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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 16-24, 36-39 and 42-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legault et al. (2007/0095705) in view of Blythe (5,480,060) and Knobloch et al. (9,242,775). Legault et al. disclose a retail store shelf array of disposable rolled products (Figures 8-12 and paragraphs 0043 and 0048, rolled paper products) comprising a first package (one of 20 and 64-68)) comprising a first front face disposed as aisle facing (or outwardly of the shelf), the first package comprising a first plurality of disposable, fibrous, rolled products (paragraphs 0043 and 0048, rolled bath tissue), the first plurality of disposable, fibrous, rolled products comprising a first average roll diameter, a second package (another one of 20 and 64-68) comprising a second front face disposed as aisle facing (or outwardly of the shelf), the second package comprising a second plurality of disposable, fibrous, rolled products (paragraphs 0043 and 0048, rolled paper towels), the second plurality of disposable, fibrous, rolled products comprising a second average roll diameter, wherein the first front face has a larger surface area than the second front face (the first package is larger than the second package amongst two of 20 and 64-68), wherein the second plurality of disposable fibrous rolled products is paper towel rolls, and wherein the first and second packages are manufactured by the same company or comprise the same brand name (as evidenced by brand name or brand logo 4). Legault et al. disclose having different packages having similar but different size and weight contents (paper towels or bath tissue) on the same shelf, wherein the first and second packages of the retail shelf array are capable of being compared to each other from an aisle. Legault et al. also disclose in general in paragraph 0054 that the packages can be of different sizes and the contents can include products of different sizes or different numbers of products in each package. Legault et al. also disclose in general in paragraph 0062 that the packages can be of different physical properties and accordingly different densities resulting in different weights of the different packages. To provide a shelf array of Legault et al. with various sizes and weights of rolls and sizes of packages with varied sizes and numbers of roll contents would fail to distinguish any new and unexpected result by their particular disposition and arrangement. The relative weights depend on number, size and density of the fibrous rolled products, and to vary such is not seen to provide any new or unexpected result to the appearance of the array. Legault et al. do not particularly identify two different packages wherein the first smaller package has an average roll diameter of 6.6 inches or less, and the second larger package has an average roll diameter of 6.7 inches or greater. However, Blythe recognizes (see column 1, lines 13-24) that wiping fibrous rolled products (paper towels or toilet paper) may be provided in smaller sizes of about 4 to 6 inches in diameter and in larger sizes of about 8 to 12 inches in diameter, which respectively distinguish the first smaller package having an average roll diameter of 6.6 inches or less, and the second larger package having an average roll diameter of 6.7 inches or greater. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the different sized packages of Legault et al. of respective smaller and larger sizes on the order of the first smaller package having an average roll diameter of 6.6 inches or less, and the second larger package having an average roll diameter of 6.7 inches or greater in the manner of Blythe as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a similar arrangement distinguished only by a change in particular size made obvious by Blythe’s recognition of two different size ranges of packages of similar materials. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device (or devices) and a device (or devices) having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device (or devices), the claimed device is not patently distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Legault et al. further do not disclose specific properties of the products as to density, total dry tensile strength and basis weight. However, Knobloch et al. disclose the applicant’s claimed specific properties as to density (see column 4, lines 29-35), total dry tensile strength (see column 3, line 60 through column 4, line 8) and basis weight (see column 3, lines 51-59) to be conventional in the fibrous rolled product field. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the array of products of Legault et al. with conventional properties relative to density, total dry tensile strength and basis weight in the manner of Knobloch et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide an array of conventionally composed rolled product material. It has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 2, since the size of the rolls of the first package is smaller than the rolls of the second package, to have the smaller rolls of the first package be more in number than the larger rolls of the second package would be expected, due to physical laws of space, as more smaller rolls would fit in the same space as larger rolls, and it would lead to the obvious point that more smaller rolls would fit in a larger space than larger rolls would fit in a smaller space.
As to claims 3 and 4, the larger first package (the first package is larger than the second package amongst two of 20 and 64-68) of Legault et al. is shown to have a greater package length and height than the smaller second package (the second package is smaller than the first package amongst two of 20 and 64-68).
As to claims 16 and 17, Knobloch et al. further disclose that two ply disposable fibrous rolled products of paper, as well as one ply or more than two ply disposable fibrous rolled products of paper were generally well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the packages of Legault et al. in endless numbers of known variations of disposable fibrous rolled product including the number of plies as claimed as such a modification would predictably allow a consumer a choice of desired product.
As to claims 18 and 19, the particular disposition of the three different packages as in Legault et al. is not seen to render any new and unexpected result.
As to claims 20-24, Legault et al. further disclose in paragraph 0054 individual packages may be provided in various sizes with various numbers of rolls, the various possibilities thereof not providing any new or unexpected result by its particular selection.
As to claims 36 and 37, Legault et al. disclose identifying indicia on the individual packages. To employ particular indicia particular to the content to convey a particular identifying feature of the content would not be an inventive step. If a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate does not exist. USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As to claims 38 and 39, Knobloch et al. further disclose total wet tensile strength as a property of rolled paper products and the relative individual total wet tensile strengths in the combination array are not seen to distinguish any particular change to the claimed array except particular content that would be obvious to derive to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claims 42-53, the individual roll diameters in the array are not seen to provide any new or unexpected result by their selection. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 5, 7-8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moore et al. (2012/0234712). While Legault et al. disclose sizes and number of contents in general, Moore et al. disclose such packages in some particularity to size and shape as now set forth in the dependent claims. To provide a shelf array of Legault et al. with various sizes of rolls and shapes of packages with varied particularity of numbers and relative sizes of roll contents in the manner of Moore et al. would fail to distinguish any new and unexpected result by their particular disposition and arrangement.
As to claim 5, Moore et al. further disclose (see Figures 1-9 and 11A-11B) packages of various heights, widths and depths which may be provided in various dispositions as in Legault et al..
As to claim 7, Moore et al. further disclose (see Figures 5 and 6) relatively axially longer and shorter rolls of various paper products.
As to claim 8, Moore et al. further disclose (see Figures 9 and 11A-11B) relatively larger and smaller packages having the same individual product of the same roll height.
As to claim 10, Moore et al. further disclose (see Figures 9 and 11A-11B) similarly oriented contents disposed in different size packages.
As to claim 11, Moore et al. further disclose (see Figures 9 and 11A) different size packages having the same package height.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McIver et al. (2010/0122929). McIver et al. disclose a shelf (see upper shelf of Figure 3) having a first shelf column (left column) of a first number of first packages and a second shelf column (right column) of a second number of second packages wherein the first number is greater than the second number. To provide additional packages to the columns would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the respective art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patterson et al. (2008/0078685). Paterson et al. disclose a brand name disposed on various surfaces (see paragraph 0031) of a similar package. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an array of packages on shelves of Legault et al. in various dispositions as claimed as long as the brand name is facing out, as such a modification would predictably allow the retailer’s efficient common use of the available area. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 12, 14-15, 32, 34, 35, 40-41 and 54-55 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DuVal et al. (8,662,301). As to claim 12, Legault et al. disclose more than two different sized packages. Duval et al. disclose providing different sized content and packages (see column 7, lines 11-25) in an array. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the packaging and/or products in the shelf array of Legault et al. in various numbered and sized contents as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide the array advantages for similar rolled materials and their packages being in proximity, but having certain properties and amounts of product particularly desired by the consumer.
As to claims 14-15, 32, 34, 35, 40, 41 and 54-55, the previous art does not identify the paper products as derived to have particular total dry tensile strength, textured, perforated, and embossed indicia. However, DuVal et al. disclose an array of varied fibrous rolled products (see column 5, lines 48-65 and column 7, lines 15-48) including variables comprising total dry tensile strength (column 3, lines 31-52), basis weight (column 3, lines 20-24), softness (column 3, lines 20-24), lint (column 3, lines 20-24), texture (column 3, lines 20-24), perforated (column 5, lines 44-47), and embossed indicia (column 4, lines 8-54) with each of these features identified as previously known in the packaged paper product roll art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the packaging and/or products in the shelf array of Legault et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide the array advantages for similar rolled materials and their packages.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tirimacco et al. (11,085,150). The previous art does not address inner and outer roll firmness. However, Tirimacco et al. disclose it was known to provide an individual paper product roll with a varied firmness within the same roll (see column 5, line 66 through column 6, line 15). To provide the prior art array with a selection of rolls where the relative individual respective inner and outer roll firmness are varied is not seen to distinguish any particular change to the claimed array except particular content.
Claims 13 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stage et al. (8,940,376). The previous art does not address roll firmness. However, Stage et al. disclose it has been known to provide disposable fibrous rolled products of paper of differing roll firmness amongst paper products due to consumer desired usage (see column 4, lines 58-67 and column 5, lines 1-49), and to provide them together in the same array on a shelve in the same general location would have been obvious in order to provide a variety of selection to the consumer.
As to claim 27, the relative variable individual roll firmness is not seen to distinguish any particular change to the claimed array except particular content.
As to claims 28 and 29, the relative individual package firmness is not seen to distinguish any particular change to the claimed array except particular content.
Claims 32-34, 40 and 54-55 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Geoffrey et al. (2010/0038265). The previous art does not identify the paper products as derived to have particular total dry tensile strength, textured, perforated, and embossed indicia. However, Geoffrey et al. disclose an array of varied fibrous rolled products (paragraphs 0050-0054) including variables comprising basis weight, roll density, softness, texture, and embossed with each of these features identified as previously known in the packaged paper product roll art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the packaging and/or products in the shelf array of Legault et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide the array advantages for similar rolled materials and their packages.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 467346. KR 467346 discloses a roll dispenser extension hanger (10 and 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the roll packages of Legault et al. with an additional roll dispenser extension hanger of KR 467346 to suspend and render accessible the individual rolls for subsequent use.
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Legault et al., in paragraph 0062, lines 16-21, recognizes that physical properties of the different products may be physically different in some way in general, the difference in density between standard quality paper and premium quality paper being such that to have a lighter density paper in a larger roll may be less in weight than a smaller diameter roll of greater density being within the level of ordinary skill to provide resulting packages of varying weights and sizes. Accordingly, the physical difference between the rolled products being as claimed is providable and does not render any new or unexpected result.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 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, Orlando Aviles-Bosques, can be reached on (571) 270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG
Prosecution Insights