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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the feed reel" in line 3, “the receiving reel” in line 4, and “the guide arrangement” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Smits et al.(WO 2006/054895)
Smits discloses a cartridge comprising a feed reel(11), a receiving reel(12), a guide arrangement, and a material tape with a plurality of adhesive dots(Pg. 3, ll. 13-16) arranged on the tape. The tape is wound on the receiving roll and fastened to the feed roll(Figure 1A) The guide arrangement(14) is mechanically fixed and the tape is guided over it from the feed reel to the receiving reel such that the adhesive elements are separable from the tape.
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) 1-3, 7, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara(EP 3450158) in view of Downs et al.(US Publication 2003/0164220) and Jenkins(US Patent 4,457,981)
Fujiwara discloses a method of producing an adhesive reel comprising providing a dispenser tape(13) having a plurality of adhesive components with a carrier and adhesive backing(labels) on a separating material, separating the elements from the separating material(30), providing a receiving arrangement comprising a feed reel(5), a guide arrangement(51), and a receiving reel(6), winding a second separating material onto the receiving reel after leaving the feed reel, and transferring adhesive elements to the second separating material. The reference does not disclose feeding to two or more receiving arrangements. Both Downs et al.(Figure 1) and Jenkins(Figure 3) teach it is known to make a web more than one element wide which is split into multiple strips each having elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to make two or more sets of receiving rolls, feed rolls, and guide arrangements since this would allow making multiple reels of adhesive elements at once as taught for example by Downs et al.(Figure 1) and Jenkins(Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, while Fujiwara teaches overlapping the adhesive elements and thus a greater number per unit length, in combination with Downs and Jenkins, it teaches two or more next to each other, so twice as many per unit length as one strip worth. As Fujiwara teaches controlling the amount of overlap so it can be relatively small and Jenkins shows the labels are directly adjacent, one in the art would appreciate that until the labels overlapped by over 50%, a single output reel with a single set of adhesive elements would have fewer per unit length that the original reel since it had multiple adhesive elements per unit width.
Regarding claim 4,
Regarding claim 7, Fujiwara et al. shows a fixed dispensing edge that separates the adhesive elements from the fist separating material.(30)
Regarding claim 14, refilling a roll for use in a dispenser cartridge is structurally the same as filling one.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 8-12 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 4, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a detaching region upstream of the dispensing region which is configure to reduce the adhesion of the adhesive elements while they are on the first separating material, Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest transfer elements which receive the adhesive elements from the first separating material and dispense them to the second separating material. Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a circulating conveyor with a reduced adhesive surface configured to receive the adhesive elements from the first separating material.
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