of Yamamoto’s apparatus. Hundorf teaches that a nozzle is a preferred glue dispenser due to the advantages of being able to apply glue in a thin but wide manner ([0103]). A nozzle is capable of applying a liquid adhesive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to incorporate a nozzle as suggested by Hundorf for the advantages of being able to apply glue in a thin but wide manner and to enable the apparatus of Yamamoto.
Regarding the “slick” limitation pertaining to the cylindrical outer surface of the compression roller of Yamamoto, there is no statement by Yamamoto that this surface has recesses, protrusions, knurls, holes, asperities and other obvious non-uniformities. As seen in Figure 11, the unlabeled compression roller has a uniform surface. Yamamoto does not teach the surface roughness of this surface, but it should be noted that it is a roller. Buetow teaches that an effective surface roughness of rollers in manufacture is between 35 and 65 microinches (pg. 2 para. 1), which converts into a range of 0.889 and 1.651 micrometers. This is less than 100 micrometers as claimed by Applicant. It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of a lower surface roughness is durability and good release properties (pg. 1 para. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention for the compression roller of Yamamoto to have a surface roughness between 0.889 and 1.651 micrometers for the advantage of roller durability and good release properties.
The multilayer web, sheets, cores, and glue are considered material or article worked upon by an apparatus. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. As this pertains to the limitations of claim 1, the nozzle of Hundorf is capable of applying liquid glue, and therefore would also be capable of dispensing a liquid water-based glue. The ability of the glue to impregnate the top sheet would depend on the properties of the glue, and if the right glue is selected, this glue would penetrate the top sheet and therefore the glue dispenser is capable of, or in other words configured to impregnate the top sheet with a liquid water-based glue. Further the properties of the glue determine how the glue reacts to being under pressure, and again, with the correct glue the compression roller would cause a reduction in penetration to the absorbent cores, and therefore the compression roller is configured to do so. These functional limitations do not differentiate the claimed apparatus over the prior art, and as such the combined references teach all of the structural limitations of claim 1, and thus render it obvious.
9. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Hundorf, and Buetow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deng et al. (US 2024/0024171; previously presented; hereafter Deng).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto does not teach of a scraper adjacent to the cylindrical outer surface of the at least one compression roller. Deng teaches the inclusion of online roll cleaning equipment for rollers, including a scraper, for the advantage of clearing off fractured material from rollers ([0092]). With the scraper being online, in the context of Yamamoto the scraper would be adjacent to the cylindrical outer surface of the compression rollers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to include scrapers adjacent to the cylindrical outer surface of the compression rollers of Yamamoto for the advantage of clearing off fractured material.
10. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Hundorf, and Buetow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tabuchi (6,234,229; previously presented).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto does not teach of a contact surface or sealing roller downstream of the support surface. Tabuchi teaches of a downstream contact surface (anvil roller-61) configured to a multilayer web (sanitary napkin sheet- 1S) with an adjacent sealing roller pressed therein (heat-sealing roller- 62; col. 8 line 58- col. 9 line 22; see Figure 5). The sealing roller comprises a cylindrical bottom surface (nonheating portion- 63) and a raised surface (heating portion- 64). The raised portion is the periphery (col. 9 lines 1-2), while the bottom surface is the cylindrical roller of the heat-sealing roller and is noted as a recess (col. 8 lines 64-37). Consequentially, the cylindrical bottom surface has a first radial distance less than the second radial distance of the raised surface as both have the same rotational axis. The advantage of Tabuchi’s downstream heat-sealing unit is that it establishes a shape for the multilayer web (col. 8 lines 64-67) so that it can be sent to a cutout unit for individualizing products (col. 10 lines 5-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to include both the downstream heat-sealing unit and cutout unit of Tabuchi in the apparatus of Yamamoto for the advantage of having individualized products.
Regarding the “slick” limitation pertaining to the contact surface and raised surface, there is no statement by Tabuchi that this surfaces has recesses, protrusions, knurls, holes, asperities and other obvious non-uniformities (although it should be noted that the raised surface of Tabuchi is shown as “hatched” for visual clarity of what is heat sealing, but is not actual protrusions- col. 9 lines 24-26). As seen in Figure 3, both surfaces are rollers. Tabuchi does not teach the surface roughness of these surfaces. Buetow teaches that an effective surface roughness of rollers in manufacture is between 35 and 65 microinches (pg. 2 para. 1), which converts into a range of 0.889 and 1.651 micrometers. This is less than 100 micrometers as claimed by Applicant. It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. The advantage of a lower surface roughness is durability and good release properties (pg. 1 para. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention for the surfaces of Tabuchi to have a surface roughness between 0.889 and 1.651 micrometers for the advantage of roller durability and good release properties.
11. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Hundorf, Buetow, and Tabuchi as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Brisebois et al. (US 2005/0206038; previously presented; hereafter Brisebois).
Regarding claim 8, in applying Tabuchi as in claim 7, as seen in Figure 5 Tabushi only teaches of a first region that is externally delimited by the raised surface. Brisebois teaches sealing roller (die roller- 600) shown in Figure 7 wherein the raised surface is only on specific parts of linear fields ([0049]-[0050]; see Figure 6), where the raised area externally delimits the a second region of the bottom surface, and the first region of the bottom surface delimits the raised surface, this is being shown as the sealing roller creates only a peripheral seal ([0060]-[0061]). Brisebois explicitly states that this improved die surfacing can be used in conventional sealing rollers ([0061]), specifically showing Tabuchi’s sealing roller configuration as prior art in Figure 2, which establishes modification compatibility. The advantage of Brisebois’ improved sealing roller is even pressure application that prevents puncture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use improved sealing roller of Brisebois in the technique of Tabuchi for the advantage of even pressure application that prevents puncture.
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
