DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 5/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18remain pending in the application.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the mouth gap and finger-receiving pincer zone being sized to permit sufficient depth to permit a user's fingers to pincer the articulating paper that extends across the mouth gap without contacting the articulating paper dispenser.” Is indefinite. Examiner notes that “being sized to permit sufficient depth to permit” is a positive requirement of the part following, however in this case, the part follow is a human part, as a size of a human part is indefinite and can not be claimed, the limitation is unclear of the requirement.
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 1-5 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinkey (US 3217955) in view of Krueger (US 2654154).
Regarding claim 1, Tinkey teaches an articulating paper dispenser (examiner notes that the dispensed material of “articulating paper” is not required by the device of the dispenser, therefore, the “articulating paper” itself is interpreted as not required by the claim) comprising:
an articulating-paper-roll retainer (20) with a housing (16) that defines an articulating-roll receiving interior (space in 16) and a paper outlet (side opening by door 30);
a blade arm (28) extended from the housing by a branch base part of the blade arm that spaces a stem part of the blade arm a fixed distance away from the housing to define a finger-receiving pincer zone between the housing and the stem part of the blade arm (see Figure 2), the stem part of the blade arm attaching a paper-cutting blade (26) that is oriented to cut articulating paper that extends (see Figure 2), in use, across a mouth gap (18) that opens into the finger-receiving pincer zone and is defined between the paper outlet and the paper-cutting blade (see Figure 2), the mouth gap and finger-receiving pincer zone being sized to permit sufficient depth to permit a user's fingers to pincer the articulating paper that extends across the mouth gap without contacting the articulating paper dispenser (with the 112b above, as the size of a “user’s finger” can be any size, from a human baby to a giant gorilla, the examiner considered met as the user’s finger can be small).
Tinkey fails to teach a paper-cutting blade is mounting on the blade arm.
Krueger teaches a blade arm (26) with a paper-cutting blade (25) mounted on (See Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill in the art to modify the device of Tinkey to make a blade arm and a paper-cutting blade into two parts, as taught by Krueger. Since the courts have held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. MEPE 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 2, modified Tinkey further teaches which the blade arm depends below a base of the housing (as the device can be carried in a 3D space, as such the blade arm can be oriented below the base, see Figure 1 of Tinkey).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tinkey further teaches the blade arm comprises a branch base part (28) and a stem part (26); the stem part mounts the paper-cutting blade; and the branch base part depends from at or near a rear end of the housing (as the branch is not in the middle of the left side, it is closer to top more than the bottom side, the examiner is interpreting the top side as “a rear end” at least in the orientation of rotating Figure 2 in CCW by 90 degrees, thus meeting the limitation, see Figure 2 of Tinkey).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tinkey further teaches which the stem part extends parallel with an underside of the base of the housing to define the finger-receiving pincer zone (see Figure 2 of Tinkey).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tinkey further teaches which a lateral terminal tip of the stem part mounts the paper-cutting blade (as modified, see Figure 2 of Tinkey).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tinkey further teaches which the articulating-paper-roll retainer is structured to receive, in use, an articulating-paper-roll cartridge (roll axis of 20, see Figure 2 of Tinkey).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tinkey further teaches the housing has a peripheral encircling wall (16 and 36) that is split at a front part to define the paper outlet, with the peripheral encircling wall defining a paper roll mounting axis (axis of 20, see Figure 1 of Tinkey).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tinkey further teaches which the housing defines opposed sides, which are bounded by the peripheral encircling wall, and one or more of which are open (side of 30, see Figure 1 of Tinkey).
Regarding claim 15, modified Tinkey further teaches an open side of the opposed sides is defined by a paper-roll insertion door (30, see Figure 1 of Tinkey).
Regarding claim 16, modified Tinkey further teaches which the other of the opposed sides is defined by a cover wall (12, see Figure 1 of Tinkey).
Regarding claim 17, modified Tinkey further teaches wall-mounting fastener holes in a rear wall (12, in this case) facing part of the articulating paper dispenser (hole 14 on 12, see Figure 1).
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinkey (US 3217955) in view of Krueger (US 2654154) and in further view of Schafer (Us 5100038).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tinkey teaches all elements of the claim 1 as set forth above.
Modified Tinkey fails to teach a pressure adjuster part structured to apply adjustable friction pressure to articulating paper that is mounted, in use, within the articulating-paper-roll retainer.
Schafer teaches a dispenser including a pressure adjuster part (46) structured to apply adjustable friction pressure to the dispensed material (see Figures 2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Tinkey to add the pressure adjuster part, as taught by Schafer, in order to better control the tension of the material being dispensed (abstract of Schafer).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tinkey further teaches the pressure adjuster part comprises a threaded knob (as modified, 42 of Schafer, see Figure 7 of Schafer).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tinkey further teaches the pressure adjuster part comprises, or is structured to engage, the articulating paper or a cantilever part that is, at least in use, within the articulating-roll-receiving interior and is oriented to swing radially inward with advancement of the pressure adjuster part, to selectively reduce an articulating paper-thickness gap defined between an articulating-paper ramp and the cantilever part (as modified, 42 of Schafer, see Figure 7 of Schafer).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tinkey further teaches which the cantilever part is mounted to depend from an inner surface of the housing in the articulating-roll-receiving interior (as modified, 42 of Schafer, see Figure 7 of Schafer).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tinkey further teaches the cantilever part and the articulating-paper ramp are located at or near a front end of the articulating-roll-receiving interior (as modified, 42 of Schafer, see Figure 7 of Schafer).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tinkey further teaches which the pressure adjuster part is structured to engage a cantilever part of an articulating-paper roll cartridge mounted, in use, within the articulating-roll-receiving interior (as modified, 42 of Schafer, see Figure 7 of Schafer).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinkey (US 3217955) in view of Krueger (US 2654154) and in further view of Gordon (US 7987810 B1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tinkey further teaches which the articulating-paper-roll retainer is structured to receive, in use, an articulating-paper-roll cartridge (roll axis of 20, see Figure 2 of Tinkey).
In case applicant intended to claim “an articulating-paper-roll cartridge” as part of the device, then Tinkey fails to teach an articulating-paper-roll cartridge.
Gordon teaches a dispenser with an articulating-paper-roll cartridge (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Tinkey to fit in an articulating-paper-roll cartridge, as taught by Gordon. As one of ordinary skill in the art understand that the dispenser of Tinkey can be used to dispense any similar rolled material, such as an articulating-paper-roll cartridge of Gordon.
Regarding claim 18, modified Tinkey teaches all elements of the claim 1 as set forth above.
Modified Tinkey fails to teach a method comprising mounting an articulating paper roll within the articulating-roll receiving interior of the articulating paper dispenser of claim 1.
Gordon teaches a dispenser with an articulating-paper-roll cartridge (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Tinkey to fit in an articulating-paper-roll cartridge, as taught by Gordon. As one of ordinary skill in the art understand that the dispenser of Tinkey can be used to dispense any similar rolled material, such as an articulating-paper-roll cartridge of Gordon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Tinkey in view of Krueger fails to teach the size required in claim 1. Examiner notes that “the mouth gap and finger-receiving pincer zone being sized to permit sufficient depth to permit a user's fingers to pincer the articulating paper that extends across the mouth gap without contacting the articulating paper dispenser.” Is indefinite. Examiner notes that “being sized to permit sufficient depth to permit” is a positive requirement of the part following, however in this case, the part follow is a human part, as a size of a human part is indefinite and can not be claimed, the limitation is unclear of the requirement. And with the 112b above, as the size of a “user’s finger” can be any size, from a human baby to a giant gorilla, the examiner considered met as the user’s finger can be small.
Conclusion
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights