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's arguments filed 06/04/2026 with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the invention of Long is directed to an oblong dispenser not a parallelepiped structure and that the ranges given are critical to achieve a controlled void having a width of about 2 to 8 cm. However, Long discloses the oblong embodiment as being the preferred shape but also discloses that other shapes can be used such as rectangular (para 0036) which would yield a parallelepiped structure as cited in the non-final rejection. Then ranges given in the specification and originally claimed are all given with the modifier of ‘about’ and the ranges themselves are relatively large. For example, the width of about 2 to 8 cms, 8 centimeters is four times as large as 2 cm. Long disclosed measurements within or close to the measurement ranges claimed and if those measurements were applied to a rectangular dispenser, it is more than likely that the same 2-8cm gap between the legs of the arch would be achieved. Additionally, the arched stack shown in applicant’s figure 10 appears identical to the stack in Long’s figure 4. For at least the foregoing reasons claims 1-20 stand rejected.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/04/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
The claims were amended to remove instances of “about”.
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 0.75 to 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 2 to 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 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 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 150 to 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 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 8 to 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 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 19.5 to 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 170 to 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 0.75 to 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 2 to 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 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 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 150 to 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 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 8 to 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 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 19.5 to 21.5 cm” (Ls = 8.4 inches para 0027) Ls = 21.34 cm.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights