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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the office action has not mapped Brickl and Baer to each and every limitation of claim 1.
In response, the Applicant is herein referred the rejection of claim 1 using Brickl and Baer with every limitation clearly mapped.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach and/or suggest the limitations of newly amended claim 1.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant. Brickl and Baer both teach and/or suggest wherein each inner dimension of the opening is at least as large as a corresponding adjacent inner dimension of the cavity such that the opening provides substantially no ligature points. The Applicant is referred to the 102 rejections presented in the office action using both the Brickl and Baer references.
Applicant argues that the any modification of Baer to teach each inner dimension of the opening is at least as large as a corresponding adjacent inner dimension of the cavity such that the opening provides substantially no ligature points would impermissibly change the principle of operation of Baer.
In response, Applicant’s arguments with respect to any modifications made to the Baer prior art to teach the limitations of claim 1 are moot since no such modification was presented in the office action.
Applicant argues that any modification of Brickl to teach each inner dimension of the opening is at least as large as a corresponding adjacent inner dimension of the cavity such that the opening provides substantially no ligature points would impermissibly change the principle of operation of Brickl.
In response, Applicant’s arguments with respect to any modifications made to the Brickl prior art are moot since no such modification was presented in the office action. Thus, all of Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,4-5,9,13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brickl et al. (US 2015/0265108).
Claim 1, Brickl discloses a hand towel (hand towels are stack of sheet products) dispenser comprising: an opening (fig.2; opening that surrounds tabs 15) for accessing hand towels stored in the dispenser (figs.1-2); an inner surface (see fig.2) extending from the opening (fig.2; opening that surrounds tabs 15), wherein the inner surface defines an internal cavity within the dispenser for storing hand towels (fig.2), and wherein each inner dimension of the opening (fig.2; opening that surrounds tabs 15) is at least as large as a corresponding adjacent inner dimension of the cavity (fig.2) such that the opening (fig.2; opening that surrounds tabs 15) provides substantially no ligature points; and a plurality of flexible tabs (15; figs.2-4c; para.0092) located at the opening (fig.2; opening that surrounds tabs 15), the tabs arranged to retain hand towels within the cavity.
Claim 4, Brickl discloses wherein the plurality of flexible tabs (15; figs.2-4c; para.0092) comprises at least two tabs which are located at opposite sides of the opening from one another.
Claim 5, Brickl discloses wherein the opening is substantially rectangular in shape (fig.2).
Claim 9, Brickl discloses a planar surface (under surface of 8 which rests on the wall of a counter top) for attachment to a wall.
Claim 13, Brickl discloses wherein the cavity is substantially rectangular in cross-section (see figures).
Claim 14, Brickl discloses wherein the inner surface comprises four planar side surfaces (see figures), and a planar end surface at a distal end of the internal cavity from the opening, and wherein each planar side surface extends from a respective edge of the opening (see figures).
Claim 15, Brickl discloses wherein an upper outer surface (fig.1; outer top portion by 6 on the far left & right) of the dispenser that is at an opposite side of the dispenser from the opening (7), is sloped.
Claim 16, Brickl discloses wherein an upper outer surface (fig.1; outer top portion by 6 on the far left & right) of the dispenser that is at an opposite side of the dispenser from the opening (7) is sloped downwards (fig;1) from the planar surface (see figures).
Claims 1,4-8,11,17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baer et al. (US 2011/0011878).
Claim 1, Baer discloses a hand towel dispenser comprising: an opening (opening that lid 6 covers) for accessing hand towels stored in the dispenser (fig.1); an inner surface (see fig.4) extending from the opening (opening that lid 6 covers), wherein the inner surface defines an internal cavity within the dispenser for storing hand towels (figs.1-4), and wherein each inner dimension of the opening (opening that lid 6 covers) is at least as large as a corresponding adjacent inner dimension of the cavity (fig.4) such that the opening (opening that lid 6 covers) provides substantially no ligature points; and a plurality of flexible tabs (33,37) located at the opening (opening that lid 6 covers), the tabs (33,37) arranged to retain hand towels within the cavity.
Claim 4, Baer discloses wherein the plurality of flexible tabs (33,37) comprises at least two tabs which are located at opposite sides of the opening from one another.
Claim 5, Baer discloses wherein the opening is substantially rectangular in shape (fig.3).
Claim 6, Baer discloses wherein the plurality of tabs comprises two tabs (49,51) located along a first long edge of the opening, and two tabs (83,84) located along an opposing second long edge of the opening.
Claim 7, Baer discloses wherein the two tabs (49,51) located along the first long edge are separated from one another by a first distance, and wherein the two tabs (83,84) located along the second long edge are separated from one another by a second distance that is shorter than the first distance (fig.2).
Claim 8, Baer discloses wherein the two tabs (49,51) located along the first long edge are equally spaced from a midpoint thereof; and wherein the two tabs (83,84) located along the second long edge are equally spaced from a midpoint thereof.
Claim 11, Baer discloses wherein the dispenser is of hollow construction (see figures).
Claim 17, Baer discloses wherein each of the plurality of tabs is tapered (33,37; fig.2).
Claim 18, Baer discloses wherein each of the plurality of tabs is rounded (33,37; fig.2).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baer et al. (US
2011/0011878) in view of Reedy et al. (US 2009/0314793).
Claim 2, Baer discloses wherein the inner surface comprises an end surface defining a distal end of the cavity from the opening (fig.2).
Baer does not disclose wherein the inner surface is arranged such that an inner dimension of the cavity is largest at the opening and tapers towards the end surface.
Reedy discloses wherein the inner surface is arranged such that an inner dimension of the cavity is largest at the opening and tapers towards the end surface (fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Baer with wherein the inner surface is arranged such that an inner dimension of the cavity is largest at the opening and tapers towards the end surface because tapering the sidewall of a sheet dispenser is very well-known in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 3, Baer does not disclose wherein the inner surface is arranged such that each inner dimension of the cavity is largest at the opening and tapers towards the end surface.
Reedy discloses wherein the inner surface is arranged such that each inner dimension of the cavity is largest at the opening and tapers towards the end surface (fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Baer with wherein the inner surface is arranged such that each inner dimension of the cavity is largest at the opening and tapers towards the end surface because tapering the sidewall of a sheet dispenser is very well-known in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baer et al. (US 2011/0011878) in view of Knudsen (US 2011/0192862).
Claim 10, Baer does not disclose a planar surface for attachment to a wall, wherein the long edges of the opening are oriented substantially perpendicular to the planar surface.
Knudsen discloses a planar surface (28) for attachment to a wall, wherein the long edges of the opening are oriented substantially perpendicular to the planar surface (fig.3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Baer with wherein the long edges of the opening are oriented substantially perpendicular to the planar surface simply to enable a wall mount configuration.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baer et al. (US 2011/0011878) in view of Maissami (US 7,604,146).
Claim 12, Baer does not disclose formed by rotational moulding.
Maissami discloses formed by rotational moulding (C5:L10-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Baer with formed by rotational moulding because it is very well-known in the art to employ rotational moulding in the manufacturing process.
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 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
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights