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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisang WO2019/064045 in view of Johnson 2011/0000737.
As to claim 1, Weisang discloses in Fig. 1 a toilet paper roll comprising toilet paper (page 4, line 20) wrapped to define a central opening 3 (page 10, line 31) having an interior diameter, the toilet paper having lines of perforation 8 to form sheets (page 10, line 36), each sheet having a width in a range of 60 to 80 mm which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 2 inches to 3.6 inches and each sheet having a length of 80 to 300 mm which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 3.7 inches to 4.3 inches. The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges encompass the claimed ranges of sizes, and therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Regarding the “width being shorter than the length”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the width and length of the sheets in Weisang to have the width shorter than the length as a matter of obvious design choice since a change in size is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, Weisang discloses a line of perforations as opposed to the instantly claimed scoring as a means of forming the individual sheets for weakening paper roll. Johnson discloses the equivalence of scoring or perforating rolls of paper sheets for tearing; see [0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to score the paper sheets in Weisang as a means of weakening the sheets in view of the teaching of equivalence in Johnson.
As to claims 3 and 4, the claimed length is encompassed by the disclosed length in Weisang as noted above regarding claim 1, and therefore obvious over Weisang.
As to claims 5-7, the claimed width is encompassed by the disclosed length in Weisang as noted above regarding claim 1, and therefore obvious over Weisang.
As to claim 8, Weisang discloses a range of interior diameters of the roll that overlaps the instantly claimed range (page 15, lines 10-11) and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to claims 9-11, Weisang discloses that it is well-known in the art to use a support cylinder of cardboard in a toilet paper roll; see page 1, lines 17-25. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a cardboard support cylinder in the product of Weisang if one could tolerate the additional cost of the cylinder. Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any well-known material such as recycled plastic to form a support cylinder in Weisang since it has been held to be 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.
As to claim 12, Weisang discloses a coreless roll throughout his disclosure.
As to claim 13, Weisang discloses an adhesive to adhere toilet paper layers defining the interior diameter; see page 29, lines 34-39.
As to claims 14 and 15, Weisang discloses the use of recycled fiber; see page 14, lines 8-10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use recycled fiber in the claimed amounts in Weisang to form an environmentally friendly toilet paper 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.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisang in view of Johnson as applied to claims 1 and 3-15 above, and further in view of Cattacin 2010/0075094.
Weisang discloses the invention substantially as claimed; see the above rejection. However, Weisang does not discloses varying the strength of the lines of weakness. Cattacin discloses a toilet paper roll with lines of weakness that vary in strength along the length of the paper so as to allow for easy removal of different sizes of paper sheets and prevent over consumption of paper; see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0016], [0017], [0026] and [0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use lines of scores that vary in strength in Weisang in view of Cattacin to allow or encourage the removal of a specific amount of paper during use.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicants arguments that Weisang does not specifically teach selection of a species in which the roll dimensions are such that the width of the sheet is shorter than the length the examiner notes that Weisang teaches preferred embodiments of width of 60-800 mm (2.36-31.49 inches) and length of 80-300 mm (3.15- 11.81 inches). It is pointed out that with these preferred embodiments there is plenty of points wherein the length would be shorter than the width. This is even further highlighted when Weisang teaches the narrow range of preferred embodiments, such as 80-150 mm for width and 100-200 mm for length (all embodiments on page 28 first 2 paragraphs). So while Weisang does not specifically point out that the width is shorter than the length it would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that Weisang was in possession of this embodiment, and that the embodiment would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given the information provided by Weisang.
With regards to applicants arguments regarding unexpected results and long felt but unmet need the examiner notes that arguments of applicants cannot take the place of evidence in the record. This includes statements of unexpected results and long felt but unmet need (MPEP 716.02 (C)). The examiner draws applicants attention to 716.02 for guidance with regards to unexpected results and 716.04 for guidance with regards to long felt but unmet need.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK KASHNIKOW whose telephone number is (571)270-3475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:00.
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, Bonnie Eyler can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792