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 .
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. 22, 33, and 41 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Zhang et al.(US Publication 2013/0236677).
Zhang et al. discloses a substrate(1), an external surface(2), an adhesive member(3) having an adhesive layer with a slit extending through the entire adhesive member, the slit having a spiral shape(Figure 3A), and a tab(21) connected to the adhesive layer and extending from the layer which is configure to receive a pull force from the user to partially separate from the substrate and the external surface.[0023]
Regarding claim 22, the pull tab extends from the outer end of the spiral coil.(Figure 3A)
Regarding claim 33, the substrate is a square, which is a polygonal shape.(Figure 1)
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.
Claim(s) 28, 31, 32, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al.
Regarding claims 28 and 39, while Zhang et al. does not disclose if the tab has an adhesive layer on it, the adhesive layer can be cut into shape after application[0026], suggesting that the tab can have the same structure, i.e. also have adhesive. The reference also refers to the tabs as simply the ends of the adhesive, and the figures do not show any difference in thickness for the adhesive film(Figure 2A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have the tabs also have adhesive as there is no suggestion that they have a different structure and the tabs are referred to as simply the ends of the adhesive, suggesting they have the same structure.
Regarding claim 31, while Zhang et al. does not disclose the adhesive being on a release layer which is removed, the adhesive can be cut before being applied.[0026] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have the adhesive on some sort of support such as a release liner because if the adhesive was cut without a support it would be extremely difficult to place the adhesive as show in Figure 3A without a support and since using a release liner with an adhesive is extremely well-known and conventional in general in the adhesive arts.
Regarding claim 32, while Zhang et al does not use the word stretchable to describe the adhesive, it is pulled to release the adhesive.[0027] If it were not a adhesive that releases with stretching, it would break and not be pulled out.
Claim(s) 14, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 38, 42, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claims 1 and 41 above, and further in view of Li et al.(WO 2021/137135).
Zhang et al. does not disclose the specifics of the adhesive layer or the pull tab, leading one in the art to look to similar articles. Li al. is a stretch release adhesive layer used to bond two articles together which has a core layer made of foam and adhesive on either side of it which has release layers on either side of it.(Pg. 3, ll. 27-35; Pg. 4, ll. 21) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to make the adhesive layer in Zhang et al. with a foam core with adhesive and release liners on either side of it since Zhang et al. is silent as to the specifics of the adhesive layer and Li et al. shows that similar types of adhesive articles have a foam core with adhesive and release layers on either side.(Pg. 3, ll. 27-36, Pg. 4, ll. 21)
Regarding claim 14, Li et al. shows a pull tab which tapers away from the adhesive and has a D shape.(Figure 1C)
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Li et al. discloses the adhesive can include fibers as strengthening elements(Pg. 8, ll. 16-17). One in the art would appreciate that fibers are often cylindrical in shape.
Regarding claim 32, Li et al. describes the adhesive as a stretch releasable adhesive.(Abstract)
Regarding claim 38, Li et al. shows the tab is adhesive free.(Figure 1A)
Regarding claim 42, LI al. shows the adhesive layer necks as it is pulled.(Figure 1B)
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Vanslette(US Publication 2021/0166587).
Zhang et al. does not go into the specifics of the pull tab, leading one in the art to look to similar structures. Vanslette shows a pull tab(212) for a removable adhesive that has a tab with a neck having both a curved and linear portion leading to a disc shaped pull tab.(Figure 3) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to make the pull tab of Zhang et la. have a neck with a linear and curved portion leading to a disc shaped pull tab since Vanslette shows this is a known shape for a pull tab, thus substitution of one known element for another leading to predictable results.
Claim(s) 25, 27, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blazejewski et al.(USD Publication 10,435,594).
Zhang et al. does not disclose the specifics of the adhesive layer or the pull tab, leading one in the art to look to similar articles. Blazejewski al. is a releasable adhesive layer used to bond two articles together which has a core layer with a pull tab which has all three layers in it.(Abstract, Figure 2) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have the tab have all three layers which make up the adhesive laminate since Blazejewski et al. shows this is a known structure for the pull tab(Figure 2) and since Zhang et al. is silent as to the exact construction of the pull tab.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barrios et al.(US Publication 2016/0376471).
Zhang et al. does not disclose the adhesive being applied in a plurality of sections which are adjacent to the slit which have an area less than that of the total cross section of the adhesive layer. Barrios et al. shows it is known in the releasable adhesive arts for the adhesive layer to be made of alternating stripes of adhesive to reduce costs.[0037] These strips would be adjacent to the slit as stripes would cross multiple slits and would have a smaller cross-section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use alternating stripes f adhesive in Zhang et al. which would be adjacent to the slits since this would allow a reduction in the cost of the adhesive by using a cheaper adhesive interspersed with a more expensive one as taught by Barrios et al.[0037]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 23, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the tab extending from the central portion of the spiral. Regarding claim 24, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the substrate having a cutout through which the tab extends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights