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 cartridge 22 of Conran has vertical side walls 24 that extend to the lower end wall 26, which has the dispensing slot 28 formed therein. In the Office Action, the Examiner attempts to equate lower end wall 26 of the cartridge 22 of Conran with the angled guide walls of the independent claims 1 and 11. However, the lower end wall 26 is equivalent to the bottom wall of the insert, not the angled guide walls of the insert. It is clear that the lower end wall 26 of Conran is not equivalent to the angled guide walls of independent claim 1 and 11, which claims 1 and 11 specifically call for extending from the inward from the first and second sidewalls and to the bottom wall of the insert.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. The prior art of Conran et al. teaches all the limitations recited in claims 1 and 11 of the instant application as clearly conveyed in the 102(a)(2) rejection. The rejections of claims 1 and 11 are herein restated with explanatory comments embedded therein:
Claim 1, Conran discloses a dispenser comprising: a housing (12) surrounding a volume; an opening (18) formed within a bottom wall (20; fig.5; bottom wall of housing) of the housing to expose the volume to an environment external to the dispenser, the bottom wall (20) oriented at an angle between 0 and 90 degrees (fig.5); and an insert (22) removably disposed within the housing (fig.5), the insert including: first and second sidewalls (24,24; figs.4-5) oriented parallel to each other; an opening (28) formed in a bottom wall (32) of the insert (22) and aligned with the opening (18) of the housing (12); and angled guide walls (26; fig.4) extending inward from the first (24) and second (24) sidewalls to the bottom wall (32) of the insert (22; figs.4-6); and a volume (fig.4) disposed between the sidewalls (24) of the insert (22) configured to receive a product stack (see abstract), the angled guide walls (26) configured to reduce the volume adjacent the bottom wall of the insert (see fig.3; bottom wall of 22).
Claim 11, Conran discloses an insert for a dispenser, the insert comprising: first and second sidewalls (24; figs.4-5) oriented parallel to each other; an opening (28) formed in a bottom wall (32) of the insert and aligned with an opening (18) of the dispenser (12); angled guide walls (26; fig.4) extending inward from the first (24) and second (24) sidewalls and to the bottom wall (32) of the insert (22; figs.4-6); and a volume disposed between the sidewalls (24) of the insert configured to receive paper towels (see abstract), the angled guide walls (26) configured to reduce the volume adjacent the bottom wall (32; see figures).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1,11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Conran et al. (US 6,354,462).
Claim 1, Conran discloses a dispenser comprising: a housing (12) surrounding a volume; an opening (18) formed within a bottom wall (20; fig.5; bottom wall of housing) of the housing to expose the volume to an environment external to the dispenser, the bottom wall (20) oriented at an angle between 0 and 90 degrees (fig.5); and an insert (22) removably disposed within the housing (fig.5), the insert including: first and second sidewalls (24,24; figs.4-5) oriented parallel to each other; an opening (28) formed in a bottom wall (32) of the insert (22) and aligned with the opening (18) of the housing (12); and angled guide walls (26; fig.4) extending inward from the first (24) and second (24) sidewalls to the bottom wall (32) of the insert (22; figs.4-6); and a volume (fig.4) disposed between the sidewalls (24) of the insert (22) configured to receive a product stack (see abstract), the angled guide walls (26) configured to reduce the volume adjacent the bottom wall of the insert (see fig.3; bottom wall of 22).
Claim 11, Conran discloses an insert for a dispenser, the insert comprising: first and second sidewalls (24; figs.4-5) oriented parallel to each other; an opening (28) formed in a bottom wall (32) of the insert and aligned with an opening (18) of the dispenser (12); angled guide walls (26; fig.4) extending inward from the first (24) and second (24) sidewalls and to the bottom wall (32) of the insert (22; figs.4-6); and a volume disposed between the sidewalls (24) of the insert configured to receive paper towels (see abstract), the angled guide walls (26) configured to reduce the volume adjacent the bottom wall (32; see figures).
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 2,12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conran et al. (US 6,354,462) in view of Orefice (US 2016/0029856).
Claim 2, Conran does not disclose a limit plate disposed within the dispenser, the limit plate having an upper location spaced apart from the top wall of the housing and configured to move downward toward a lower location as the product stack is removed from the volume.
Orefice discloses a limit plate (18) disposed within the dispenser (fig.6), the limit plate (18) having an upper location spaced apart from the top wall (14) of the housing and configured to move downward toward a lower location as the product stack is removed from the volume. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Conran with a limit plate disposed within the dispenser, the limit plate having an upper location spaced apart from the top wall of the housing and configured to move downward toward a lower location as the product stack is removed from the volume to ensure proper pressure against the dispensing opening by the downward depression force of the plate as the plurality of sheets in the dispenser gets low.
Claim 12, Conran does not disclose a limit plate movable within the insert, the limit plate having an upper location and configured to move downward toward a lower location as the paper towels are removed from the volume.
Orefice discloses a limit plate (18) movable within the dispenser (fig.6), the limit plate (18) having an upper location and configured to move downward toward a lower location as the paper towels are removed from the volume. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Conran with a limit plate movable within the insert, the limit plate having an upper location and configured to move downward toward a lower location as the paper towels are removed from the volume to ensure proper pressure against the dispensing opening by the downward depression force of the plate as the plurality of sheets in the dispenser gets low.
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 13-16 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "wherein the limit plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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