DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach and/or suggest all the limitations of independent claim 12. Specifically, Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art could not combine Case with both Anderson and Danis as alleged as it would frustrate the purpose of the references cited. However, nowhere does Anderson describe an embodiment wherein a connection hub has at least two diameters to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying core diameters and widths. While Anderson provides that different fin sizes may be provided, the spindle and fins are of a set static size and once in place cannot accommodate rolls of different diameters. In contrast, as seen in Fig. 13 of the present application provided below, the telescoping portions of the connection hub of the present claims allow for different anchor points for sized diameter of cores within a single connection hub. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that Anderson fails to provide a connection hub comprising at least two diameters to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying core diameters and widths. Nevertheless, even if one of ordinary skill in the art were to combine the references as alleged, which Applicant continues to respectfully submit is improper, the combination still fails to provide for the features of claim 13, now incorporated into independent claim 12. In rejecting claim 13, the Office Action cites to Danis as allegedly disclosing "wherein the connection hub (1040 includes one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions." (See Office Action pages 3-4). However, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Case, Anderson and Danis is inoperable. Applicant notes that if a proposal for modifying the prior art in an effort to attain the claimed invention causes the art to become inoperable or destroys its intended function, then the requisite motivation to make the modification would not have existed. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
For instance, the Office Action alleges that "the housing configured to receive the one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions of the connection hub because it's a very well-known conventional configuration and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation." (See Office Action, page 4). Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the Office Action fails to provide proper motivation to combine Danis with the combination of Case and Anderson, and that such a combination would render the system inoperable. Specifically, if the spindle and sleeve of Anderson were implemented as the connection hub in the dispenser of Case, it would not be possible to simultaneously have a connection hub with spring-loaded telescoping portions. As discussed in Anderson, the plurality of fins radially disposed on the outer diameter circumferentially support the inner diameter of a core. (See Abstract). Anderson provides no embodiment where there are multiple sets of fins on a single sleeve or any indication that the fins can be retracted in order to provide a spring-loaded telescoping portion and reveal a new set of fins with a different diameter. In contrast, Danis describes a conventional spindle with a spring biasing the opposing ends of the spindle where the core of the roll rests upon the spindle. (See [0031]). Danis describes no embodiment where the spindle is capable of supporting cores of varying diameters. Thus, it is unclear how the telescoping spindle of Danis could be implemented in the combination of Anderson and Case including the sleeve and fin connection hub cited by the Office Action. Therefore, if the spring-loaded telescoping portion of the spindle of Danis were to be implemented in the dispenser of Case it would be in place of the connection hub of Anderson but if one of ordinary skill in the art were to combine Case, Anderson, and Danis the resulting connection hub would be inoperable at least from preventing any means for the telescoping portion to retract as alleged. Thus, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine all three of the references as alleged and the cited combination of references fails to provide for each and every feature of independent claim 12.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant. The modified rejection of claim 12 using Case, Anderson, and Danis is herein restated:
Claim 12, Case discloses a dispenser for sheet materials comprising: a back frame assembly (110) and a front cover assembly (115) configured to form a housing having an interior volume so as to retain at least one roll of sheet material; one or more roll support members (120) disposed within the housing to retain the at least one roll of sheet material, the one or more roll support members including a first
end (190) configured to support a roll of sheet material and a second end (141) configured to securely attach to the back frame assembly, at least one of the one or more roll support members includes a connection hub (185,190) having at least two diameters (see fig.6 which illustrates 2 diameters) to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying widths (para.0031).
Case does not disclose a connection hub to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying core diameters; wherein the connection hub (185,190) includes one or more spring- loaded telescoping portions, the housing configured to receive the one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions of the connection hub.
Anderson discloses a connection hub (40R) to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying core diameters (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Case with a connection hub to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying core diameters to further enable the dispenser to allow dispensing sheets from a versatile core size tissue dispenser.
Danis discloses wherein the connection hub (104) includes one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions (para.0031), the housing (16) configured to receive the one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions of the connection hub (104). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Case with wherein the connection hub includes one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions, the housing configured to receive the one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions of the connection hub because It's a very well-known conventional configuration in the art for supporting rolls of paper products and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the motivation to combine the teachings of Case, Anderson, and Danis to arrive at all the limitations recited in claim 12 of the instant application. The prior art of Case, Anderson, and Danis pertain to dispensing assembly for roll of paper products with Anderson and Case prior art particularly for dispensing assembly for roll of paper products having different sizes. Furthermore, the applicant is herein referred to the new rejection of claim 12 using the Case, Anderson, and Ko references.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach and/or suggest all the limitations of independent claim 17. Applicant alleges that the Elliot prior art fails to provide for a support panel including connection hubs. Applicant further alleges that the mandrel member of Elliot Is not equivalent to the support panel of the present application. The mandrel member 20 of Elliot does not have an end secured to the back frame assembly. Elliot fails to provide for the support panel including one or more connection hubs for supporting the at least one roll of sheet material.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant. The rejection of claim 17 is herein restated with explanatory comments embedded therein:
Claim 17, Elliot discloses a dispenser for dispensing sheet materials, comprising, a back frame assembly (fig.7e; back frame portion wherein 34 is affixed to; 20 is attached to 34) and a front cover assembly (40) configured to form a housing having an interior volume so as to retain at least one roll of sheet material; a support panel (20; element 20 is a support panel as it clearly supports the rolls of paper products and can be defined as a panel) secured having a first end secured to the back frame assembly (fig.7e; back frame portion wherein 34 is affixed to; 20 is attached to 34); and one or more roll support members (22,24), the one or more roll support members including a first end (fig.3b; by point A) configured to support a roll of sheet material and a second end (fig.2b; fig.5; end by 26) configured with a hinge (fig.5; by 24 that allows pivoting in and out of the dispenser) secured to the back frame assembly (see figures; fig.7e) such that the one or more roll support members (22,24) is capable of pivoting about the hinge (fig.5; by 24 that allows pivoting in and out of the dispenser) in order to accommodate rolls of sheet material having varying widths (see figures; varying widths of rolls can be accommodated inside the dispenser as long as they fit onto 22,24), wherein a first side of the at least one roll of sheet material is supported by the support panel (20) and a second side of the at least one roll of sheet material is supported by the one or more roll support members (22,24); wherein the support panel (20) includes one or more supporting nubs (28; fig.6a) and/or one or more connection hubs for supporting the at least one roll of sheet material (element 28 is a retaining member that is a component that support the roll of sheet material).
Elliot does not disclose a second end configured with a spring loaded hinge.
Tharp discloses a second end (16) configured with a spring loaded hinge (26). Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Elliot with a second end configured with a spring loaded hinge in order to have a side arm that is pivotally mounted so as to pivot about an axis, which is a configuration well-known in the art for roll dispensers.
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 12,14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case et al. (US 2011/0210198) in view of Anderson (US 2007/0290094) in view of Danis (US 2020/0196807).
Claim 12, Case discloses a dispenser for sheet materials comprising: a back frame assembly (110) and a front cover assembly (115) configured to form a housing having an interior volume so as to retain at least one roll of sheet material; one or more roll support members (120) disposed within the housing to retain the at least one roll of sheet material, the one or more roll support members including a first
end (190) configured to support a roll of sheet material and a second end (141) configured to securely attach to the back frame assembly, at least one of the one or more roll support members includes a connection hub (185,190) having at least two diameters (see fig.6 which illustrates 2 diameters) to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying widths (para.0031).
Case does not disclose a connection hub to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying core diameters; wherein the connection hub (185,190) includes one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions, the housing configured to receive the one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions of the connection hub.
Anderson discloses a connection hub (40R) to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying core diameters (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Case with a connection hub to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying core diameters to further enable the dispenser to allow dispensing sheets from a versatile core size tissue dispenser.
Danis discloses wherein the connection hub (104) includes one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions (para.0031), the housing (16) configured to receive the one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions of the connection hub (104). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Case with wherein the connection hub includes one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions, the housing configured to receive the one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions of the connection hub because It's a very well-known conventional configuration in the art for supporting rolls of paper products and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 14, Case discloses a dispensing mechanism (117) contained within the housing for dispensing the sheet material.
Claim 15, Case discloses an opening (118) configured to allow a user to access the sheet material.
Claim 16, Case discloses wherein the roll of sheet material comprises a roll of paper towels (see figures) for dispensing paper towels from the dispenser.
Claims 12,14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case et al. (US 2011/0210198) in view of Anderson (US 2007/0290094) in view of Ko (US 2007/0131818).
Claim 12, Case discloses a dispenser for sheet materials comprising: a back frame assembly (110) and a front cover assembly (115) configured to form a housing having an interior volume so as to retain at least one roll of sheet material; one or more roll support members (120) disposed within the housing to retain the at least one roll of sheet material, the one or more roll support members including a first
end (190) configured to support a roll of sheet material and a second end (141) configured to securely attach to the back frame assembly, at least one of the one or more roll support members includes a connection hub (185,190) having at least two diameters (see fig.6 which illustrates 2 diameters) to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying widths (para.0031).
Case does not disclose a connection hub to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying core diameters; wherein the connection hub (185,190) includes one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions, the housing configured to receive the one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions of the connection hub.
Anderson discloses a connection hub (40R) to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying core diameters (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Case with a connection hub to facilitate supporting of rolls of sheet material having varying core diameters to further enable the dispenser to allow dispensing sheets from a versatile core size tissue dispenser.
Ko discloses wherein the connection hub (60) includes one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions (64; 40), the housing (22) configured to receive the one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions of the connection hub (60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Case with wherein the connection hub includes one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions, the housing configured to receive the one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions of the connection hub because It's a very well-known conventional configuration in the art for supporting rolls of paper products and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 14, Case discloses a dispensing mechanism (117) contained within the housing for dispensing the sheet material.
Claim 15, Case discloses an opening (118) configured to allow a user to access the sheet material.
Claim 16, Case discloses wherein the roll of sheet material comprises a roll of paper towels (see figures) for dispensing paper towels from the dispenser.
Claims 17,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot et al. (US 2022/0313030) in view of Tharp (US 5,149,003).
Claim 17, Elliot discloses a dispenser for dispensing sheet materials, comprising, a back frame assembly (fig.7e; back frame portion wherein 34 is affixed to; 20 is attached to 34) and a front cover assembly (40) configured to form a housing having an interior volume so as to retain at least one roll of sheet material; a support panel (20; element 20 is a support panel as it clearly supports the rolls of paper products and can be defined as a panel) secured having a first end secured to the back frame assembly (fig.7e; back frame portion wherein 34 is affixed to; 20 is attached to 34); and one or more roll support members (22,24), the one or more roll support members including a first end (fig.3b; by point A) configured to support a roll of sheet material and a second end (fig.2b; fig.5; end by 26) configured with a hinge (fig.5; by 24 that allows pivoting in and out of the dispenser) secured to the back frame assembly (see figures; fig.7e) such that the one or more roll support members (22,24) is capable of pivoting about the hinge (fig.5; by 24 that allows pivoting in and out of the dispenser) in order to accommodate rolls of sheet material having varying widths (see figures; varying widths of rolls can be accommodated inside the dispenser as long as they fit onto 22,24), wherein a first side of the at least one roll of sheet material is supported by the support panel (20) and a second side of the at least one roll of sheet material is supported by the one or more roll support members (22,24); wherein the support panel (20) includes one or more supporting nubs (28; fig.6a) and/or one or more connection hubs for supporting the at least one roll of sheet material (element 28 is a retaining member that is a component that support the roll of sheet material).
Elliot does not disclose a second end configured with a spring loaded hinge.
Tharp discloses a second end (16) configured with a spring loaded hinge (26). Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Elliot with a second end configured with a spring loaded hinge in order to have a side arm that is pivotally mounted so as to pivot about an axis, which is a configuration well-known in the art for roll dispensers.
Claim 20, Elliot discloses wherein the dispenser is configured to support at least four rolls of sheet material (see figures; the dispenser of Elliot is fully capable of supporting at least four rolls of sheet material because this greatly depends on the size of the rolls of sheet materials).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot et al. (US 2022/0313030) in view of Tharp (US 5,149,003) in view of Danis (US 2020/0196807).
Claim 18, Elliot discloses wherein the first end (fig.3b; by point A) of the one or more roll support members (22,24) is configured with a connection hub (fig.6a-6b).
Elliot does not disclose the connection hub including one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions.
Danis discloses the connection hub (104) including one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions (para.0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Elliot with the connection hub including one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions because It's a very well-known conventional configuration in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot et al. (US 2022/0313030) in view of Tharp (US 5,149,003) in view of Ko (US 2007/0131818).
Claim 18, Elliot discloses wherein the first end (fig.3b; by point A) of the one or more roll support members (22,24) is configured with a connection hub (fig.6a-6b).
Elliot does not disclose the connection hub including one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions.
Ko discloses the connection hub (60) including one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions (64,40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the dispenser of Elliot with the connection hub including one or more spring-loaded telescoping portions because It's a very well-known conventional configuration in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: A dispenser for sheet materials including "the back frame assembly including one or more mounting tracks disposed on an internal surface of the back frame assembly; and one or more roll support members, the one or more roll support members including a first end configured to support a roll of sheet material and a second end configured to engage the one or more mounting tracks to attach the one or more roll support members to the back frame assembly, wherein the one or more roll support members can be positioned at various locations in the one or more mounting tracks in order to accommodate rolls of sheet material having varying widths " in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights