Final Rejection
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the limitations “wherein at least one out of said one or more reflective surfaces is located in said storage volume between said storage volume minimum level (Min) and said storage volume maximum level (Max)” as recited in claim 4 lines 1-3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the “at least one possible location of said boundary surface” as recited in claim 28 line 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites the limitations “volume (100)” in line 2. It is suggested the limitations be amended to read -- volume --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “wherein at least one out of said one or more reflective surfaces is located in said storage volume between said storage volume minimum level (Min) and said storage volume maximum level (Max).” in lines 1-3. It is unclear as what reflective surfaces are between said storage volume minimum level (Min) and said storage volume maximum level (Max) which generally is the depth of the stack. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitations “so as to enable determination of a status of said dispenser” in line 17. It is unclear as to what specific status of the dispenser is determined as recited. Similar issues in claims 36, 37,1 and 8. Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1,2,4-23,25-27,30-32 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stralin (US 201/0367401 A1) in view of Wennerberg (US 8,830,118).
Referring to claims 1,7,9, 21,31 and 32. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) and a method (see abstract) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16) for wiping, said dispenser (1) defining a storage volume (interior of 1) for housing a sheet product supply (stack 16) when said dispenser (1) is in use,
said storage volume (interior of 1) extending along said depletion direction (downward direction as shown in Figure 1) at least from a storage volume maximum level (max height of sheet stack 16 when fully loaded) corresponding to a maximum sheet product supply (stack of 16) in said dispenser (1) to a storage volume minimum level (min height of sheet stack 16 when fully depleted) corresponding to no sheet product supply in said dispenser (1),
defining a depletion direction (downwards as the stack 16 is depleted) along which a distance between a boundary surface (top last sheet of 16) of said sheet product supply (stack 16) and the volume level (MAX) (max height of sheet stack 16 when fully loaded) will vary as an amount of sheet product (as stack is depleted) in said dispenser decreases upon feeding of said sheet products from said product supply (see Figure 1);
and said dispenser (1) comprising a sensor (11; Figure 1), such as a radar sensor (ultrasonic sensor); said sensor (11; Figure 1) being configured to emit a sensor beam (transmitter 13); the method comprising;
providing a sensor echo signal (reflective signal) indicative of a distance from said sensor (11) to said boundary surface (top surface of 16; the ultrasonic sensor 11 includes a processor that is configured to determine a distance traversed by the beams 15, 17 to produce an indication of the distance to the top surface 16 of the stack 3; Para. [0075]), and, when one or more reflective surfaces (top surface of 16) at least partially reflecting said sensor beam (ultrasonic beam reflecting from the top surface of 16) are located between said sensor (11) and said boundary surface (top surface of 16), indicative of a distance from said sensor (11) to said reflective surface(s) (top surface of 16), using said sensor; and
determining a status of said dispenser (determine quantity of product remaining; determine a level of the sheet product based on an ultrasonic echo sensed by the ultrasonic level sensor; Para. [0017]) using said sensor echo signal, the status including at least one of (the limitations “at least on of” require only one of the said conditions to be met to satisfy the breath of the claim):
a sheet supply status indicating the amount of sheet product in the storage volume of the dispenser (the processor is configured to receive an echo receipt signal from the ultrasonic level sensor and a beam transmission signal and to determine a distance indication to the sheet product from the signals, which is representative of the level of sheet product in the dispenser; Para. [0026]); and
a dispenser error (condition not considered).
Stralin does not specifically disclose the sensor as a radar sensor.
Wennerberg discloses a radar level gauge system (1; Figure 1a) wherein the sensor is a radar sensor (2; Figure 1b; he embodiment of the operation monitoring device 1 illustrated in FIG. 1a, it additionally functions as a radar level gauge system for determining the filling level of the product in the tank. Accordingly, the measurement electronics unit 2 also determines the distance between a reference position (such as the tank ceiling) and the surface 7 of the product 6, whereby the filling level can be deduced; Col. 9 line 13).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Stralin to include the sensor as a radar sensor as taught by Wennerberg because a radar sensor would be less affected by temperature, humidity variations and other obstructive surfaces thus providing an improved level detection from the boundary surface of the stack.
Referring to claims 2 and 23. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16),
wherein said boundary surface (top surface of 16) is a surface of said sheet product supply (stack of 16) from which sheet product (sheet of stack 16) is fed when said dispenser is in use.
Referring to claims 4 and 25. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16) for wiping,
for at least one possible location of said boundary surface (a location on top surface of 16; Figure 1) in said storage volume (interior of 1), at least one out of said one or more reflective surfaces (plurality of reflective surface consisting surfaces within the stack and sidewalls of the dispenser) is located in said storage volume (interior of 1) between said storage volume minimum level (depleted stack) and said storage volume maximum level (full level of stack) , when said dispenser is in use.
Referring to claims 5,6,26 and 27. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16),
wherein at least one of said one or more reflective surfaces (plurality of boundary surface locations on the top surface of 16) comprises a dispenser element (wall of the dispenser or top surface of the stack).
Referring to claim 8. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16) for wiping,
wherein said sensor echo signal indicates a sensor signal amplitude (ultrasonic signal from sensor; Stralin; or radar signal; Wennerberg), and said step of determining said status of said dispenser comprises determining said status based on said sensor echo signal amplitude (the first echo of the ultrasonic energy is detected. That is, the beam travels to and from the stack or the roll product and the distance determinations are made based on this first echo; Para. [0111]; see Figures 2b-4c; Wennerberg).
Referring to claim 10. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16) for wiping,
wherein said step of determining said status of said dispenser comprises comparing said sensor echo signal to one or more reference sensor echo signals (In one aspect, the ultrasonic level sensor is configured to emit an ultrasonic beam and sense an echo to allow a determination to be made on the level of the sheet product contained in the dispenser. (In one aspect, the level sensor is configured to emit an ultrasonic beam at a surface of the sheet product or a surface indicative of the level of the sheet product and sense an echo received from the surface to allow a determination to be made on the level of the sheet product contained in the dispenser; Para. [0004]; In an aspect of the system, the processor is configured to compare a signal from the ultrasonic level sensor concerning the ultrasonic beam echo sensed with a signal concerning the ultrasonic beam emitted to determine an indicator of a distance to the sheet product, wherein the distance changes as the sheet product level changes to determine the level of the sheet product in the dispenser; Para. 0028]).
Referring to claims 11,12,14 and 15. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16) for wiping,
wherein said one or more reference sensor echo signals comprises an empty dispenser reference signal retrieved from said dispenser (1) with no sheet product supply therein (In aspects of the system, the processor is configured to determine at least three (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more) discrete levels of sheet product contained in the dispenser from the ultrasonic echo or to determine the sheet product level in a continuous manner as the sheet product depletes from the dispenser. The method may also perform such a discrete or continuous sheet product level determination from the ultrasonic echo; Para. [0029]; radar signal; see Figures 2b-4c; Wennerberg).
Referring to claims 13,16 and 17. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16) for wiping,
wherein said predetermined status is one out of a ready to refill status, a sufficiently filled status and a close to depleted status (as the sheet product is dispensed from the dispenser, the distance that the ultrasonic beam traverses for the ultrasonic sensor to detect the echo progressively increases. In one aspect, it is this change in distance as the sheet product depletes that allows the ultrasonic sensor to produce a quantitative representation of the extent of sheet product depletion from a full condition to an empty condition. Para. [0067] and The information sent from the dispensers via the local processing units may allow the external processing unit to determine when a new product cartridge or refill has been inserted in the dispenser; Para. [0104])).
Referring to claim 18. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16) for wiping, wherein
a control unit (see Figure 3 and 4) is configured to perform the steps of claim 1.
Referring to claims 19 and 20. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16) for wiping, wherein
a computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps when said program is run on a computer (see Figure 4 wherein the steps are performed on a processor by a computer program algorithm).
Referring to claim 22. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16) for wiping,
wherein said sensor (11) is arranged to provide a sensor echo signal from said storage volume (interior of 1) indicative of said distance from said sensor (11) to said boundary surface (top surface of 16) for all possible locations of said boundary surface (top surface of 16) between said storage volume minimum level to said storage volume maximum level (the sensor 11 is operative detect the status when the stack 16 is at a maximum level and at a depleted level).
Referring to claim 30. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16) for wiping,
said sensor (11) is arranged with respect to said sheet product supply such that a propagation direction of said sensor beam (see 15; Figure 1) has a positive component along said depletion direction (see objection above), preferably said propagation direction is generally parallel to said depletion direction (see Figure 1).
Referring to claim 36. Stralin discloses a system (1; Figure 1) for evaluating a status of a dispenser (1) for dispensing a sheet product for wiping (sheet 3), the system comprising a dispenser (1) and including a control unit (LPU1; Figure 4) configured to perform the steps of:
providing a sensor echo signal indicative of a distance from said sensor to said boundary surface (top surface of 16; the ultrasonic sensor 11 includes a processor that is configured to determine a distance traversed by the beams 15, 17 to produce an indication of the distance to the top surface 16 of the stack 3; Para. [0075]), and, when one (top surface of 16; Figure 1) or more reflective surfaces at least partially reflecting said sensor beam are located between said sensor (11) and said boundary surface (surface of 16), indicative of a distance from said sensor to said reflective surface(s), using said sensor (11); and
determining a status of said dispenser using said sensor echo signal (determining the quantity of sheets remaining).
Referring to claim 37. Stralin discloses a system (1; Figure 1)
monitoring system comprising one or more systems (see Figure 3 and 4),
wherein said systems are configured to report a determined status of said dispenser of said system to a local processing unit or to an external processing unit (see Figure 4).
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.
Claims 3,24 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stralin (US 201/0367401 A1) in view of Wennerberg (US 8,830,118) and further in view of Kling (US 7,954,405).
Referring to claims 3 and 24. Stralin discloses a dispenser (1; Figure 1) for dispensing a sheet product (sheet of 16),
wherein at least one out of said one or more reflective surfaces (plurality of boundary surface locations on the top surface of 16, for example top left and right corners of the stack and the vertical wall portion of the housing portion defined above the stack 3) is located between said sensor (11) and said boundary surface (top surface of 16; Figure 1),
Stralin in view of Wennerberg does not disclose the sheet product travels in a direction towards the sensor and along a web path when said dispenser is in use.
Kling disclose a paper towel dispenser (1; Figure 2) wherein the sheet product is fed from the top side when said dispenser is in use (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Stralin in view of Wennerberg to include wherein the sheet product is fed from the top side when said dispenser is in use as taught by Kling because the dispenser can be placed on a supporting surface wherein access to the dispenser opening from the bottom of the dispenser would inoperable thus
Referring to claim 28. Kling disclose a paper towel dispenser (1; Figure 2) wherein
said dispenser (1) comprises a web path (see web path of sheet) along which sheet product is fed from said sheet product supply (stack 6) when said dispenser is in use, and, for at least one possible location of said boundary surface (top of sheet product stack 16; Stralin) in said storage volume (interior of 1; Stralin), said web path (see web path of sheet) extends between said sensor (11; Stralin) and said boundary surface (top surface of 16; Stralin).
Referring to claim 29. Kling disclose a paper towel dispenser (1; Figure 2) wherein
said dispenser (1) comprises a dispensing opening (9) and said web path (see web path of sheet) is a path in said dispenser (1) along which said sheet product is fed from said sheet product supply (stack 6) when present in said storage volume (interior of 1) to said dispensing opening (9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See modified rejections cited above including new reference of in view of Wennerberg (US 8,830,118). Wennerberg discloses a radar level gauge system wherein the sensor is a radar sensor.
Applicant amendment to the Drawings and the Specification is acceptable and is entered.
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 RAKESH KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8314. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-6:30PM 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.
/RAKESH KUMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights