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, see remarks, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 1 and its dependent claims are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The originally filed and examined claims were directed to the embodiment disclosed in figures 5-9 including overlapping flaps. The newly submitted claim 1 has eliminated the overlapping flaps and now is directed to the embodiment disclosed in figured 1-4 including a perforated dispensing line extending along the dispensing axis. The overlapping flaps and the perforated dispensing line extending along the dispensing axis are mutually exclusive features. Additionally, claim 1, which claims a first and second top panel sections, lacks internal consistency as the embodiment shown in figures 1-4 only has a single top panel (12 figure 3) while the embodiment shown in figures 5-9 includes the two top panel sections (112 figure 7).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 8-18 have withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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) 19-24 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenzel US 2,890,791 in view of Boldt US 5,316,177.
Wenzel discloses a product for dispensing a plurality of individual sheets one at a time comprising:
(Re claim 19)"a stack of individual sheets" (27 figure 4). "a container defining a hollow enclosure, the stack of individual sheets being positioned within the hollow enclosure, the container including a dispensing surface defining a dispensing opening” (10-13,19 figure 4). "the dispensing opening being bordered by a first biasing flap on one side of the dispensing opening and a second biasing flap located on the opposite side of the dispensing opening, the first and second biasing flaps being biased towards the dispensing opening for contacting one of the sheets emerging from the dispensing opening with sufficient force to hold the sheet in an extended position without the sheet falling back into the hollow enclosure of the container" (27,18,26 figure 4,col 1 lines30-45). "wherein the dispensing surface is formed from a first top panel section and a second top panel section, wherein the first biasing flap overlaps with the second biasing flap when in a closed position" (13,18,23,26 figure 1,2,5).
Wenzel does not disclose the first top panel section and the second top panel section are coated with a polymer.
Boldt teaches the top panel section is coated with a polymer (col 1 lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the product of Wenzel to include that the first top panel section and the second top panel section are coated with a polymer because it reduces unpleasant dispensing noises.
(Re claim 20) "there is no polymer film located below the dispensing opening and attached to the container” (figure 1).
(Re claim 21) "wherein the container is only formed from a single piece blank comprising a paperboard" (figure 1).
(Re claim 22) Wenzel does not disclose that the paperboard comprises a coated paper having a basis weight of from about 40 gsm to about 80 gsm.
Boldt teaches that the paperboard comprises a coated paper having a basis weight of from about 40 gsm to about 80 gsm (col 3 lines 23-55).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Wenzel to include that the paperboard comprises a coated paper having a basis weight of from about 40 gsm to about 80 gsm because it reduces the weight of the container.
(Re claim 23) "the dispensing opening is accessed on the container without removing a portion of the dispensing surface from the container” (18, 19,26 figure 5,6).
(Re claim 24) "a dispensing axis that extends along a length of the dispensing surface and wherein a dispensing slit extends along the dispensing axis between the first and second biasing flaps" (18,19,26 figure 3,5,6).
(Re claim 28) Wenzel does not disclose that the polymer coating contains a film-forming polymer in combination with a clay coating.
Boldt teaches that the polymer coating contains a film-forming polymer in combination with a clay coating (col 1 lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the product of Wenzel to include that the polymer coating contains a film-forming polymer in combination with a clay coating because it reduces unpleasant dispensing noises.
Conclusion
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