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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/7/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach and/or suggest the limitations of independent claim 1.
In response, the Applicant is herein referred to the new rejection of claim 1 using Chan et al. (US 6,352,172) in view of Brickl et al. (US 2015/0265108).
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 1,4-8,11,13-14,17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 6,352,172) in view of Brickl et al. (US 2015/0265108).
Claim 1, Chan discloses a hand towel dispenser for dispensing folded paper hand towels, the hand towel dispenser comprising: a rectangular opening (dispensing face 20 is construed as the rectangular opening) for accessing hand towels stored in the dispenser (fig.1); an inner surface extending from the opening (figs.1-2; internal cavity 14), wherein the inner surface defines a rectangular internal cavity within the dispenser for storing the folded paper hand towels (fig.2), and wherein each inner dimension of the opening (dispensing face 20 is construed as the rectangular opening; fig.1; inner dimension of dispensing face 20) is at least as large as a corresponding adjacent inner dimension of the cavity (figs.1-2; internal cavity 14) such that the opening (20) provides substantially no ligature points, and wherein the inner surface is smooth and flat so as to be free for ligature points (see fig.2); and a plurality of tabs (34) located at the opening (20), the tabs (34) arranged to retain the folded paper hand towels within the cavity (whilst the tabs 34 help folded sheets 18 to bulge out, they also retain the folded sheets within the cavity as clearly depicted in fig.3).
Chan does not disclose a plurality of flexible tabs located at the opening.
Brickl discloses a plurality of flexible tabs (15,16; para.0083) located at the opening (fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Chan with a plurality of flexible tabs located at the opening in order to have a mechanism that flexes under the pull of a sheet, then returns to hold the remaining stack firmly in place which would prevent jamming due to its ability to yield under pressure to let sheets pass smoothly without tearing or clumping, thereby reducing waste.
Claim 4, Chan discloses wherein the plurality of tabs (34) comprises at least two tabs which are located at opposite sides of the opening (20) from one another.
Chan does not disclose the plurality of flexible tabs.
Brickl discloses a plurality of flexible tabs (15,16; para.0083).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Chan with a plurality of flexible tabs in order to have a mechanism that flexes under the pull of a sheet, then returns to hold the remaining stack firmly in place which would prevent jamming due to its ability to yield under pressure to let sheets pass smoothly without tearing or clumping, thereby reducing waste.
Claim 5, Chan discloses wherein the opening (20) is substantially rectangular in shape (fig.1).
Claim 6, Chan discloses wherein the plurality of tabs (34) comprises two tabs (34,34; fig.3) located along a first long edge (left set of tabs 34) of the opening (20), and two tabs (34,34) located along an opposing second long edge (right set of tabs 34) of the opening (20).
Claim 7, Chan discloses wherein the two tabs (34,34) located along the first long edge (left set of tabs 34) are separated from one another by a first distance (see fig.3), and wherein the two tabs (34,34) located along the second long edge (right set of tabs 34) are separated from one another by a second distance (fig.3).
Although Chan does not explicitly disclose a second distance that is shorter than the first distance, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to implement any arbitrary size configuration for the first distance and second distance since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 8, Chan discloses wherein the two tabs (34,34) located along the first long edge (left set of tabs 34) are spaced from a midpoint thereof; and wherein the two tabs (34,34) located along the second long edge (right set of tabs 34) are spaced from a midpoint thereof.
Although Chan does not disclose explicitly wherein the two tabs (34,34) located along the first long edge (left set of tabs 34) are equally spaced from a midpoint thereof; and wherein the two tabs (34,34) located along the second long edge (right set of tabs 34) are equally spaced from a midpoint thereof, it would have been very obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the two tabs on the first long edge and second long edge at any number of arbitrary locations along the first long edge and second long edge since it merely require routine skill in the art to implement.
Claim 11, Chan discloses wherein the dispenser is of hollow construction (see figures).
Claim 13, Chan discloses wherein the cavity is substantially rectangular in cross- section (fig.1).
Claim 14, Chan discloses wherein the inner surface comprises four planar side surfaces (figs.1-2), and a planar end surface at a distal end of the internal cavity from the opening (20), and wherein each planar side surface extends from a respective edge of the opening (20).
Claim 17, Chan discloses wherein each of the plurality of tabs (34) is tapered (fig.3).
Claim 18, Chan discloses wherein each of the plurality of tabs (34) is rounded (fig.3).
Claims 2-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 6,352,172) in view of Brickl et al. (US 2015/0265108) in view of Freiburger et al. (US 5,516,000).
Claim 2, Chan discloses wherein the inner surface comprises an end surface defining a distal end (fig.3) of the cavity from the opening (20).
Chan in view of Brickl do not disclose wherein the inner surface is arranged such that an inner dimension of the cavity is largest at the opening (20) and tapers towards the end surface.
Freiburger discloses wherein the inner surface is arranged such that an inner dimension of the cavity is largest at the opening (fig.4a) and tapers towards the end surface (fig.4b; with D1 measurement). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Chan in view of Brickl 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 such configuration is well-known in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 3, Chan in view of Brickl do 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.
Freiburger discloses wherein the inner surface is arranged such that each inner dimension of the cavity is largest at the opening (near 7; fig.4a) and tapers towards the end surface (fig.4b; with D1 measurement). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Chan in view of Brickl 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 such configuration is well-known in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 6,352,172) in view of Brickl et al. (US 2015/0265108) in view of Emoff et al. (US 6,053,356).
Claim 9, Chan in view of Brickl do not disclose a planar surface for attachment to a wall.
Emoff discloses a planar surface for attachment to a wall (fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Chan in view of Brickl with a planar surface for attachment to a wall to have the capability of mounting the dispenser on a vertical surface.
Claim 10, Chan in view of Brickl do 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.
Emoff discloses a planar surface for attachment to a wall (fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Chan in view of Brickl with a planar surface for attachment to a wall, wherein the long edges of the opening are oriented substantially perpendicular to the planar surface to have the capability of mounting the dispenser on a vertical surface.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 6,352,172) in view of Brickl et al. (US 2015/0265108) in view of Blasko et al. (US 5,295,608).
Claim 12, Chan in view of Brickl do not disclose formed by rotational moulding.
Blasko discloses a one-piece carton formed by rotational moulding (C5:L1-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Chan in view of Brickl with formed by rotational moulding because such process is very well-known in the art for making carton dispensers and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 6,352,172) in view of Brickl et al. (US 2015/0265108) in view of Boeltl (US 2020/0069121).
Claim 15, Chan in view of Brickl do not disclose wherein an upper outer surface of the dispenser that is at an opposite side of the dispenser from the opening, is sloped.
Boeltl discloses wherein an upper outer surface (26) of the dispenser that is at an opposite side of the dispenser from the opening (fig.4), is sloped. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Chan in view of Brickl in view of Emoff with wherein an upper outer surface of the dispenser that is at an opposite side of the dispenser from the opening, is sloped because such sloped downwards of an upper outer surface is widely known in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 6,352,172) in view of Brickl et al. (US 2015/0265108) in view of Emoff et al. (US 6,053,356) in view of Boeltl (US 2020/0069121).
Claim 16, Chan in view of Brickl in view of Emoff do not disclose wherein an upper outer surface of the dispenser that is at an opposite side of the dispenser from the opening is sloped downwards from the planar surface.
Boeltl discloses wherein an upper outer surface (26) of the dispenser that is at an opposite side of the dispenser from the opening (fig.4) is sloped downwards from the planar surface (fig.4; planar surface that 10 is mounted on). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Chan in view of Brickl in view of Emoff with wherein an upper outer surface of the dispenser that is at an opposite side of the dispenser from the opening is sloped downwards from the planar surface because such sloped downwards of an upper outer surface is widely known in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
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