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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach and/or suggest the newly added limitation to independent claim 1.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. The secondary prior art of Byl has been employed to teach said limitation, and the rejection is restated herein with explanatory comments embedded therein:
Byl discloses the top face (16) and front side face (12) defining an aperture (fig.4; aperture 92 wherein sheet products are dispensed out of); wherein the product sheets positioned within the cavity are configured to be dispensed through the aperture formed through the front side face and the top face (fig.5); wherein the aperture (92) further comprises sheet rolling ears defining an outer edge of the aperture in the top face and front side face of the main body, the sheet rolling ears having a curved contour (see fig.4 of Byl by aperture 92; do note that rolling ears 309 depicted in fig.3 of the present application is identical to those disclosed by Byl). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Sartini with wherein the top face and front side face defining an aperture; wherein the sanitary tissue product sheets positioned within the cavity are configured to be dispensed through the aperture formed through the front side face and the top face; wherein the aperture further comprises sheet rolling ears defining an outer edge of the aperture in the top face and front side face of the main body, the sheet rolling ears having a curved contour because it's a notoriously well-known configuration in the containers for dispensing wipes and merely provides another configuration for dispensing wipes out of a container with a different aperture.
Applicant argues that several of the claims recite additional features related to the dimensions of the aperture. Claim 5 recites that "the aperture has a length that is about 80 to about 99% of a length of the top face of the main body." Claim 7 recites that "the aperture has a height that is at least about 20% of a height of the dispenser." Claim 24, which depends from Claim 5, further recites that "the aperture has a height that is at least about 20% of a height of the dispenser."
The features of Claims 5, 7, and 24 are rejected as falling within routine optimization. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, Applicant's claimed aperture provides specific benefits, and Sartini also describes the disclosed opening as providing specific benefits. Applicant respectfully reiterates that there is no clear teaching or suggestion in Sartini that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the opening such that it possesses the dimensions and relationships recited in Claims 5, 7, and 24.
In response, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 5, 7, and 24 presented in the office action provided clear obviousness rationale for the rejections as previously stated in the prior office action.
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.
Claims 1-5,7-8,10-19,21-22,24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartini et al. (US 8,813,998) in view of Byl et al. (US 2008/0035663).
Claim 1, Sartini discloses a dispenser comprising: a base (fig.1; by 18) having a length; a main body (28) defining a cavity configured to receive sanitary tissue product sheets therein, the sanitary tissue product sheets (15) having a longitudinal axis, the sanitary tissue product sheets comprising a leading sheet and a second sheet (fig.1); the main body comprising a top face (26) and a front side face (28); wherein the sanitary tissue product sheets are oriented vertically within the cavity such that the longitudinal axis of the sanitary tissue product sheets are generally oriented perpendicular to the length of the base (fig.1); wherein the sanitary tissue product sheets positioned within the cavity are configured to be dispensed through the aperture (fig.1; the aperture is herein defined as the frontmost aperture by 24 with another aperture on the opposing end closer to 44) formed through the top face of the main body (C5:L35-50; fig.1); and wherein the second sheet is configured to follow the leading sheet when the leading sheet is dispensed (fig.1a), such that the second sheet is partially parked through the aperture and has a non-uniform top edge and is deformed out of plane (fig.1a); and wherein the dispenser does not comprise a spring (see figures).
Although Sartini does not explicitly disclose wherein a depth of the aperture (24; fig.1) is less
than about 25% of a depth of the top face of the main body, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the wherein a depth of the aperture is less than about 25% of a depth of the top face of the main body limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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.
Sartini does not disclose the top face and front side face defining an aperture; wherein the sanitary tissue product sheets positioned within the cavity are configured to be dispensed through the aperture formed through the front side face and the top face; wherein the aperture further comprises sheet rolling ears defining an outer edge of the aperture in the top face and front side face of the main body, the sheet rolling ears having a curved contour.
Byl discloses the top face (16) and front side face (12) defining an aperture (fig.4; aperture 92 wherein sheet products are dispensed out of); wherein the product sheets positioned within the cavity are configured to be dispensed through the aperture formed through the front side face and the top face (fig.5); wherein the aperture (92) further comprises sheet rolling ears defining an outer edge of the aperture in the top face and front side face of the main body, the sheet rolling ears having a curved contour (see fig.4 of Byl by aperture 92; do note that rolling ears 309 depicted in fig.3 of the present application is identical to those disclosed by Byl). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Sartini with wherein the top face and front side face defining an aperture; wherein the sanitary tissue product sheets positioned within the cavity are configured to be dispensed through the aperture formed through the front side face and the top face; wherein the aperture further comprises sheet rolling ears defining an outer edge of the aperture in the top face and front side face of the main body, the sheet rolling ears having a curved contour because it's a notoriously well-known configuration in the containers for dispensing wipes and merely provides another configuration for dispensing wipes out of a container with a different aperture.
Claim 2, Sartini discloses wherein a back side of the aperture (fig. 2; by 14) disposed on the top face of the main body (28) arcs upward from a back side face of the main body (fig. 2).
Although Sartini does not disclose a back side of the aperture disposed on the top face of the main body arcs backward toward a back side face of the main body, it would have been very obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement any number of arbitrary arch shapes for the back side aperture disposed on the top face since it merely requires routine skill to implement such a change of
shape, since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 3, Sartini discloses wherein deformations in the second sheet are formed as the leading sheet is dispensed, and wherein the deformations assist in holding the second sheet in place above the aperture (fig. furthermore, as a user pulls out a sheet to be dispensed from the sheet dispenser, deformations will inherently form in the second sheet as the first sheet is pulled; this is how sheet dispensers as those taught by Sartini function).
Claim 4, Sartini discloses wherein the aperture (fig. 1; 24) is a single opening.
Claim 5, although Sartini does not explicitly disclose wherein the aperture (24) has a length that is about 80 to about 99% of a length of the top face of the main body, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the aperture has a length that is about 80 to about 99% of a length of the top face of the main body limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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.
Claim 7, although Sartini does not disclose wherein the aperture (24) has a height that is at least about 20% of a height of the dispenser, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the wherein the aperture has a height that is at least about 20% of a height of the dispenser limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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.
Claim 8, Sartini discloses wherein the dispenser has a depth and a length, and wherein the depth is less than the length (fig. 1).
Claim 10, Sartini discloses wherein the sanitary tissue product sheets are C-folded and interleaved (C4:L15-40).
Claim 11, Sartini discloses wherein the dispenser has at least two different perimeters (fig. shows the upper and lower portion of the main body have different perimeters, with the lower portion having a larger perimeter; top face has a perimeter as well, see fig. 2).
Claim 12, Sartini discloses wherein the base (by 30) comprises a first perimeter, wherein the top face (26) comprises a second perimeter. Although Sartini does not disclose wherein the first perimeter is less than the second perimeter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement such a configuration in Sartini's dispenser because it requires merely changing the size of the component since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA1955).
Claim 13, Sartini discloses wherein the sanitary tissue product sheets are dry (C4:L5-10).
Claim 14, Sartini discloses wherein the aperture (24) is configured to deform the second sheet (see fig. 1a) such that a column is formed when the second sheet is partially parked through the aperture (24; the aperture of Sartini is fully capable of causing a column to be formed in the second sheet since this depends upon the manner in which a user pulls out the sheet to be dispensed).
Claim 15, Sartini discloses wherein the aperture (24) is configured to deform the second sheet by rolling at least a portion of the second sheet as the second sheet follows the leading sheet when the leading sheet is dispensed (the aperture of Sartini is fully capable of causing a column to be formed in the second sheet since this depends upon the manner in which a user pulls out the sheet to be dispensed).
Claim 16, Sartini discloses wherein the column extends through the aperture (24) beyond the front side face of the main body (28) and is inclined at an angle relative to the front side face. Claim 16
fails to further structurally limit the apparatus claim and only further limit the material handled by the apparatus and therefore does not determine patentability (see at least MPEP 2114,2115).
Claim 17, Sartini discloses wherein a refill of sanitary tissue product sheets has a front face and back face (C8:L60-67; C9:L1-25) that are interchangeable (fig. la illustrates a sheet dispensed that has a front face and a back face that's interchangeable; thus, it would be inherent for the refills to be of the same configuration).
Claim 18, Sartini discloses wherein the base (fig.2; by 30) comprises a lip (by 22) and a ridge (fig. lower flat portion below 22 where 28 rests on), wherein the lip (by 22) is configured to fit into the main body (28), and wherein the main body is configured to receive the lip when the base rests on the ridge (figs.1-2).
Claim 19, Sartini discloses wherein the aperture (24) is not gasketed.
Claim 21, although Sartini does not disclose wherein the base (by 30) and the main body (28) are contrasting colors, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to implement the base and main body to have contrasting colors, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Sartini.
Claim 22, although Sartini does not disclose wherein the base (by 30) isa darker color or shade than the main body (28), it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to implement wherein the base is a darker color or shade than the main body, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Sartini.
Claim 24, although Sartini does not disclose wherein the aperture (24) has a height that is at least about 20% of a height of the dispenser, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the wherein the aperture has a height that is at least about 20% of a height of the dispenser limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartini et al. (US 8,813,998) in view of Byl et al. (US 2008/0035663) in view of Kleinhuber (US 2011/0315707).
Claim 9, Sartini discloses wherein the main body (28) and the base (by 30) connect the base to the main body via a snap fit (see fig. 2).
Sartini in view of Byl do not disclose wherein the main body and the base each comprise complimentary magnets that connect the base to the main body.
Kleinhuber discloses wherein the main body (32) and the lid (34) comprise magnet that connect the lid to the main body (para.0063). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Sartini in view of Byl with wherein the main body and the base each comprise complimentary magnets that connect the base to the main body simply because it provides another very well-known suitable locking mechanism in the art and merely requires one of routine skill to implement.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartini et al. (US 8,813,998) in view of Byl et al. (US 2008/0035663) in view of Ginsberg et al. (US 2006/0180604).
Claim 23, Sartini discloses wherein the dispenser is in a package (C9:L55-60; the dispenser is in the kit/package which also includes sheet refills), wherein the aperture (24) comprise arcuate side portions (see fig. of arcuate side portion of the aperture).
Sartini in view of Byl do not explicitly disclose wherein dispenser is in a package comprising a reveal, wherein the reveal comprise arcuate side portions.
Ginsberg discloses wherein dispenser is in a package (para.0069; outer package comprising plastic or shrink wrap) comprising a reveal (para.0069; outer package has a window that may be transparent plastic), wherein the reveal comprise side portions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Sartini in view of Byl with wherein dispenser is in a package comprising a reveal, wherein the reveal comprise side portions simply to enable the inner package, which is the dispenser, to be viewed while the outer package is not open.
Although Ginsberg does not disclose explicitly disclose wherein the reveal (para.0069; window) comprise arcuate side portions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement such a configuration since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 AYODEJI H OJOFEITIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-6557. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/AYODEJI H OJOFEITIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights