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 in rejecting independent claim 1, the present Office Action appears to simply repeat assertions from the previous Office Action (Final Office Action, dated 8-01-2025), with the added clarification that "the orifice length dimension (fig.7; orifice length dimension is herein defined as running along 142) defining a longest dimension of the dispensing orifice" (see, Office Action, pages 2-3). In the present rejection, the Office Action repeats that reasoning that "although Dieringer does not explicitly disclose wherein no projection line tangent to the orifice second side edge (fig.3) at any point on the orifice second side edge further away from the orifice (140) top edge or the orifice bottom edge in the longitudinal direction thon 10% of the orifice length dimension forms an angle of 30 greater thon 20 degrees with respect to the longitudinal direction, 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 no projection line tangent 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" (Office Action, page 3). More specifically, Applicant put forth that "nowhere does Dieringer appear to recognize that the 'ranges for the no projection line tangent limitation' is a result effective variable. Without this knowledge, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have no reason to even attempt to find 'desirable ranges for the no projection line tangent limitation', as there is no knowledge that this feature affects performance of the pouch with respect to dispensing product. Indeed, at least at paragraph [0049] of the present Application, Applicant has demonstrated that different orientations of the orifice 27, and thus different configurations of the projection line tangent to the orifice second side edge, do have a material impact on performance of the pouch (which includes the orifice) on dispensing sheets of product from inside the pouch" (Applicant Amendment dated
October 1, 2025). Accordingly, the "ranges for the no projection line tangent limitation disclosed by Applicant" cannot be seen to be a matter of design choice, as the variable affects performance, and there is nothing in Dieringer that would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed 'no projection line tangent limitation' of claim 1 because nothing in Dieringer recognizes that such a limitation affects performance and therefore would not have had any reason to attempt to modify.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. The Examiner’s maintains the previous response to the same argument made by the Applicant regarding the obviousness rejection of claim 1, which is even though Dieringer does not explicitly disclose wherein no projection line tangent to the orifice second side edge (fig.3) at any point on the orifice second side edge further away from the orifice (140) top edge or the orifice bottom edge in the longitudinal direction than 10% of the orifice length dimension forms an angle of 30 greater than 20 degrees with respect to the longitudinal direction, 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 no projection line tangent 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. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it very obvious to implement the claim limitation in question simply because it pertains to the length and direction of the orifice second side edge. This is an elementary limitation that imparts no novelty whatsoever on claim 1 and merely depends upon one of ordinary skill ascertaining optimum ranges. Even further, the applicant’s entire argument is solely on the design and shape of the flexible pouch.
Furthermore, the applicant’s argument regarding the dimensions and angles have been considered by the Examiner. However, the Examiner is not persuaded because the limitation in question is merely regarding the dimension/s and/or angle/s of elements within the claim which is clearly very obvious and one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain or configure such workable ranges since the scope is well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that in rejecting independent claim 21, the present Office Action appears to simply repeat assertions from the previous Office Action (Final Office Action, dated 8-01-2025), with the added clarification that "the orifice length dimension (fig.7 orifice length dimension is herein defined as running along 142) defining a longest dimension of the dispensing orifice" (see, Office Action, pages 4-6). In the present rejection, the Office Action repeats the reasoning that Dieringer discloses "wherein each sheet is connected to at least one other sheet of the stack via a connection" by pointing to Figs. 1-2 without explanation and further asserts disclosure by Dieringer of "wherein a majority of connections connecting successive wipes are disposed entirely on only one of the stack right side and the stack leftside" without any supporting citations as well as repeating that "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 connections are spaced from an edge of the orifice disposed most closely to the connections a distance of between 30mm and 50mm 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" (Office Action, page 6). The Office Action further asserted that "claim 21 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)" (Office Action, pages 5-6).
With respect to the limitation of "wherein each sheet is connected to at least one other sheet of the stack via a connection, wherein a majority of connections connecting successive wipes are disposed entirely on only one of the stack right side and the stack left side", Applicant previously submitted that Dieringer cannot be seen to disclose or suggest connecting the sheets of the product 60 together at all and that FIGS. 1 and 2 of Dieringer, cited by the previous Office Action (Final Office Action, dated 8-01-2025) as disclosing this feature, fail to show any connections between successive tissue products in a stack. Rather, Dieringer appears to describe that the tissues are inter-folded and unconnected (see, Applicant Amendment dated October 1, 2025). This rebuttal appears to be untraversed by the present Office Action.
With respect to the limitation that the connections are spaced from an edge of the orifice disposed most closely to the connections a distance of between 30mm and 50mm, Applicant previously submitted that "nowhere does Dieringer appear to recognize that a distance between the connection and an edge of the orifice disposed most closely to the connections is a result effective variable" and that "without this knowledge, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have no reason to even attempt to find 'desirable ranges' for a distance between the connections and the edge of the orifice disposed most closely to the connections", as there is no knowledge that this feature affects dispensing performance. Indeed, at least at paragraphs [0061]- [0062] of the present Application, Applicant has demonstrated that different distances between the orifice edge and the connections do have a material impact on dispensing performance. This rebuttal to the previous Office Action's (Final Office Action, dated 8-01-2025) assertion appears to be unaddressed in the present Office Action.
With respect to the present Office Action's assertion that "claim 21 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)" (Office Action, pages 5-6), Applicant respectfully submits that claim 21 is a system claim including both "a flexible pouch and a plurality of sheets of product, the pouch forming an enclosure enclosing the plurality of sheets of product and including an orifice for dispensing the plurality of sheets" and that the limitations of claim 21 are drawn to both the pouch and the plurality of sheets and their relation to each other. Accordingly, it would appear that the limitations of claim 21 do properly structurally limit the claim.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that they have successfully rebutted the Office Action's assertion of obviousness and that Applicant's rebuttals appear to be unaddressed in the present Office Action. Applicant respectfully requests either indication of allowance of claim 21 or a new non-final Office Action be issued addressing Applicant's unaddressed submissions.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. Applicant alleges that Dieringer appears to describe that the tissues are inter-folded and unconnected. Interfolded sheets are connected interfolded paper towels, tissues, or napkins are connected through a mechanical "pop-up" interlocking fold. No glue or perforations are used; instead, the bottom half of one sheet is tucked inside the fold of the sheet immediately following it in the stack; hence, the stack of folded sheets disclosed by Dieringer do have a connection throughout the stack. The rejection of claim 21 is herein restated with explanatory comments embedded therein that clearly answers all of the applicant’s argument.
Claim 21, Dieringer discloses a system of a flexible pouch and a plurality of sheets of products,
the pouch forming an enclosure enclosing the plurality of sheets of product and including an orifice for
dispensing the plurality of sheets, the pouch comprising: a bottom portion with side portions adjoined
to the bottom portion and each side portion adjoined to an adjacent side portion and the side portions
extending away from the bottom portion (fig.3), the side portions also adjoined to a top portion with the
top portion overlying the bottom portion and being generally parallel to the bottom portion, the
plurality of sheets of product being positioned within the housing; the pouch having a pouch transverse
dimension extending along a transverse direction and a pouch longitudinal dimension extending along a
longitudinal direction (fig.3), the pouch transverse dimension being greater than the pouch longitudinal
dimension; the dispensing orifice (140) disposed in the top portion, the dispensing orifice having an
orifice width dimension extending in the transverse direction from an orifice first side edge (fig.3; left
end edge of 140) to an orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 140), the orifice first side edge
and the orifice second side edge each extending from an orifice top edge to an orifice bottom edge and
at least one of the orifice first side edge and the orifice second side edge comprising a convex shape
(fig.3), and an orifice length dimension (fig.7; length dimension is herein defined to run along 142)
extending in the longitudinal direction perpendicular to the transverse axis (fig.7), each of the orifice
first side edge and the orifice second side edge comprising a convex shape (fig.3); and a rigid flip top
(150) comprising a lid (150) connected to a flange (170) by a hinge (by 152), the flange (170) having an
interior wall defining an interior region comprising an aperture (fig.3), the flange (170) being affixed to
the top portion such that the rigid flip top (150) overlies the orifice (140; note that the Applicant's orifice
& aperture is identical to those of Dieringer) where the orifice is surrounded by the interior wall of the
flange (fig.3) and the rigid flip top (150) oriented on the flexible pouch such that the lid opens along the
transverse direction (fig.3), wherein the interior wall of the flange comprises a wall first side edge (fig.3;
multiple side walls are shown for 170; middle side wall on left inner edge) and a wall second side edge
(fig.3; multiple side walls are shown for 170; middle side wall on left inner edge), the wall first side edge
and the wall second side edge each extending from a wall top edge (fig.3; top wall edge of 170) to a wall
bottom edge (fig.3; lowermost wall edge of 170) with the wall second edge (fig.3; outer edge of 170)
disposed proximate the orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 140), and wherein the plurality
of sheets of product are disposed within the pouch in a folded (figs.1-4), stacked configuration and
collectively define a stack having a stack transverse left end, disposed proximate the pouch first
transverse end, and a stack transverse right end (figs.3-5), disposed proximate the pouch second
transverse end, along with a stack longitudinal centerline extending in the longitudinal direction and
positioned midway between the transverse right end stack transverse left end (figs.3-5), the stack
further defining a stack right side between the stack longitudinal centerline and the stack transverse
right end and a stack left side between the stack longitudinal centerline and the stack transverse left
end, wherein each sheet is connected to at least one other sheet of the stack via a connection (figs.1-2; interfolded paper towels, tissues, or napkins are connected through a mechanical "pop-up" interlocking fold. No glue or perforations are used; instead, the bottom half of one sheet is tucked inside the fold of the sheet immediately following it in the stack; hence, the stack of folded sheets disclosed by Dieringer do have a connection throughout the stack), and wherein a majority of connections connecting successive wipes are disposed entirely on only one of the stack right side and the stack left side (the majority of mechanical pop-up interlocking connections of successive wipes will entirely be one of the stack right side and left side inherently), and wherein the orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 140) is disposed closer to the stack right side than the orifice first side edge (fig.3; left end edge of 140); the orifice length dimension defining a longest dimension of the dispensing orifice (fig.7; length dimension runs along 142).
Although Dieringer does not explicitly disclose wherein the connections (figs.1-2) are spaced
from an edge of the orifice disposed most closely to the connections a distance of between 30mm and
50mm, 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 connections are spaced from an edge of
the orifice disposed most closely to the connections a distance of between 30mm and 50mm 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.
Applicant argues that In rejecting independent claim 11, the present Office Action asserted that Yamada discloses most of the features of claim 11, except that Yamada fails to disclose or suggest "the dispensing orifice disposed offset in the transverse dimension such that the dispensing orifice is disposed closer to a first longitudinally extend side edge of the pouch than a second longitudinally extending side edge of the pouch; wherein the orifice second side edge is disposed further away from the first longitudinally extending side edge of the pouch than the orifice first side edge; wherein a longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge is spaced from the interior wall of the flange in the transverse direction and wherein a distance between the longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge and the interior wall of the flange in the transverse direction is less than 10 mm; the orifice length dimension defining a longest dimension of the dispensing orifice" (see, Office Action, pages 10-11). However, the Office Action asserted that Muckenfuhs discloses such a feature and that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Yamada with the dispensing orifice disposed offset in the transverse dimension such that the dispensing orifice is disposed closer to a first longitudinally extend side edge of the pouch than a second longitudinally extending side edge of the pouch; wherein the orifice second side edge is disposed further away from the first longitudinally extending side edge of the pouch than the orifice first side edge, since it's a very well-known configuration known in the dispensing art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation" (Office Action, pages 11-12).
The Office Action further pointed to Hugley as disclosing "a longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge (fig.2; orifice has side edges positioned on the left & right side) is spaced from the interior wall of the flange (fig.2; flange to the right of where lid is attached) in the transverse direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Yamada with wherein a longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge is spaced from the interior wall of the flange in the transverse direction since it's a very well-known configuration known in the dispensing art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation" (Office Action, page 12). The Office Action further stated that "Although Hugley does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge and the interior wall of the flange in the transverse direction is less than 10 mm, 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 transverse direction is less than 10 mm 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 USPQ233" (Office Action, page 12).
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office Actions interpretation of independent claim 11 and the cited references. As a first point, Applicant respectfully submits that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have thought to look to Muckenfuhs when attempting to modify the flexible pouch and connected outlet port frame of Yamada because the package of Yamada is directed toward containing and dispensing wet wipe products (see at least, Yamada, paragraphs [0001]; [0008]; [0026]). In contrast, the disclosure of Muckenfuhs is directed toward "a tissue package comprising a dispensing package and tissues" (Muckenfuhs, Abstract). As noted in Applicant Amendment dated October 1, 2025 (page 8) and in Applicant's specification (Background of present Application; paragraphs [0039]-[0040] of the publication document US20240083663A1 of the present Application), the storage and dispensing of 'product' to produce a desirable consumer experience requires fine- tuning of multiple different parameters of the system and is dependent on many factors, including the specifics of the 'product'. In the present instance, wet wipe products (such as those disclosed with respect to Yamada) are significantly different in their composition, thickness, flexibility, and other parameters than standard dry tissue products like those disclosed with respect to Muckenfuhs. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that one having ordinary skill in the art attempting to modify the storage and dispensing experience of the wet wipes of Yamada would not have looked to storage and dispensing solutions directed toward dry tissue products disclosed by Muckenfuhs, as these are not analogous areas of art.
Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Yamada and Muckenfuhs further fails to disclose or suggest at least "the pouch transverse dimension being greater than the pouch longitudinal dimension" where "the dispensing orifice disposed offset in the transverse dimension" and where the orifice has an "orifice length dimension extending in the longitudinal direction perpendicular to the transverse axis, the orifice length dimension defining a longest dimension of the dispensing orifice". For instance, the longest lengths of the apertures of Yamada and Muckenfuhs appear to extend in the longest direction of the bag body 3 (Yamada) or the package 12 (Muckenfuhs). However, claim 11 defines the "the pouch transverse dimension being greater than the pouch longitudinal dimension". Accordingly, to the extent that the aperture 16 of Muckenfuhs can be seen to be offset in any direction, it appears offset in the short direction - which would be the longitudinal direction of claim 11 and thus does not appear to disclose the indicated claim feature.
Applicant further respectfully disagrees with the Office Action's interpretation Hugley and its applicability to claim 11. For example, Hugley appears to disclose an aperture in solid line as well as other features drawn in broken lines. Hugley further explicitly states that "the broken lines showing environmental structure are for illustrative purposes only and form no part of the claimed design" (Hugley, Description). Accordingly, it appears clear that little-to-no value can be placed on the environmental structure in the drawings of Hugley and thus any assertions related to dimensional relation between different aspects cannot be supported by the disclosure of Hugley.
Still further, Applicant respectfully submits that nowhere does Yamada nor any of the other cited art appear to recognize that a distance between the longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge and the interior wall of the flange in the transverse direction is a result effective variable. Without this knowledge, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have no reason to even attempt to find "desirable ranges" for such a distance as there is no knowledge that this feature affects dispensing performance. Conversely, Applicant has understood that this feature, in combination with the other structural features of claim 11, affects dispensing performance as too large of a distance decreases the pressure/force acting on the wipe as it is dispensed and thus can contribute to more 'multiples'-style failure modes. For example, see Applicant's specification (e.g. paragraph [0050] of the publication document US20240083663A1 of Applicant's specification) which details that "small values for distance 95 [the distance between the longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge and the interior wall of the flange in the transverse direction] ensure that the second side edge 83 of the orifice 27 is disposed close to the interior wall of the flange 60 whereby the rigidity of the flange 60, at least where housing 14 comprises a flexible packaging, can help to ensure consistent separation of the wipes within the stack 22" and thus helps to prevent the described 'multiples'-style failure mode. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that without any knowledge of the claimed limitation being a result effective variable, one having ordinary skill would not have thought to optimize the indicated distance and thus claim 11 appears patentable over the cited references.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. The teachings of Yamada, Muckenfuhs, and Hugley pertain to sheet/wipe dispensers with dispensing orifice and are analogous art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to combine the teachings of Yamada with Muckenfuhs et al. and Hugley.
Yamada does disclose the pouch transverse dimension (fig.3; runs parallel to 23) being greater than the pouch longitudinal dimension" (fig.3; runs perpendicular to 23). This is rather apparent from fig.3. Furthermore, Muckenfuhs was employed to teach the following:
Muckenfuhs discloses the dispensing orifice (16) disposed offset in the transverse dimension (transverse direction is herein construed to run across 14; fig.1) such that the dispensing orifice is disposed closer to a first longitudinally extend side edge (left of 14) of the package than a second longitudinally extending side edge of the package (fig.1); and wherein the orifice second side edge (fig.1; edge of 14 to the left of 22) is disposed further away from the first longitudinally extending side edge (left of 14) of the package than the orifice first side edge (fig.1; edge of 14 to the left of 14); an orifice length dimension (fig.1; from 14 towards 20) extending in the longitudinal direction perpendicular to the transverse axis; the orifice length dimension defining a longest dimension of the dispensing orifice (fig.1).
Even further, Hugley was utilized to teach the following:
Hugley discloses wherein a longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge (fig.2; orifice
has side edges positioned on the left & right side) is spaced from the interior wall of the flange (fig.2;
flange to the right of where lid is attached; lid of fig.2 inherently has a flange that does surround the dispensing orifice since the dispensing orifice is not a standalone structure on top of the sheet dispenser; such flanges are inherent in all dispensing orifices of these dispensers) in the transverse direction (fig.2; transverse direction is herein construed to run across the dispensing orifice from left to right). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Yamada with wherein a longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge is spaced from the interior wall of the flange in the transverse direction since it's a very well-known configuration known in the dispensing art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Please see the diagram below.
PNG
media_image1.png
727
1161
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the applicant’s argument regarding the distance between the longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge and the interior wall of the flange in the transverse direction is a result effective variable. Without this knowledge, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have no reason to even attempt to find "desirable ranges" for such a distance as there is no knowledge that this feature affects dispensing performance has been considered by the Examiner. However, the Examiner is not persuaded because the limitation in question is merely regarding the dimension/s of elements within the claim which is clearly very obvious and one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain or configure such workable ranges since the scope is well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 1-3,5-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieringer et al. (US
2018/0362236).
Claim 1, Dieringer discloses a flexible pouch for storing and dispensing a plurality of sheets of
product, the pouch comprising: a bottom portion with side portions adjoined to the bottom portion and
each side portion adjoined to an adjacent side portion and the side portions extending away from the
bottom portion (fig.3), the side portions also adjoined to a top portion with the top portion overlying the
bottom portion and being generally parallel to the bottom portion (fig.3), the plurality of sheets of
product being positioned within the pouch (fig.3); the pouch having a pouch transverse dimension
extending along a transverse direction and a pouch longitudinal dimension extending along a
longitudinal direction (fig.3), the pouch transverse dimension being greater than the pouch longitudinal
dimension (fig.3); and a dispensing orifice (140) in the top portion, the dispensing orifice having: an
orifice width dimension extending in the transverse direction from an orifice first side edge (fig.3; left
end edge of 140) to an orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 140), the orifice first side edge
and the orifice second side edge each extending from an orifice top edge (fig.3; top edge of orifice) to an
orifice bottom edge (fig.3; bottom edge of orifice); and an orifice length dimension (fig.7; orifice length
dimension is herein defined as running along 142) extending in the longitudinal dimension perpendicular
to the transverse dimension (fig.3), the orifice length dimension defining a dimension of the dispensing
orifice, wherein at least one of the orifice first side edge (fig.3; left end edge of 140) and the orifice
second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 140) comprises a convex shape (fig.3); the orifice length
dimension (fig.7; orifice length dimension is herein defined as running along 142) defining a longest
dimension of the dispensing orifice.
Furthermore, although Dieringer does not explicitly disclose wherein no projection line tangent
to the orifice second side edge (fig.3) at any point on the orifice second side edge further away from the
orifice (140) top edge or the orifice bottom edge in the longitudinal direction than 10% of the orifice
length dimension forms an angle of 30 greater than 20 degrees with respect to the longitudinal
direction, 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 no projection line tangent 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 2, Dieringer discloses wherein the orifice first side edge (fig.3; left end edge of 140)
comprises the orifice side edge which extends furthest away from a line extending through the orifice
length dimension and wherein the orifice first side edge (fig.3; left end edge of 140) comprises a convex
shape (fig.3; shape is convex).
Claim 3, Dieringer discloses wherein no portions of the orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end
edge of 140), and the orifice first side edge (fig.3; left end edge of 140) comprise a concave shape
(shapes are convex; fig.3).
Claim 5, although Dieringer does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one projection line
tangent to the orifice first side edge (fig.3) at a point on the orifice first side edge further away from the
orifice top edge (fig.3) or the orifice bottom edge in the longitudinal direction than 10% of the orifice
length dimension forms an angle greater than 45 degrees with respect to the longitudinal direction, 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 at least one projection line tangent to the orifice first
side edge 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 6, although Dieringer does not explicitly disclose wherein greater than 90% of a perimeter
of the orifice second side edge (fig.3) forms an angle greater than 0 degrees with respect to the
longitudinal direction, 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 greater than 90% of a perimeter
of the orifice second side edge 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, Dieringer discloses wherein the plurality of sheets of product are disposed within the
pouch in a folded, stacked configuration (figs.1-5) and collectively define a stack having a stack
transverse right end and a stack transverse left end along with a stack longitudinal centerline extending
in the longitudinal direction and positioned midway between the transverse right end stack transverse
left end, the stack further defining a stack right side between the stack longitudinal centerline and the
stack transverse right end and a stack left side between the stack longitudinal centerline and the stack
transverse left end, wherein each sheet is connected to at least one other sheet of the stack via a
connection (figs.1-2), and wherein a majority of connections connecting successive wipes are disposed
entirely on only one of the stack right side and the stack left side. Claim 7 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 8, Dieringer discloses wherein the orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 140) is
disposed closer to the stack right side than the orifice first side edge (fig.3; left end edge of 140).
Claim 9, Dieringer discloses a rigid flip top assembly (150) comprising a lid (150) connected to a
flange (170) by a hinge (by 152), the flange being affixed to the top portion of the pouch and having an
interior wall defining an interior region through which wipes can be dispensed, the dispensing orifice
(140) disposed within the interior region of the flange (170).
Claim 10, although Dieringer does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between a
longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge (fig.3; right side of 160) and the interior wall of the flange (by 152) in the transverse direction is less than 10 mm, 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 distance between a longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge 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.
Claims 11-14,16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US
20160113450) in view of Muckenfuhs et al. (US 5,516,001) in view of Hugley (US D837661).
Claim 11, Yamada discloses a flexible pouch forming an enclosure for storing and dispensing a
plurality of sheets of product, the pouch comprising: a bottom portion with side portions adjoined to the
bottom portion and each side portion adjoined to an adjacent side portion and the side portions
extending away from the bottom portion (fig.3), the side portions also adjoined to a top portion with the
top portion overlying the bottom portion and being generally parallel to the bottom portion, the
plurality of sheets of product being positioned within the housing; the pouch having a pouch transverse
dimension extending along a transverse direction and a pouch longitudinal dimension (fig.3; runs
perpendicular to 23) extending along a longitudinal direction, the pouch transverse dimension being
greater than the pouch longitudinal dimension (fig.3); a dispensing orifice (by 2 & 4) in the top portion,
the dispensing orifice having: an orifice width dimension extending in the transverse direction from an
orifice first side edge (fig.3; left end edge of 4) to an orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 4),
the orifice first side edge and the orifice second side edge each extending from an orifice top edge (fig.3;
top edge around 4) to an orifice bottom edge (fig.3; bottom edge around 4) and at least one of the
orifice first side edge and the orifice second side edge comprising a convex shape (fig. 4; plurality of
convex elements at dispensing orifice), and an orifice length dimension (fig.3; runs perpendicular to 23)
extending in the longitudinal direction perpendicular to the transverse axis, and a rigid flip top (5)
comprising a lid (5) connected to a flange (4) by a hinge (5a), the flange (4) having an interior wall
defining an interior region comprising an aperture (aperture created by 4), the flange being affixed to
the top portion such that the rigid flip top (5) overlies the orifice where the orifice is surrounded by the
interior wall of the flange and the rigid flip top oriented on the flexible pouch such that the lid opens
along the longitudinal direction (fig.3), wherein the interior wall of the flange (4) comprises a wall first
side edge (fig.3; left end edge of 4 behind 9b) and a wall second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 4),
the wall first side edge and the wall second side edge each extending from a wall top edge (fig.3;top
edge wall of 4) to a wall bottom edge (fig.3; bottom edge wall of 4) with the wall second edge (fig.3; right end edge of 4) disposed proximate the orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 4); such that the lid (5) opens along the transverse direction.
Yamada does not disclose the dispensing orifice disposed offset in the transverse dimension
such that the dispensing orifice is disposed closer to a first longitudinally extend side edge of the pouch
than a second longitudinally extending side edge of the pouch; wherein the orifice second side edge is
disposed further away from the first longitudinally extending side edge of the pouch than the orifice first
side edge; wherein a longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge is spaced from the interior
wall of the flange in the transverse direction and wherein a distance between the longitudinal midpoint
of the orifice second side edge and the interior wall of the flange in the transverse direction is less than
10 mm; the orifice length dimension defining a longest dimension of the dispensing orifice.
Muckenfuhs discloses the dispensing orifice (16) disposed offset in the transverse dimension
such that the dispensing orifice is disposed closer to a first longitudinally extend side edge (left of 14) of
the package than a second longitudinally extending side edge of the package (fig.1); and wherein the
orifice second side edge (fig.1; edge of 14 to the left of 22) is disposed further away from the first
longitudinally extending side edge (left of 14) of the package than the orifice first side edge (fig.1; edge
of 14 to the left of 14); an orifice length dimension (fig.1; from 14 towards 20) extending in the
longitudinal direction perpendicular to the transverse axis; the orifice length dimension defining a
longest dimension of the dispensing orifice (fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Yamada with the dispensing orifice disposed offset in the
transverse dimension such that the dispensing orifice is disposed closer to a first longitudinally extend
side edge of the pouch than a second longitudinally extending side edge of the pouch; wherein the
orifice second side edge is disposed further away from the first longitudinally extending side edge of the
pouch than the orifice first side edge since it's a very well-known configuration known in the dispensing
art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Hugley discloses wherein a longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge (fig.2; orifice
has side edges positioned on the left & right side) is spaced from the interior wall of the flange (fig.2; flange to the right of where lid is attached; lid of fig.2 inherently has a flange that does surround the dispensing orifice since the dispensing orifice is not a standalone structure on top of the sheet dispenser; such flanges are inherent in all dispensing orifices of these dispensers) in the transverse direction (fig.2; transverse direction is herein construed to run across the dispensing orifice from left to right). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Yamada with wherein a longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge is spaced from the interior wall of the flange in the transverse direction since it's a very well-known configuration known in the dispensing art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Although Hugley does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the longitudinal
midpoint of the orifice second side edge and the interior wall of the flange in the transverse direction is
less than 10 mm, 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 transverse direction is less than 10 mm
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 12, Yamada discloses wherein the rigid flip top (5) is centered with respect to a
longitudinal centerline of the flexible pouch.
Although Yamada does not disclose wherein the orifice is offset with respect to the longitudinal
centerline of the pouch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to implement such a configuration since it merely requires routine skill in the art and
does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 13, although Yamada does not explicitly disclose wherein the orifice first side edge (fig.3;
left end edge of 4) does not cross the longitudinal centerline of the pouch, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement such a configuration since
it merely requires routine skill in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 14, although Yamada does not disclose wherein a middle 25% of the wall second edge
(fig.3; right end edge of 4) between the wall top edge (fig.3; top edge wall of 4) and the wall bottom edge (fig.3; bottom edge wall of 4) is parallel to the longitudinal direction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement such a configuration since it
merely requires routine skill in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 16, although Yamada does not explicitly disclose wherein no projection line tangent to the
orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 4) at any point on the orifice second side edge further
away from the orifice top edge (fig.3; top edge of 4) or the orifice bottom edge (fig.3; bottom edge of 4)
in the longitudinal direction than 10% of the orifice length dimension forms an angle of greater than 20
degrees with respect to the longitudinal direction, 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 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 17, Yamada discloses wherein the pouch comprises a pouch first transverse end and a
pouch second transverse end with a pouch longitudinal centerline extending in the longitudinal direction
(fig.3) and disposed midway between the pouch first transverse end and the pouch second transverse
end (fig.3).
Although Yamada does not explicitly disclose wherein no portion of the orifice second side edge
(fig.3; right end edge of 4) is disposed closer to the second transverse end than the wall second side
edge (fig.3; right end edge of 4), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to implement such a configuration since it merely requires routine skill in the art and
does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Clair 18, Yamada discloses wherein the plurality of sheets of product are disposed within the
pouch in a folded, stacked configuration and collectively define a stack (fig.2) having a stack transverse
left end, disposed proximate the pouch first transverse end, and a stack transverse right end, disposed
proximate the pouch second transverse end, along with a stack longitudinal centerline extending in the
longitudinal direction and positioned midway between the transverse right end stack transverse left
end, the stack further defining a stack right side between the stack longitudinal centerline and the stack
transverse right end and a stack left side between the stack longitudinal centerline and the stack
transverse left end, wherein each sheet is connected to at least one other sheet of the stack via a
connection (fig.3; sheets are connected, hence the reason why once a sheet is pulled out, another sheet
follows thereafter), and wherein a majority of connections connecting successive wipes are disposed
entirely on only one of the stack right side and the stack left side. Claim 18 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 19, Yamada discloses wherein the orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 4) is
disposed closer to the stack right side than the orifice first side edge (fig.3; left end edge of 4).
Claim 20, Yamada discloses wherein the orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 4) is
disposed closer to the stack transverse right end than the orifice first side edge (fig.3; left end edge of 4),
and wherein a portion of the orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 4), disposed most closely
to the stack transverse right end (fig.3)
Although Yamada does not disclose is disposed between 30 mm and 50 mm from the
connections disposed on the stack right side, 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 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.
Claims 21-22,24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieringer et al.
(US 2018/0362236).
Claim 21, Dieringer discloses a system of a flexible pouch and a plurality of sheets of products,
the pouch forming an enclosure enclosing the plurality of sheets of product and including an orifice for
dispensing the plurality of sheets, the pouch comprising: a bottom portion with side portions adjoined
to the bottom portion and each side portion adjoined to an adjacent side portion and the side portions
extending away from the bottom portion (fig.3), the side portions also adjoined to a top portion with the
top portion overlying the bottom portion and being generally parallel to the bottom portion, the
plurality of sheets of product being positioned within the housing; the pouch having a pouch transverse
dimension extending along a transverse direction and a pouch longitudinal dimension extending along a
longitudinal direction (fig.3), the pouch transverse dimension being greater than the pouch longitudinal
dimension; the dispensing orifice (140) disposed in the top portion, the dispensing orifice having an
orifice width dimension extending in the transverse direction from an orifice first side edge (fig.3; left
end edge of 140) to an orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 140), the orifice first side edge
and the orifice second side edge each extending from an orifice top edge to an orifice bottom edge and
at least one of the orifice first side edge and the orifice second side edge comprising a convex shape
(fig.3), and an orifice length dimension (fig.7; length dimension is herein defined to run along 142)
extending in the longitudinal direction perpendicular to the transverse axis (fig.7), each of the orifice
first side edge and the orifice second side edge comprising a convex shape (fig.3); and a rigid flip top
(150) comprising a lid (150) connected to a flange (170) by a hinge (by 152), the flange (170) having an
interior wall defining an interior region comprising an aperture (fig.3), the flange (170) being affixed to
the top portion such that the rigid flip top (150) overlies the orifice (140; note that the Applicant's orifice
& aperture is identical to those of Dieringer) where the orifice is surrounded by the interior wall of the
flange (fig.3) and the rigid flip top (150) oriented on the flexible pouch such that the lid opens along the
transverse direction (fig.3), wherein the interior wall of the flange comprises a wall first side edge (fig.3;
multiple side walls are shown for 170; middle side wall on left inner edge) and a wall second side edge
(fig.3; multiple side walls are shown for 170; middle side wall on left inner edge), the wall first side edge
and the wall second side edge each extending from a wall top edge (fig.3; top wall edge of 170) to a wall
bottom edge (fig.3; lowermost wall edge of 170) with the wall second edge (fig.3; outer edge of 170)
disposed proximate the orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 140), and wherein the plurality
of sheets of product are disposed within the pouch in a folded (figs.1-4), stacked configuration and
collectively define a stack having a stack transverse left end, disposed proximate the pouch first
transverse end, and a stack transverse right end (figs.3-5), disposed proximate the pouch second
transverse end, along with a stack longitudinal centerline extending in the longitudinal direction and
positioned midway between the transverse right end stack transverse left end (figs.3-5), the stack
further defining a stack right side between the stack longitudinal centerline and the stack transverse
right end and a stack left side between the stack longitudinal centerline and the stack transverse left
end, wherein each sheet is connected to at least one other sheet of the stack via a connection (figs.1-2; interfolded paper towels, tissues, or napkins are connected through a mechanical "pop-up" interlocking fold. No glue or perforations are used; instead, the bottom half of one sheet is tucked inside the fold of the sheet immediately following it in the stack; hence, the stack of folded sheets disclosed by Dieringer do have a connection throughout the stack), and wherein a majority of connections connecting successive wipes are disposed entirely on only one of the stack right side and the stack left side (the majority of mechanical pop-up interlocking connections of successive wipes will entirely be one of the stack right side and left side inherently), and wherein the orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 140) is disposed closer to the stack right side than the orifice first side edge (fig.3; left end edge of 140); the orifice length dimension defining a longest dimension of the dispensing orifice (fig.7; length dimension runs along 142).
Although Dieringer does not explicitly disclose wherein the connections (figs.1-2) are spaced
from an edge of the orifice disposed most closely to the connections a distance of between 30mm and
50mm, 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 connections are spaced from an edge of
the orifice disposed most closely to the connections a distance of between 30mm and 50mm 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 22, although Dieringer does not disclose wherein a distance between a longitudinal
midpoint of the orifice second side edge (fig.3; right end edge of 140) and the wall second side edge
(fig.3; multiple side walls are shown for 170; middle side wall on left inner edge) in the transverse
direction is less than10 mm, 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 distance between a
longitudinal midpoint of the orifice second side edge 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 24, although Dieringer does not explicitly disclose wherein a middle 25% of the wall
second edge (fig.3; multiple side walls are shown for 170; middle side wall on left inner edge) between
the wall top edge (fig.3; top wall edge of 170) and the wall bottom edge (fig.3; lowermost wall edge of
170) is parallel to the longitudinal direction, 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
middle 25% of the wall second edge 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.
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