DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
Applicant Argues:
Maeda's teachings are contrary. Maeda teaches a variety of biasing structures whereby the peripheral side edges are not in the same plane. See FIG. 3 of Maeda: As claimed, the peripheral side edges extend from a first endmost side leg to a second endmost side leg. Even of Maeda were interpreted as having side edges, there is no structure where each of the side edges is in a first plane or a second plane. Instead, Maeda teaches configurations where any structure that might be identified as the side edges do not extend in any single plane but instead in multiple planes.
Examiner’s Response:Claim 1 recites “the first opposite peripheral side edge of the article advancer extending from a respective first endmost side leg to a respective second endmost side leg, the first opposite peripheral side edge being in a first plane and the second opposite peripheral side edge extending from another first endmost side leg to a another second endmost side leg, the second opposite peripheral side edge being in a second plane.”
Examiner notes that the recitation of claim 1 does not require that the (entire) side edge be located in a plane, which would differ from the structures as shown in Maeda. As Maeda shows, Maeda comprises side edges in which a (at least a portion) is located in a plane, thus, Maeda is capable of disclosing the device of claim 1.
For the reasons stated above, the claims stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minoru Maeda (JP 2011-020706 A – hereinafter Maeda)
Re Claim 1:
Maeda discloses an article advancing assembly comprising: a container (10) defining an interior chamber (15) and a dispensing opening (21) for providing access to the interior chamber (15) (see Figs. 1-2B); and an article advancer (40) positioned in the interior chamber (15) configured to bias contents (100) of the container (10) towards the dispensing opening (21) (see Fig. 1), the article advancer (40) having an arcuate body (see Fig. 1) with a plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42) extending from a first side of the body and a plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) extending from a second side of the body opposite the first side (see Fig. 2B), the article advancer (40) movable between a compressed configuration (see Fig. 4A) and a fully dispensed configuration (see Figs. 5A-5B), in the compressed configuration (see Fig. 4A), a plane extending tangent to an uppermost portion of the arcuate body is positioned a first distance from a distal end of each of the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42) and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) (see Figs. 4A-4B), in the fully dispensed configuration (see Figs. 5A-5B), the plane extending tangent to the uppermost portion of the arcuate body is positioned a second distance from the distal end of each of the plurality of first (41, 42) and second (opposite pair of 41, 42) endmost side legs (see Figs. 5A-5B), the second distance being greater than the first distance (see Figs. 4A-5B), wherein each of the first endmost side legs (41, 42) form a portion of one of first and second opposite peripheral side edges of the article advancer (40) (see Fig. 2B), the first endmost side legs (41, 42) having a first inner sidewall extending therebetween and forming a first single uninterrupted U-shaped arch (see Figs. 2B and 4C), wherein the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42) and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) move relative to the container (10) as the article advancer (40) moves between the compressed configuration (see Fig. 4A) and the fully dispensed configuration (see Figs. 5A-5B) (see Fig. 2B), and wherein each of the second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) form a portion of the first and second opposite peripheral side edges of the article advancer (40), the second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) having a second inner sidewall extending therebetween and forming a second single uninterrupted U-shaped arch (see Figs. 2B and 4C), at least one of the arcuate body (see Fig. 1), the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42), and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) providing a biasing force from the compressed configuration (see Fig. 4A) to the fully dispensed configuration (see Figs. 5A-5B) (see Figs. 4A-5B); the first opposite peripheral side edge (peripheral side edge is the portions extending from 41A to 41 to near 13A – see Fig. 5C, see likewise Figures) of the article advancer extending from a respective first endmost side leg (41, 42) to a respective second endmost side leg (opposite pair of 41, 42), the first opposite peripheral side edge being in a first plane (as shown by 13 – portions 41A and near 13A are both within the plane of 13/13A – see Fig. 5C – see likewise Figures – Examiner notes that the inner wall connecting the two end legs on one peripheral side is also in a plane of its own) and the second opposite peripheral side edge (peripheral side edge is the portions extending from 42A to 42 to near 14A – see Fig. 5C, see likewise Figures) extending from another first endmost side leg (41, 42) to another second endmost side leg (opposite pair of 41, 42), the second opposite peripheral side edge being in a second plane (as shown by 14 – portions 42A and near 14A are both within the plane of 14/14A – see Fig. 5C – see likewise Figures) (see Figs. 1-6).
Re Claims 2 and 11:
Maeda discloses two first side legs (41, 42) and two second side legs (41, 42) (see Figs. 1-6).
Re Claim 3:
Maeda discloses wherein the arcuate body (see Fig. 1), the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42), and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) are integral (see Figs. 1-6).
Re Claim 6:
Maeda discloses wherein the distal ends of each of the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42) and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) includes a foot portion (41a, 42a) (see Figs. 5C and 6).
Re Claims 7 and 14:
Maeda discloses a platform (40A) positioned between the article advancer (40) and the dispensing opening (21), the platform (40A) configured to support the contents of the container above the article advancer (40) (see Figs. 1-6).
Re Claims 8 and 15:
Maeda discloses wherein the container (10) is a box, a bag, or combinations thereof (see Figs. 1-6).
Re Claim 9:
Maeda discloses wherein the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42) and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) are generally planar (see Fig. 4B).
Re Claim 16:
Maeda discloses a method comprising the steps of: providing a container (10) defining an interior chamber and a dispensing opening (21) for providing access to the interior chamber; positioning the article advancer (40) of claim 1 in the interior chamber; compressing the article advancer (40) to the compressed configuration by placing a plurality of articles (100) in the interior chamber on the article advancer (40), wherein the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42) and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) move relative to the container (10) as the article advancer (40) moves between the compressed configuration (see Fig. 4A) and the fully dispensed configuration (see Figs. 5A-5B) (see Figs. 1-6).
Re Claim 17:
Maeda discloses further comprising the step of removing at least one of the plurality of articles (100) to permit the article advancer (40) to move towards the fully dispensed configuration (see Figs. 5A-5B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Craig D. Thompson (US 6,749,084 – hereinafter Thompson)
Re Claims 4 and 12:
Maeda discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein at least a portion of the article advancer comprises acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyoxymethylene, nylon, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, or combinations thereof.
Thompson teaches wherein at least a portion of an article advancer (30) comprises acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyoxymethylene, nylon, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, or combinations thereof (see col. 3 lines 46-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Maeda with that of Thompson to provide a particular selection of material for an intended purpose as known within the art by one of ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Silvia Alarid Aguilar (US 2016/0288985 – hereinafter Aguilar).
Re Claims 7 and 14:
Maeda discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach a platform positioned between the article advancer and the dispensing opening, the platform configured to support the contents of the container above the article advancer.
Aguilar teaches a platform (442) positioned between an article advancer (341) and a dispensing opening; the platform (442) configured to support the contents of the container above the article advancer (341) (see Figs. 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Maeda to include a platform structure as suggested by Aguilar, to allow for increased surface area stability of a stack being biased.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11, 12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minoru Maeda (JP 2011-020706 A – hereinafter Maeda) in view of Craig D. Thompson (US 2003/0168468 A1 – hereinafter Thompson).
Re Claims 1, 4, and 12:
Maeda discloses an article advancing assembly comprising: a container (10) defining an interior chamber (15) and a dispensing opening (21) for providing access to the interior chamber (15) (see Figs. 1-2B); and an article advancer (40) positioned in the interior chamber (15) configured to bias contents (100) of the container (10) towards the dispensing opening (21) (see Fig. 1), the article advancer (40) having an arcuate body (see Fig. 1) with a plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42) extending from a first side of the body and a plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) extending from a second side of the body opposite the first side (see Fig. 2B), the article advancer (40) movable between a compressed configuration (see Fig. 4A) and a fully dispensed configuration (see Figs. 5A-5B), in the compressed configuration (see Fig. 4A), a plane extending tangent to an uppermost portion of the arcuate body is positioned a first distance from a distal end of each of the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42) and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) (see Figs. 4A-4B), in the fully dispensed configuration (see Figs. 5A-5B), the plane extending tangent to the uppermost portion of the arcuate body is positioned a second distance from the distal end of each of the plurality of first (41, 42) and second (opposite pair of 41, 42) endmost side legs (see Figs. 5A-5B), the second distance being greater than the first distance (see Figs. 4A-5B), wherein each of the first endmost side legs (41, 42) form a portion of one of first and second opposite peripheral side edges of the article advancer (40) (see Fig. 2B), the first endmost side legs (41, 42) having a first inner sidewall extending therebetween and forming a first single uninterrupted U-shaped arch (see Figs. 2B and 4C), wherein the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42) and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) move relative to the container (10) as the article advancer (40) moves between the compressed configuration (see Fig. 4A) and the fully dispensed configuration (see Figs. 5A-5B) (see Fig. 2B), and wherein each of the second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) form a portion of the first and second opposite peripheral side edges of the article advancer (40), the second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) having a second inner sidewall extending therebetween and forming a second single uninterrupted U-shaped arch (see Figs. 2B and 4C), at least one of the arcuate body (see Fig. 1), the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42), and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) providing a biasing force from the compressed configuration (see Fig. 4A) to the fully dispensed configuration (see Figs. 5A-5B) (see Figs. 4A-5B); the first opposite peripheral side edge (peripheral side edge is the portions extending from 41A to 41 to near 13A – see Fig. 5C, see likewise Figures) of the article advancer extending from a respective first endmost side leg (41, 42) to a respective second endmost side leg (opposite pair of 41, 42), the first opposite peripheral side edge being in a first plane (as shown by 13 – portions 41A and near 13A are both within the plane of 13/13A – see Fig. 5C – see likewise Figures – Examiner notes that the inner wall connecting the two end legs on one peripheral side is also in a plane of its own) and the second opposite peripheral side edge (peripheral side edge is the portions extending from 42A to 42 to near 14A – see Fig. 5C, see likewise Figures) extending from another first endmost side leg (41, 42) to another second endmost side leg (opposite pair of 41, 42), the second opposite peripheral side edge being in a second plane (as shown by 14 – portions 42A and near 14A are both within the plane of 14/14A – see Fig. 5C – see likewise Figures) (see Figs. 1-6), but where if fails to specifically the (entire) first opposite peripheral side edge being in a first plane and the (entire) second opposite peripheral side edge being in a second plane.
Thompson teaches a first opposite peripheral side edge (at 178) of an article advancer extending from a respective first endmost side leg (170, 174) to a respective second endmost side leg (opposite pair of 170, 174), the (entire) first opposite peripheral side edge (at 178) being in a first plane and the second opposite peripheral side edge (opposite side edge of 178) extending from another first endmost side) leg (170 ,174) to another second endmost side leg (opposite pair of 170, 174), the (entire) second opposite peripheral side edge (opposite side edge of 178) being in a second plane (see Figs. 8-9, see Figs. 4 and 5). Re Claims 4 and 12: Thompson teaches wherein at least a portion of an article advancer (30) comprises acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyoxymethylene, nylon, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, or combinations thereof (see paragraph [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Maeda with that of Thompson, to increase or change the contact area or width of the device, while providing alternative constructions of the device as known within the art and suggested by Thompson (paragraph 0026]).
Further Re Claims 2 and 11:
Maeda discloses two first side legs (41, 42) and two second side legs (41, 42) (see Figs. 1-6).
Further Re Claim 3:
Maeda discloses wherein the arcuate body (see Fig. 1), the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42), and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) are integral (see Figs. 1-6).
Further Re Claim 6:
Maeda discloses wherein the distal ends of each of the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42) and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) includes a foot portion (41a, 42a) (see Figs. 5C and 6).
Further Re Claims 7 and 14:
Maeda discloses a platform (40A) positioned between the article advancer (40) and the dispensing opening (21), the platform (40A) configured to support the contents of the container above the article advancer (40) (see Figs. 1-6).
Further Re Claims 8 and 15:
Maeda discloses wherein the container (10) is a box, a bag, or combinations thereof (see Figs. 1-6).
Further Re Claim 9:
Maeda discloses wherein the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42) and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) are generally planar (see Fig. 4B).
Further Re Claim 16:
Maeda discloses a method comprising the steps of: providing a container (10) defining an interior chamber and a dispensing opening (21) for providing access to the interior chamber; positioning the article advancer (40) of claim 1 in the interior chamber; compressing the article advancer (40) to the compressed configuration by placing a plurality of articles (100) in the interior chamber on the article advancer (40), wherein the plurality of first endmost side legs (41, 42) and the plurality of second endmost side legs (opposite pair of 41, 42) move relative to the container (10) as the article advancer (40) moves between the compressed configuration (see Fig. 4A) and the fully dispensed configuration (see Figs. 5A-5B) (see Figs. 1-6).
Further Re Claim 17:
Maeda discloses further comprising the step of removing at least one of the plurality of articles (100) to permit the article advancer (40) to move towards the fully dispensed configuration (see Figs. 5A-5B).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Thompson and further in view of Silvia Alarid Aguilar (US 2016/0288985 – hereinafter Aguilar).
Re Claims 7 and 14:
Maeda in view of Thompson discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach a platform positioned between the article advancer and the dispensing opening, the platform configured to support the contents of the container above the article advancer.
Aguilar further in view teaches a platform (442) positioned between an article advancer (341) and a dispensing opening; the platform (442) configured to support the contents of the container above the article advancer (341) (see Figs. 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Maeda in view of Thompson to include a platform structure as suggested by Aguilar, to allow for increased surface area stability of a stack being biased.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm est.
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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights