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 .
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 5/11/2026. Claims 1-5, 8-21 and 23-31 are pending in the application. Claims 6-7 and 22 are cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-21 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter et al. US 2011/0215017 A1 in view of Nukuto et al. US 2011/0139656 A1, previously presented and further in view of Legault et al. US 20070095706 A1.
With regards to claim 1, Coulter (Para. 0053, 0056, 0068 and Fig. 10-12) discloses a retail store shelf array of disposable sanitary tissue products (Para. 0068; wipes), comprising: a first package 440B comprising a first front face disposed as aisle facing, the first package comprising a first sanitary tissue product; a second package 440C comprising a second front face disposed as aisle facing, the second package comprising a second sanitary tissue product; wherein the first package comprises a first source identifier (brand), wherein the second package comprises a second source identifier (HUGGIES brand), and wherein the first source identifier and the second source identifier are the same.
Coulter discloses a viewing area on the first front face but it does not specifically disclose the first front face has a first reveal and wherein the second front face comprises a second reveal; wherein the first reveal is closed such that it does not extend to an edge of the first front face, and wherein the second reveal is open such that it extends to an edge of the second front face.
However, Nukuto (Para. 0059, Fig. 7 and 13-14) teaches that it was known in the art to have of plurality of packaged articles that have a first front face (Fig. 7) has a first reveal 18 and wherein the second front face (Fig. 13-14) comprises a second reveal 18; wherein the first reveal is closed such that it does not extend to an edge of the first front face, and wherein the second reveal is open such that it extends to an edge of the second front face.
The inventions of Coulter and Nukuto are both drawn to the field of containers that are capable of holding items such as absorbent articles. Each container includes designs and graphics to relate information regarding the articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face of the packages in Coulter by providing a first and second reveal as taught by Nukuto for the purposes of allowing the consumer to see the articles contained in the package.
Coulter discloses the first source identifier and the second source identifier are the same but it does not specifically disclose the first source identifier comprises a first brand logo, wherein the second source identifier comprises a second brand logo, and wherein the first and second brand logos the same.
However, Legault teaches that it was known in the art to have an array of disposable sanitary tissue products comprising a first and second package have the first source identifier 34 comprises a first brand logo, wherein the second source identifier 34 comprises a second brand logo, and wherein the first and second brand logos are the same. (Para. 0048)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second source identifier in Coulter by having it be first and second brand logos that are the same as taught by Legault, since doing so would be an obvious matter of design choice and would only depend on the intended use of the assembly and the desired information to be displayed.
Further, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability; see MPEP 2111.05. The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of location does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter e.g. first and second source identifiers (i.e. brand logos) and the substrate e.g. package which is required for patentability.
Coulter does not specifically disclose a second VFS of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first VFS of the first sanitary tissue product.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second VFS of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first VFS of the first sanitary tissue product, 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 2, Coulter (Para. 0053, 0056 and 0068) discloses the first and second packages comprise of sanitary tissues (wipes) but it does not specifically disclose they are paper towel rolls.
However, Legault teaches that it was known in the art to have the first and second package comprise paper towel rolls. (Para. 0048)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second package in Coulter by having it comprise paper towels as taught by Legault, since doing so would be providing an alternate type of sanitary tissue, to be held.
With regards to claim 3, Coulter (Para. 0053, 0056 and 0068) discloses the first and second packages comprise of sanitary tissues (wipes) but it does not specifically disclose they are bath tissue rolls.
However, Legault teaches that it was known in the art to have the first and second package comprise bath tissue rolls. (Para. 0048)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second package in Coulter by having it comprise bath tissue rolls as taught by Legault, since doing so would be providing an alternate type of sanitary tissue, to be held.
With regards to claim 4, Coulter (Para. 0053, 0056 and 0068) discloses the first and second packages comprise of sanitary tissues (wipes) but it does not specifically disclose they are facial tissue.
However, Legault teaches that it was known in the art to have the first and second package comprise facial tissue. (Para. 0048)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second package in Coulter by having it comprise facial tissue as taught by Legault, since doing so would be providing an alternate type of sanitary tissue, to be held.
With regards to claim 5, Coulter (Para. 0010) discloses the first package is a lower tier than the second package.
With regards to claim 8, Nukuto further teaches the first and second reveals are different shapes. (Para. 0056, Fig. 7 and 13-14)
With regards to claim 9, Nukuto further teaches the first and second reveals are different sizes. (Para. 0056, Fig. 7 and 13-14)
With regards to claim 10, Nukuto further teaches the first reveal is selected from the group of shapes consisting of triangles, circles, ovals, arcs, squares, rectangles, and combinations thereof. (Para. 0056, Fig. 7 and 13-14)
With regards to claim 11, Nukuto further teaches the second reveal is selected from the group of shapes consisting of triangles, circles, ovals, arcs, squares, rectangles, and combinations thereof. (Para. 0056, Fig. 7 and 13-14)
With regards to 12, Coulter does not specifically disclose the first reveal is above the first source identifier.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first reveal above the first source identifier since it would only depend on the intended use of the assembly and the desired information to be displayed. Further, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP 2111.05. The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of location does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter e.g. first source identifier and the substrate e.g. package which is required for patentability.
With regards to claim 13, Coulter (Para. 0068 and Fig. 11) discloses the first package 440B further comprises a first sub-brand 504, and wherein the first source identifier 474 is above the first sub-brand.
With regards to claim 14, Coulter (Para. 0068, 0073 and Fig. 11) discloses the first package 440B further comprises a first claim (qualitative information indicia; at 482), and wherein the first sub-brand 504 is above the first claim.
With regards to claim 15, Coulter does not specifically disclose the first package comprises a first center vertical axis, and wherein each of the first brand logo, the first sub- brand name, and the first claim overlaps the first center vertical axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first package comprise a first center vertical axis, and each of the first brand logo, the first sub- brand name, and the first claim overlaps the first center vertical axis since it would only depend on the intended use of the assembly and the desired information to be displayed. Further, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP 2111.05. The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of location does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter e.g. first brand logo, the first sub- brand name, the first claim and the substrate e.g. package which is required for patentability.
With regards to claim 16, Coulter (Para. 0068 and Fig. 11) discloses the second package 440C further comprises a second claim (qualitative information indicia; at 482) and a second center vertical axis, and wherein the second claim does not overlap the second center vertical axis.
With regards to claim 17, Coulter (Para. 0053, 0056 and 0068) discloses the first and second packages are commonly branded.
With regards to claim 18, Coulter (Para. 0058) discloses the first package conveys value and/or affordability.
With regards to claim 19, Coulter (Para. 0058) discloses the second package conveys premiumness.
With regards to claim 20, Coulter (Para. 0058) discloses the first and second packages convey strength.
With regards to claim 21, Coulter (Para. 0053, 0056 and 0058) discloses the first and second packages convey absorbency.
With regards to claim 23, Coulter discloses the claimed invention as stated above but it does not specifically disclose a second wet burst of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first wet burst of the first sanitary tissue product.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second wet burst of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first wet burst of the first sanitary tissue product, 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 24, Coulter discloses the claimed invention as stated above but it does not specifically disclose a second SST of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first SST of the first sanitary tissue product.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second SST of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first SST of the first sanitary tissue product, 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 25, Coulter discloses the claimed invention as stated above but it does not specifically disclose a second TDT of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first TDT of the first sanitary tissue product.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second TDT of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first TDT of the first sanitary tissue product, 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter et al. US 2011/0215017 A1 in view of Nukuto et al. US 2011/0139656 A1, both previously presented.
With regards to claim 26, Coulter (Para. 0050, 0053, 0056, 0068 and Fig. 10-12) discloses a retail store shelf array of disposable sanitary tissue products (Para. 0068; wipes), comprising: a first package 440B comprising a first front face disposed as aisle facing, the first package comprising a first sanitary tissue product; a second package 440C comprising a second front face disposed as aisle facing, the second package comprising a second sanitary tissue product; wherein the first package comprises a first source identifier (para. 0050; brand), wherein the second package comprises a second source identifier (para. 0050; brand), and wherein the first source identifier and the second source identifier are the same (para. 0050; brand “HUGGIES”); and wherein the first source identifier comprises a first brand name (para. 0050; brand “HUGGIES”), wherein the second source identifier comprises a second brand name (para. 0050; brand “HUGGIES”), and wherein the first and second brand names are the same.
Coulter discloses a viewing area on the first front face but it does not specifically disclose the first front face has a first reveal and wherein the second front face comprises a second reveal; wherein the first reveal is closed such that it does not extend to an edge of the first front face, and wherein the second reveal is open such that it extends to an edge of the second front face.
However, Nukuto (Para. 0059, Fig. 7 and 13-14) teaches that it was known in the art to have of plurality of packaged articles that have a first front face (Fig. 7) has a first reveal 18 and wherein the second front face (Fig. 13-14) comprises a second reveal 18; wherein the first reveal is closed such that it does not extend to an edge of the first front face, and wherein the second reveal is open such that it extends to an edge of the second front face.
The inventions of Coulter and Nukuto are both drawn to the field of containers that are capable of holding items such as absorbent articles. Each container includes designs and graphics to relate information regarding the articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face of the packages in Coulter by providing a first and second reveal as taught by Nukuto for the purposes of allowing the consumer to see the articles contained in the package.
Coulter discloses the claimed invention as stated above but it does not specifically disclose a second wet burst of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first wet burst of the first sanitary tissue product.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second wet burst of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first wet burst of the first sanitary tissue product, 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 27-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulter et al. US 2011/0215017 A1 in view of Nukuto et al. US 2011/0139656 A1.
With regards to claim 27, Coulter (Para. 0050, 0053, 0056, 0068 and Fig. 10-12) discloses a retail store shelf array of disposable sanitary tissue products (Para. 0068; wipes), comprising: a first package 440B comprising a first front face disposed as aisle facing, the first package comprising a first sanitary tissue product; a second package 440C comprising a second front face disposed as aisle facing, the second package comprising a second sanitary tissue product; wherein the first package comprises a first source identifier (brand), wherein the second package comprises a second source identifier (HUGGIES brand), and wherein the first source identifier and the second source identifier are the same.
Coulter discloses a viewing area on the first front face but it does not specifically disclose the first front face has a first reveal and wherein the second front face comprises a second reveal; wherein the first reveal is closed such that it does not extend to an edge of the first front face, and wherein the second reveal is open such that it extends to an edge of the second front face.
However, Nukuto (Para. 0059, Fig. 7 and 13-14) teaches that it was known in the art to have of plurality of packaged articles that have a first front face (Fig. 7) has a first reveal 18 and wherein the second front face (Fig. 13-14) comprises a second reveal 18; wherein the first reveal is closed such that it does not extend to an edge of the first front face, and wherein the second reveal is open such that it extends to an edge of the second front face.
The inventions of Coulter and Nukuto are both drawn to the field of containers that are capable of holding items such as absorbent articles. Each container includes designs and graphics to relate information regarding the articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face of the packages in Coulter by providing a first and second reveal as taught by Nukuto for the purposes of allowing the consumer to see the articles contained in the package.
Coulter does not specifically disclose the first reveal is above the first source identifier.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first reveal above the first source identifier since it would only depend on the intended use of the assembly and the desired information to be displayed. Further, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP 2111.05. The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of location does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter e.g. first source identifier and the substrate e.g. package which is required for patentability.
Coulter does not specifically disclose a second SST of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first SST of the first sanitary tissue product.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second SST of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first SST of the first sanitary tissue product, 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 28, Coulter (Para. 0050, 0053, 0056, 0068 and Fig. 10-12) discloses a retail store shelf array of disposable sanitary tissue products (Para. 0068; wipes), comprising: a first package 440B comprising a first front face disposed as aisle facing, the first package comprising a first sanitary tissue product; a second package 440C comprising a second front face disposed as aisle facing, the second package comprising a second sanitary tissue product; wherein the first package comprises a first source identifier (474; brand), wherein the second package comprises a second source identifier (HUGGIES brand), and wherein the first source identifier and the second source identifier are the same; and wherein the first package further comprises a first sub-brand 504, and wherein the first source identifier 474 is above the first sub-brand.
Coulter discloses a viewing area on the first front face but it does not specifically disclose the first front face has a first reveal and wherein the second front face comprises a second reveal; wherein the first reveal is closed such that it does not extend to an edge of the first front face, and wherein the second reveal is open such that it extends to an edge of the second front face.
However, Nukuto (Para. 0059, Fig. 7 and 13-14) teaches that it was known in the art to have of plurality of packaged articles that have a first front face (Fig. 7) has a first reveal 18 and wherein the second front face (Fig. 13-14) comprises a second reveal 18; wherein the first reveal is closed such that it does not extend to an edge of the first front face, and wherein the second reveal is open such that it extends to an edge of the second front face.
The inventions of Coulter and Nukuto are both drawn to the field of containers that are capable of holding items such as absorbent articles. Each container includes designs and graphics to relate information regarding the articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face of the packages in Coulter by providing a first and second reveal as taught by Nukuto for the purposes of allowing the consumer to see the articles contained in the package.
Coulter does not specifically disclose a second TDT of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first TDT of the first sanitary tissue product.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second TDT of the second sanitary product is at least 5% different than, but within 10% of a first TDT of the first sanitary tissue product, 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 29, treated as in claim 14 above.
With regards to claim 30, treated as in claim 15 above.
With regards to claim 31, treated as in claim 16 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues “the properties recited in amended claim 1 involve more than simple discovery of optimum or workable ranges for the first and second VFS. Rather, claim 1 recites a specific, non-obvious, and quantitative relationship between intensive properties of two products within the array. As discussed in the Subject Application, these differences are part of, for example, product tiers within a co-branded array that are perceptibly different in key properties such as VFS, yet still sufficiently similar to maintain consumer trust in the common brand. There is no teaching or suggestion in Coulter, alone or in combination with Nukuto or Legault, that the VFS of the first and second sanitary products is within 10% of each other, while still being at least 5% different, as recited in amended claim 1”. The Applicant also provides similar remarks regarding the amendments to claims 26-28, for reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Although, Coulter, alone or in combination with Nukuto or Legault does not disclose the specific ranges as recited in the claims, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to discovery an optimum or workable ranges for the first and second VFS, wet burst, SST, or TDT that are within 10% of each other, while still being at least 5% different; and arrange the array of packages based on those values as claimed. To get the specific ranges for the sanitary products as claimed, would require the testing methods recited in the specification of the present application. The USPTO is not equipped to perform specialized tests upon prior art devices in order to determine an inherent property of a prior art device. Once a reference teaching the product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2112(V). “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Further, prior art Zenkich et al. US 2019/0047765 A1, Fig. 3 and para. 0056-0058, teaches that it was known in the art to have an array of sanitary products that are arranged according to its dominant physical property and where the first tissue product is different from the second tissue product; and para. 0081, reciting more specific details, such as the dominant physical properties are of absorbency, tensile strength or tensile energy absorption, where the first tissue product is different from the second tissue product.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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 E. Avilés can be reached at (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 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.
/JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights