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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the information disclosure statements filed on December 4, 2024 has been considered as to the merits.
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, “a blade” and “an applicator” as recited in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0068] recites how a continuous adhesive sheet is described with reference to Figure 2 and a plurality of adhesive sheets are described with reference to Figure 3. It appears that Figure 3 actually shows a single continuous sheet while Figure 2 shows a plurality of sheets.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton et al. (US 2017/0008041). With respect to claim 1, Hamilton discloses an adhesive roll (3) for use in a contact cleaning system 1), the adhesive roll comprising: a roll core (110); and at least one adhesive sheet (112) rolled over the roll core (110), wherein the or each adhesive sheet comprises a leading edge (122) and wherein at least one of the leading edge of one or more of the at least one adhesive sheets comprises an indicator, or the roll core comprises an indicator given that the “adhesive layer is doped with an optically detectable dopant” (see paragraph [0112]).
With respect to claim 2, the indicator is a fluorescent indicator given that the detector may be a “fluorescence detector” (see paragraph [0059]).
With respect to claim 4, the indicator is a phosphorescent indicator given that the detector may be a “phosphorescent detector) (see paragraph [0059]).
With respect to claim 6, the at least one continuous sheet (112) is a continuous sheet.
With respect to claim 7, the at least one adhesive sheet is a plurality of adhesive sheets (112) (114) (116) wherein each of the plurality of sheets comprising a leading edge (positioned radially outward from core) and a trailing edge (positioned radially closet to core).
With respect to claim 8, each adhesive sheet of the plurality of adhesive sheets has at least one of a length that substantially covers a circumference of the roll core or is equal to the length of an inwardly adjacent adhesive sheet (see Figure 3).
With respect to claim 10, the trailing edge comprises an indicator, given that the entirety of each sheet includes dopant serving as an indicator.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 11, 12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (US 2017/0008041). With respect to claims 3 and 5, Hamilton et al. does not disclose the indicator being in the form of ink. Hamilton et al. discloses that the indicator is a dopant applied to the adhesive sheet. It is well known in the art for ink to function as a dopant since ink forms a small layer on a surface. There is a limited number of methods for adding a doping agent to an adhesive sheet as disclosed and only routine experimentation would be needed to use an ink for integrating the fluorescent/phosphorescent dopant to the sheet. Similarly, with respect to claim 11, a thermoplastic release layer as the non-adhesive side of each sheet would be well known to enable one sheet to be readily peeled from the underlying sheet. Finally, with respect to claim 12, forming the adhesive sheets to have a width substantially the same as the width of the core would be obvious such that the sheets are supported internally to provide a stiffness to the roll.
With respect to claims 17-20, Hamilton et al. discloses sheets of adhesive material which include a dopant applied there to, the dopant being fluorescent or phosphorescent the dopant is throughout the sheet and is therefore along a “cut line” of the sheet. The dopant is either applied before cutting of the substrate material. The method steps of providing, cutting and applying are made obvious by the product disclosed by Hamilton given that the adhesive material needs to be provided to be present within the device, the sheets need to be cut at some point in time in order to be wound individually around the core and the application of the dopant is at a cut line since the dopant is applied throughout the adhesive material sheets.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (US 2017/0008041) in view of Blok (US 11,608,240). As set forth above, Hamilton discloses the invention as claimed with the exception of an overlap region between the leading edge of each adhesive sheet which overlaps the trailing edge of that adhesive sheet. Blok teaches a cover element for a roll of sheets that is wound on a roll core (505). The cover element comprises an overlap region between a leading and trailing edge as shown in Figures 8 and 9. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to overlap the sheets within the Hamilton roll as taught by the cover in the Blok roll since such a configuration ensures that sheets interior to the outer cover, or in the case of Hamilton sheets interior to the outer sheet, are fully encapsulated by the exterior sheet thereby preventing contaminates from reaching the inner sheet until the outer sheet is completely removed. Further, such an overlap makes removal of the outer sheet easier by providing an edge that protrudes for easier peeling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: McKay (US 2003/0154569) and Benning (CN 120190154).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B. MCPARTLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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 B MCPARTLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights