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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/27/2026 has been entered.
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 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruman (US 2010/0108707 A1) in view of Wallenius (WO 2016/209124 A1).
Referring to claim 15. Ruman discloses a display of tissue product and packaging for storing and dispensing the tissue product (Para. [0060]: display 10 may contain a plurality of related product forms that comprise tissue products) comprising:
an array of two or more individual tissue products, the two or more individual tissue products having at least one physical property that is different between the individual tissue products (Para. [0060]: tissue products include facial tissue, bath tissues, paper towels, napkins, and wipes; it is implicit that the various tissues products have at least one physical property that is different) and
wherein the each of the two or more individual tissue products comprise a stack of folded tissue sheets and a wrapper at least partially overwrapping the stack, the wrapper being devoid of a dispensing opening (package 30; Figure 5; is equally well suited for holding absorbent articles, such as diapers, training pants, swim pants, adult incontinence products, and feminine hygiene products; Para. [0061])
and
an array of two or more foldabe, substantially flat, carton blanks that may be erected by a user (caddies 22 can be erected from flat blanks; Figure 2) to receive, store, and dispense the individual tissue product, the two or more foldable carton blanks (in caddies 22) having at least one physical property that is different between the two or more foldable carton blanks (plurality of caddies 22) and wherein the foldable carton blanks (Para. [0042]: the display 10 can include a caddy dispenser 20 that hold a plurality of caddies 22 for consumer use; the caddy may comprise a box, a carton, a bag; it is implicit that the caddies are unfilled when they are dispensed to the consumer) comprise a plurality of panels (panels of container 22; Figure 2) and a dispensing opening disposed on at least one of the panels (dispensing opening sized in the full top panel of 22).
Ruman does not disclose wherein the tissue products comprise a stack of folded tissue sheets and a wrapper at least partially overwrapping the stack, the wrapper being devoid of a dispensing opening.
Wallenius discloses a method for forming a package (100; Figure 1) wherein the tissue products (13) comprise a stack of folded tissue sheets (13) and a wrapper (20) at least partially overwrapping the stack, the wrapper being devoid of a dispensing opening (see Figure 1).
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 Ruman to include wherein the tissue products comprise a stack of folded tissue sheets and a wrapper at least partially overwrapping the stack, the wrapper being devoid of a dispensing opening as taught by Wallenius because the replacement cartridge stack can be packaged with using a wrapper thus reducing the overall cost of the packaging material in forming the cartridge.
Referring to claim 16. Ruman discloses the tissue products comprise wet (wet wipes) or dry tissue products (tissue products; Para. [0008]; Para [0025]: the product forms may include absorbent articles such as diapers, training pants ... other product forms may include wiping products such as baby wipes, disposable wash cloths ... toiletry products such as lotions, washes, sunscreens; Para [0026]: variants of the product form may comprise size variation ... scented or unscented ... additional additives or ingredients).
Referring to claim 19. Wallenius discloses a method for forming a package (100; Figure 1) wherein the stack is substantially cubic, and the wrapper consists of either plastic or paper sheet material (see Figure 1).
Referring to claim 20. Ruman discloses a display of consumer products
wherein the at least one physical property that differs amongst the two or more tissue products is selected from surface treatment, surface topography, number of plies, absorbency, caliper, basis weight, bulk, softness, slough, and tensile property (in one embodiment, the display 10 may contain a plurality of related product forms that comprise tissue products. Tissue products include facial tissues, bath tissues, paper towels, napkins, and wipes; Para. [0060]).
Claims 21,22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruman (US 2010/0108707 A1) in view of Wallenius (WO 2016/209124 A1) and further in view of Ronn (US 6,763,944).
Referring to claims 21 and 25. Ruman in view of Wallenius do not specifically disclose wherein the at least one physical property that differs amongst the two or more consumer goods is non-textual indicia selected from visual indicia, textural indica, audio indicia, and scent indicia.
Ronn disclose an array of packaged product dispenser (Figure 2a) wherein the at least one physical property that differs amongst the two or more consumer goods is non-textual indicia (see color of stages in Figure 2a and graphic icons in Figure 1) selected from visual indicia, textural indica, audio indicia, and scent indicia.
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 Ruman in view of Wallenius to include the at least one physical property that differs amongst the two or more consumer goods is non-textual indicia selected from visual indicia as taught by Ronn because a visual indicia would provide an improved familiarity with the product design to a user of the products to be dispensed.
Referring to claim 22. Ruman discloses a display of consumer products
wherein the at least one physical property that differs amongst the two or more packages is selected from material, number of panels, panel configuration, erected size, erected shape, erected volume, dispensing configuration, color, texture, and package graphics (In this embodiment, each product may have at least two variants that may comprise different product sizes. In an alternative embodiment, the related product forms may comprise a greater number of products; Para. [008].
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 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruman (US 2010/0108707 A1) in view of Hallam (US 2012/0223093 A1).
Referring to claim 26. Ruman discloses a display of tissue product and packaging for storing and dispensing the tissue product comprising:
a. an array of two or more tissue products, the two or more tissue products having at least one physical property that is different (Para. [0060]: tissue products include facial tissue, bath tissues, paper towels, napkins, and wipes; it is implicit that the various tissue products have at least one physical property that is different);
b. an array of two or more carton blanks configurable by a user to receive, store, and dispense a tissue product, the two or more carton blank having at least one physical property that is different and wherein the carton blanks are unfilled and displayed in an un-erected state; (Para. [0042]: the display 10 can include a caddy dispenser 20 that hold a plurality of caddies for consumer use; the caddy may comprise a box, a carton, a bag; it is implicit that the caddies are unfilled when they are dispensed to the consumer);
c. an array of two or more erected carton blanks configured to receive, store, and dispense a tissue product, the two or more packages having at least one physical property that is different and wherein the erected carton blanks are unfilled (Para. [0054]: the packages that are contained in the dispenser 10 can comprise packages made from paper, or packages made from paperboard implicitly discloses a tissue carton having a dispensing opening); and
Ruman does not disclose an array of two or more packaged tissue products, each of the two or more packaged tissue products comprising a substantially cubic package comprising a plurality of panels and a dispensing opening disposed on at least one of the panels and a plurality of tissue products disposed within the package.
Hallam discloses a compressed tissue container (60; Figure 1)
wherein two or more packaged tissue products comprising a package comprising a plurality of panels and a dispensing opening disposed on at least one of the panels and a plurality of tissue products disposed within the package (see package 60; Figure 1).
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 Ruman to include the array of two or more packaged tissue products comprising a package comprising a plurality of panels and a dispensing opening disposed on at least one of the panels and a plurality of tissue products disposed within the package as taught by Hallam because the selection of products carried by the array can be expanded thus providing a user with a greater selection of product types for purchase.
Ruman in view of Hallam further do not disclose wherein the packages are unfilled and displayed in an un-erected state.
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 Ruman in view of Hallam to include the stored packages are unfilled and displayed in an un-erected state because displaying storing packages in and an un-erected state would allow the dispenser to house a larger number of packages thus saving storage space within the dispenser.
Furthermore, 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 Ruman in view of Hallam to include each of the two or more packaged tissue products comprising a substantially cubic package because cubic package can be more readily stored in any direction.
Referring to claim 27. Hallam discloses a compressed tissue container (60; Figure 1)
wherein the stack is substantially cubic, and the wrapper consists of either plastic or paper sheet material (see Figure 1).
Referring to claim 28. Ruman discloses a display of consumer products
wherein the at least one physical property that differs amongst the two or more tissue products is selected from surface treatment, surface topography, number of plies, absorbency, caliper, basis weight, bulk, softness, slough, and tensile property (in one embodiment, the display 10 may contain a plurality of related product forms that comprise tissue products. Tissue products include facial tissues, bath tissues, paper towels, napkins, and wipes; Para. [0060]).
Referring to claim 29. Ruman discloses a display of consumer products
wherein the at least one physical property that differs amongst the two or more packages is selected from material, number of panels, panel configuration, erected size, erected shape, erected volume, dispensing configuration, color, texture, and package graphics (In this embodiment, each product may have at least two variants that may comprise different product sizes. In an alternative embodiment, the related product forms may comprise a greater number of products; Para. [008].
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruman (US 2010/0108707 A1) in view of Hallam (US 2012/0223093 A1) and further in view of Ronn (US 6,763,944).
Referring to claim 30. Ruman in view of Hallam do not specifically disclose wherein the at least one physical property that differs amongst the two or more carton blanks is non-textual indicia selected from visual indicia, textural indica, audio indicia, and scent indicia.
Ronn disclose an array of packaged product dispenser (Figure 2a) wherein the at least one physical property that differs amongst the two or more consumer goods is non-textual indicia (see color of stages in Figure 2a and graphic icons in Figure 1) selected from visual indicia, textural indica, audio indicia, and scent indicia.
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 Ruman in view of Hallam to include the at least one physical property that differs amongst the two or more consumer goods is non-textual indicia selected from visual indicia as taught by Ronn because a visual indicia would provide an improved familiarity with the product design to a user of the products to be dispensed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See modified rejections in view of new reference of Wallenius (WO 2016/209124 A1) wherein Wallenius discloses a method for forming a package wherein the tissue products comprise a stack of folded tissue sheets and a wrapper
at least partially overwrapping the stack, the wrapper being devoid of a dispensing opening as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that “the proposed combination lacks a reasoned motivation to combine Ruman and Hallam, which address fundamentally different packaging paradigms. Ruman is directed to bulk-packaged tissue products which are displayed along with carrying sacks, bins and cases, optimized for transport efficiency and bulk distribution,” the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that “Additionally, applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's rejection is based on impermissible hindsight, contrary to the guidance set forth in MPEP § 2145. As the MPEP explains, although "any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning," such reconstruction is only proper when it relies solely on knowledge within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and not on knowledge gleaned from Applicant's disclosure” the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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