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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that none of the prior art of Sartini and Bendor discloses the “wherein the dispenser does not comprise a spring”.
In response, the Applicant is herein referred to the new obviousness rejection using Sartini et al.
(US 8,813,998) in view of Byl et al. (US 2008/0035663). Neither Sartini nor Byl discloses a spring in their sheet product dispenser. The Bendor reference, which is no longer employed in the present office action, does teach a spring in the sheet product dispenser.
Applicant argues that the depth range as recited in claim 1 is not obvious in the context of the claimed invention. Applicant further argues that the specific dimensional limitation contributes to important functional benefits in the overall dispenser, such as providing a compact and aesthetically pleasing design while ensuring ease of dispensing and protection from moisture.
In response, the Examiner is not persuaded by the Applicant’s argument and respectfully disagree with the Applicant. There’s nothing critical about the depth of the aperture being less than 20% of a depth of the top face of the main body. Compact and aesthetically pleasing aperture designs for sheet product dispensers whilst ensuring ease of dispensing and protection from moisture are notoriously well-known in the art. This feature is not novel and merely requires one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain optimum and/or workable ranges.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 2 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.
In response, the Applicant is herein referred to the new obviousness rejection of claim 2.
Applicant argues that Sartini does not teach and/or suggest the limitations of claim 3.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. 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.
Applicant argues that claims 5 and 7 are not taught by Sartini and are non-obvious limitations in light of the arguments made regarding the rejection of claim 1.
In response, the Examiner is not persuaded by the Applicant’s arguments. There’s nothing critical about the limitations of claims 5 and 7. Compact and aesthetically pleasing aperture designs for sheet product dispensers whilst ensuring ease of dispensing and protection from moisture are notoriously well-known in the art. This feature is not novel and merely requires one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain optimum and/or workable ranges.
Applicant argues that the Sartini reference does not teach the limitations of claim 8.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. Fig.1 of Sartini clearly illustrates the depth (front to back width) is less than the length (left to right width).
Applicant argues that the Sartini reference does not teach the limitations of claims 11 and 12,
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. The rejections of claims 11 and 12 clearly states how the limitations of claims 11 and 12 are taught and/or suggested by the prior art.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Sartini does not disclose the limitations of claims 14,15, and 16.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. Claims 14-16 merely recites how the second sheet is deformed near the aperture. The deformation of the second sheet as it is near the aperture greatly depends on the manner in which a user initially pulls out the first sheet. Thus, this limitation is not novel and is based on the user that is pulling out sheets from the dispenser.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the limitation of claim 19.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. The definition of a gasket is “a material (such as rubber) or a part (such as an O-ring) used to make a joint fluid-tight”. From fig.2 of the Sartini reference, there is not anything around the aperture that depicts any material added at any joint of the aperture. Furthermore, the aperture of the present application looks just like the aperture of Sartini. A gasketed aperture would be apparent from the illustrations of Sartini if it were present; but there is not a gasketed aperture.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Sartini does not teach and/or suggest the limitations of claims 21 and 22.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. Claims 21 and 22. The rejections of claims 21 and 22 clearly stated the obviousness rationale for the rejection. Claims 21 and 22 merely recite elementary limitations regarding the color of the main body and the base. These are extremely obvious design choices and does not impart any novelty of any kind on the limitations in question.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Sartini does not teach and/or suggest the limitations of claim 23.
In response, the Applicant is herein referred to the new obviousness rejection which now includes the Ginsberg et al. reference.
Applicant argues that claim 9 is patentable over the prior art of record.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. The rejection of claim 9 is herein restated:
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.
The use of magnet to connect a main body to a lid or base is widely known in the art. The use of magnet, as disclosed by Kleinhuber, is merely another suitable locking mechanism that connects a body to a lid or base. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it very obvious to implement a magnet configuration for the Sartini main body and base as just another connecting means.
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 1-5,7-8,10-22,24 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.
Byl discloses the top face (16) and front side face (12) defining an aperture (fig.3; aperture where 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). 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 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.1a; 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.5
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. 1a 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.2; 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 20, Sartini discloses wherein the dispenser does not comprise a spring (fig.1; fig.2).
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.1 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYODEJI T 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 T OJOFEITIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3651