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 .
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 1-20 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.
The term “about” in claims 1-6,8-10,13-18 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. All of the dimensions and counts listed and modified by the term "about" are indefinite. The claims will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long US 2008/0054012.
Long discloses A folded sheet dispenser comprising:
(Re claim 1) “a. a parallelepiped shape dispenser having a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis,” (‘parallelepiped’ para 0001, ‘rectangular’ para 0036). “a maximum
length of the dispenser (Lc) along the longitudinal axis, a maximum width of the dispenser (Wc)
along the transverse axis, a maximum height of the dispenser (Hc) normal to the longitudinal
and transverse axis” (Hd,Ld,Wd figure 1,2 ). “Lc is greater than Hc and Wc and wherein the ratio of Hc to Wc is from about 0.75 to about 1.0” (Ld = 5.9”, Wd = 3.9”, Hd=5” para 0035) Wd/Hd=.78. “b. a substantially arch-shaped stack of individually folded sheets disposed within the dispenser,
the stack folded about a transverse fold axis forming a pair of spaced apart legs defining a first
void therebetween” (“arch shaped stack” para 0019).,
Long is mute with regard to the first void having a maximum width dimension from about 2 to about 8 cm.
Long does disclose Ld to Ls ratios between about 55% to about 80% a first void achieved by this ratios could easily fall between 2 to 8 cms or could be achieved by routine experimentation In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Routine experimentation to optimize the dispensing characteristics of the arch-shaped stack would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
(Re claim 2) “wherein Lc is at least about 150% of Hc” (Ld = 5.9”, Wd = 3.9”, Hd=5” para 0035) Ld/Hd=118%. Ls=8.4inches, Long does disclose Ld to Ls ratios between about 55% to about 80%. Ls X .55=4.62, Ls X .8=6.72, giving Ld a possible range of 4.62 to 6.72 inches and giving Ld/Hd a possible range of 92% to 134%. 134% could be considered ‘about’ 150% or further routine experimentation could result in a value closer to 150%.
(Re claim 3) “the ratio of Hc to Wc is about 1.0” (Ld = 5.9”, Wd = 3.9”, Hd=5” para 0035) Hd/Wd = 1.28, 1.28 could be considered ‘about’ 1 or further routine experimentation could result in a value closer to 1.
(Re claim 4) “the number of individually folded sheets in the arch-shaped stack ranges from about 150 to about 240” (‘100 … tissue sheets’ para 0035). 100 could be considered ‘about’ 150 or further routine experimentation could result in a value closer to 150-240 sheets.
(Re claim 5) “each of the individually folded sheets has an unfolded sheet area of at least about 400 cm²” (Ls=8.4 inches para 0027) assuming a square sheet 8.4x8.4=70.56 in^2 or 455.22 cm^2. 455 cm^2 could be considered ‘about’ 400 cm^2 or further routine experimentation could result in a value closer to 400 cm^2
(Re claim 6) “the height of the stack of sheets prior to folding along the transverse fold axis (Hₛ) ranges from about 8 to about 12 cm” (Hs=1.5 inches para 0027). Long gives an Hs 1.5 inches for stack of 100 sheets if the stack of sheets were increased to a count of 150 to 240, Hs would range from 2.25 inches to 3.6 inches or 5.715 cm to 9.144 cm. 5.715 to 9.144 cm overlaps with the range of 8 to 12 cm through routine experimentation include the number of sheets in the stack to the thickness of each sheet in the stack could result in a range closer to 8 to 12 cm.
(Re claim 7) “arch-shaped folded stack is disposed within the parallelepiped shape dispenser with the transverse fold axis parallel to the dispenser's transverse axis” (28,40 figure 1,3,4, para 0001).
(Re claim 8) “wherein the length of the stack of sheets prior to folding along the transverse fold axis (Lₛ) is at least about 120% of the maximum length of the dispenser (Lc)” (Ld/Ls = 55% to 80% para 0042). Ls/Ld would equal 125% to 182%. 125% could be considered ‘about’ 120% or further routine experimentation could result in a value closer to 120%.
(Re claim 9) “Ls is from about 19.5 to about 21.5 cm” (Ls = 8.4 inches para 0027) Ls = 21.34 cm.
(Re claim 10) “a top wall having a dispensing opening disposed thereon, a bottom wall opposite the top wall and a pair of opposed sidewalls,wherein the top and bottom walls are substantially rectangular and have an area ranging from about 170 to about 200 cm²” (‘parallelepiped’ para 0001, ‘rectangular’ para 0036; Ld = 5.9”, Wd = 3.9”, Hd=5” para 0035) Ld x Wd= 23.01 in^2 or 148.45 cm^2.
148.45 cm^2 could be considered ‘about’ 170 cm^2 or further routine experimentation could result in a value closer to 170 to about 200 cm^2.
(Re claim 11) “the upper most sheet in the arch-shaped folded stack is located adjacent to the dispensing opening” (22,45 figure 1).
(Re claim 12) “the arch-shaped folded stack comprises a plurality of discrete sheets that are z-folded and interleaved for pop-up dispensing” (‘Z-folded … interleaved’ para 0031).
Long discloses a parallelepiped shape dispenser having an interior space for receiving a folded
stack of tissue sheets, a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis, the dispenser comprising:
(Re claim 13) “a. a rectangular bottom panel having a length dimension (Lc) along the longitudinal axis and a maximum width dimension (Wc) along the transverse axis” (‘parallelepiped’ para 0001, ‘rectangular’ para 0036, Ld, Wd figure 2). “b. a rectangular side panel in folded connection to the rectangular bottom panel, the rectangular side panel having a height dimension (Hc) normal to the longitudinal and transverse axis” (Hd figure 1, ‘plurality of panels that are folded’ para 0041). “wherein Lc is greater than Hc and Wc and wherein the ratio of Hc to Wc is from about 0.75 to about 1.0” (Ld = 5.9”, Wd = 3.9”, Hd=5” para 0035) Wd/Hd=.78. “C. a substantially arch-shaped stack of individually folded sheets disposed within the interior space, the stack folded about a transverse fold axis and disposed within the interior space such that the transverse fold axis parallel to the dispenser's transverse axis, the folded stack forming a pair of spaced apart legs defining a first void therebetween” (“arch shaped stack” para 0019).
Long is mute with regard to the first void having a maximum width dimension from about 2 to about 8 cm.
Long does disclose Ld to Ls ratios between about 55% to about 80% a first void achieved by this ratios could easily fall between 2 to 8 cms or could be achieved by routine experimentation In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Routine experimentation to optimize the dispensing characteristics of the arch-shaped stack would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
(Re claim 14) “Lc is at least about 150% of Hc” (Ld = 5.9”, Wd = 3.9”, Hd=5” para 0035) Ld/Hd=118%. Ls=8.4inches, Long does disclose Ld to Ls ratios between about 55% to about 80%. Ls X .55=4.62, Ls X .8=6.72, giving Ld a possible range of 4.62 to 6.72 inches and giving Ld/Hd a possible range of 92% to 134%. 134% could be considered ‘about’ 150% or further routine experimentation could result in a value closer to 150%.
(Re claim 15) “the ratio of Hc to Wc is about 1.0” (Ld = 5.9”, Wd = 3.9”, Hd=5” para 0035) Hd/Wd = 1.28, 1.28 could be considered ‘about’ 1 or further routine experimentation could result in a value closer to 1.
(Re claim 16) “the number of individually folded sheets in the arch-shaped stack ranges from about 150 to about 240” (‘100 … tissue sheets’ para 0035). 100 could be considered ‘about’ 150 or further routine experimentation could result in a value closer to 150-240 sheets.
(Re claim 17) “each of the individually folded sheets has an unfolded sheet area of at least about 400 cm²” (Ls=8.4 inches para 0027) assuming a square sheet 8.4x8.4=70.56 in^2 or 455.22 cm^2. 455 cm^2 could be considered ‘about’ 400 cm^2 or further routine experimentation could result in a value closer to 400 cm^2.
(Re claim 18) “the height of the stack of sheets prior to folding along the transverse fold axis (Hₛ) ranges from about 8 to about 12 cm” (Hs=1.5 inches para 0027). Long gives an Hs 1.5 inches for stack of 100 sheets if the stack of sheets were increased to a count of 150 to 240, Hs would range from 2.25 inches to 3.6 inches or 5.715 cm to 9.144 cm. 5.715 to 9.144 cm overlaps with the range of 8 to 12 cm through routine experimentation include the number of sheets in the stack to the thickness of each sheet in the stack could result in a range closer to 8 to 12 cm.
(Re claim 19) “the length of the stack of sheets prior to folding along the transverse fold axis (Lₛ) is at least about 120% of the maximum length of the dispenser (Lc). (Ld/Ls = 55% to 80% para 0042). Ls/Ld would equal 125% to 182%. 125% could be considered ‘about’ 120% or further routine experimentation could result in a value closer to 120%.
(Re claim 20) “Ls is from about 19.5 to about 21.5 cm” (Ls = 8.4 inches para 0027) Ls = 21.34 cm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0262086 discloses a stack of sheets with a gentle transverse fold resulting in a large void gap. US 6,202,889, 5,979,700, and 4,765,508 disclose arch shaped stacks with void gaps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655