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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nichols et al., US3627221.
Regarding independent claim 1, Nichols et al. disclose a support plug for a tubular roller sleeve, the support plug being disk-shaped (14, Fig. 2) and comprising: a first surface (solid lines shown in Fig. 2, upper surface of plug in Fig. 3), a second surface on an opposite side of the support plug with respect to the first surface (underside of plug, Fig. 3), a through hole in a center of the support plug (18, Fig. 2), a surface of the through hole connecting the first surface to the second surface (18, Fig. 3), and an outer rim surface connecting the first surface to the second surface (30, Fig. 3) and suitable for being against an inner surface of the tubular roller sleeve (30 against inner surface of 12, Fig. 1), wherein the first surface has recessions (38, Fig. 2) such that stiffener ridges are formed between the recessions (34, 36, Fig. 2), and the stiffener ridges extend between different sectors of an outer rim area of the first surface so that the stiffener ridges bypass the through hole (ridges 34 and 36 extend between different sectors of outer rim area 20, and do not pass through 18, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Nichols et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the stiffener ridges cross each other (34, 36 cross each other at 20, 24, 26 Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Nichols et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the first surface has an annular recession surrounding the through hole (16, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Nichols et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the second surface has an annular ridge surrounding the through hole (underside of 16 is a ridge on the second side surrounding 18, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Nichols et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the second surface has an annular ridge on an outer rim area of the second surface (26, 32, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Nichols et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, and wherein a part of the outer rim surface connected to the second surface has a bevel (beveled edges of 32, Fig. 3; Column 4, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 9, Nichols et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, and wherein depths of the recessions of the first surface are such that material thickness between bottoms of the recessions of the first surface and the second surface is constant (bottom of recessions 38 have constant material thickness, Fig. 3; Column 2, lines 71 - 72).
Regarding claim 11, Nichols et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, and wherein support plug is made of plastic (Column 2, lines 69-70).
Regarding claims 18, 19, and 20, Nichols et al. disclose the limitations of claims 2, 3, and 4, and wherein the second surface has an annular ridge on an outer rim area of the second surface (26, 32, Fig. 3).
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) 8, 12-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al., US3627221.
Regarding claims 8, 13, 14, 15, and 17 Nichols et al. disclose the limitations of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, and wherein a part of the second surface extending from an outer rim area of the second surface to an inner rim area of the second surface surrounding the through hole is conical (28, Fig. 3) and opening in a direction away from the first surface (28 opens away from first surface, upper side of 14, Fig. 3).
Nichols et al. does not disclose a cone angle of at least 170 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the angle to at least 170 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to ensure structural integrity of the end cap.
Regarding claim 12, Nichols et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, and the support plug is made of plastic (Column 2, lines 69-70).
Nichols et al. does not disclose the support plug is made of composite material comprising wood fibers and plastic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the plug of composite material, since it has been held to within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to optimize the strength and deformability of the support plug.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al., US3627221 in view of Stanworth, Foreign Patent Document, GB1032029.
Regarding claim 5, Nichols et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, and the first surface has an annular recession (16, Fig. 3).
Nichols et al. does not disclose the annular recession is on the outer rim area of the first surface.
Stanworth teaches a support plug wherein the first surface has an annular recession on the outer rim area of the first surface (20, 22, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an annular recession on the outer rim as taught by Stanworth, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to ensure cooperation of the outer rim with the end of the tube and reducing the amount of material used, thus reducing cost of production.
Regarding claim 16, modified Nichols et al. teach the limitations of claim 5, and wherein a part of the second surface extending from an outer rim area of the second surface to an inner rim area of the second surface surrounding the through hole is conical (28, Fig. 3) and opening in a direction away from the first surface (28 opens away from first surface, upper side of 14, Fig. 3).
Nichols et al. does not disclose a cone angle of at least 170 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the angle to at least 170 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to ensure structural integrity of the end cap.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al., US3627221 in view of Vetter, US3840194.
Regarding claim 10, Nichols et al. disclose the limitations of claim 1, and an outer rim surface.
Nichols et al. does not disclose wherein the outer rim surface comprises lumps to improve a grip between the support plug and the inner surface of the tubular roller sleeve.
Vetter teaches a support plug, wherein the outer rim surface comprises lumps (23, 24, Fig. 1) to improve a grip between the support plug and the inner surface of the tubular roller sleeve (Column 4, lines 21-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support plug of Nichols et al. to have the lumps on the outer rim "to enhance securing the core plug in a non-rotatable relationship with the core member of the roll" (Column 4, lines 22-24; Vetter). One would have been motivated to make such a modification because the lumps would permit “the core plug to be used in core members having slight variation in their inner diameter" (Column 4, lines 29-31; Vetter).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/K.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights