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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1,5,8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cittadino (US 2008/0078777 A1) in view of Lambert (US 6,802,229) in view of Borke (US 2017/0296004 A1) and further in view of Lin (CN 102003538 A).
Referring to claims 1 and 9. Cittadino discloses method and a dispenser for a roll of material (10; Figure 1), the dispensing comprising:
a housing (housing of 10);
a roll retainer (retainer on which roll 11 is mounted) disposed within the housing, the roll retainer configured for rotatably supporting a roll (11) of web material for dispensing;
a motor (14) disposed within the housing (housing of 10);
a spindle (20) disposed within the housing, the spindle (20; see Figure 2) configured for engaging the roll of web material (32) between the roll retainer (retainer on which roll 11 is mounted) and a free end of the roll of web material (32); and
a transmission (members consisting of 14, 20 and 21; regarding claim 6 a transmission is a means for coupling a rotor of the motor to a spindle) coupling a rotor (shaft) of the motor (14) to the spindle (including members 20 and 21; see Figure 2) such that the motor (14) is operable to rotate the spindle in order to dispense the roll of web material (14),
wherein the transmission (members consisting of 14, 20 and 21) is configured such that, during each dispensing cycle of the roll of web material from the dispenser, a rotational speed of the spindle (including members 20 and 21; see Figure 2) increases from an initial speed (initial speed of 0) to a maximum speed (intermediate speed; as shown in Figure 4; speed of the motor directly correlates to a speed of the spindle) and then decreases to a final speed (operates at a final speed below a maximum speed in the terminal phase; Figure 4) during dispensing of the roll of web material with the rotor of the motor (14) rotating at a substantially constant rotational speed (the rotor of the motor rotates at a substantially constant rotation speed at each phase portion of the maximum and final speeds of the spindle configured to rotate the sheet roll; see Figure 4),
wherein the maximum speed (intermediate speed; as shown in Figure 4; speed of the motor directly correlates to a speed of the spindle) comprises a maximum rotational speed of the spindle (when the motor rotates in the intermediate phase as shown Figure 4, the spindle of the roll also rotates at the corresponding maximum speed) during each dispensing cycle of the roll of web material from the dispenser (during an actuation of a dispensing cycle).
Although, Cittadino discloses the motor rotating at a substantially constant rotational speed at various portions of the dispensing cycle. Cittadino does not specifically disclose the motor operating as a constant speed throughout the complete dispensing cycle.
Lambert discloses a gear drive having a continuous variable drive ratio wherein a constant input by either shaft 16 or 26 can vary the output rotation speed of the output shaft while the input shaft rotates at a constant speed.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cittadino to include a transmission wherein a motor rotating at a substantially constant rotational speed causes the output (spindle) speed to vary as taught by Lambert because the transmission would provide continuous control to vary the rotation speed of the spindle to more accurately control the dispensing of sheet from a roll through the dispensing cycle.
Cittadino in view of Lambert do not specifically disclose wherein the transmission comprises a first non-circular gear and a second non-circular gear, the first non-circular gear coupled to the rotor of the motor, the second non-circular gear coupled to the spindle, the first non-circular gear meshed with the second non-circular gear.
Borke discloses a hands free sheet dispenser (200; Figure 3) wherein a transmission (260 and 270; Figure 3) comprises a first non-circular gear (260) and a second non-circular gear (270), the first non-circular gear (260) coupled to the rotor of the motor (rotor of motor 276; Figure 3), the second non-circular gear (270) coupled to the spindle (coupled the gear configuration), the first non-circular gear (260) meshed with the second non-circular gear (270).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cittadino in view of Lambert to include the transmission comprising a first non-circular gear and a second non-circular gear, the first non-circular gear coupled to the rotor of the motor, the second non-circular gear coupled to the spindle, the first non-circular gear meshed with the second non-circular gear as taught by Borke because the transmission would provide direct continuous control to vary the rotation speed of the spindle to more directly control the dispensing of sheet from a roll through the dispensing cycle.
Cittadino in view of Lambert and Borke do not disclose wherein the first non-circular gear comprises a first conical gear drum, the second non- circular gear comprises a second conical gear drum, and the first conical gear drum meshes with the second conical gear drum along an elliptical path.
Lin discloses an eccentric elliptical tapered gear pair (1 and 2; Figure 1) wherein the first non-circular gear (1) comprises a first conical gear drum (see configuration of gear 1; Figure 1), the second non-circular gear (2; Figure 1) comprises a second conical gear drum (see configuration of gear 2; Figure 1), and the first conical gear drum meshes with the second conical gear drum along an elliptical path (see gear threads of gears 1 and 2; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Cittadino in view of Lambert and Borke to include the first non-circular gear comprises a first conical gear drum, the second non- circular gear comprises a second conical gear drum, and the first conical gear drum meshes with the second conical gear drum along an elliptical path as taught by Lin because the transmission would provide uneven speed motion and energy between crossed shafts thus providing improved control at a location where needed.
Referring to claims 5, 8 and 14. See claim structure as recited in claim 1. Cittadino in view of Lambert and further in view of Borke do not disclose wherein a perimeter of the spindle is about equal to a length of a sheet of the web material on the roll.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Cittadino in view of Lambert and Borke to include the perimeter of the spindle as being about equal to a length of a sheet of the web material on the roll, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “coupling a rotor of the motor to the spindle such that a rotational speed of the spindle increases from an initial speed to a maximum speed and then decreases to a final speed during dispensing of the roll of web material with the rotor of the motor rotating at a substantially constant rotational speed." For example, the Application describes a "transmission 100 that may be configured such that a rotational speed of driven 5 of 9 spindle 52 increases (e.g., continuously) from an initial speed to a maximum speed and then decreases (e.g., continuously) to a final speed during dispensing of sheet material 18 from dispenser 10... " while "rotor 62 of motor 60 may rotate at a substantially constant rotational speed during the dispensing of sheet material 18 from dispenser 10." (Application at pg. 5, In. 31 pg. 6, In. 5). Thus, viewing this description, it can be seen that at least one particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, is described which can perform the said function cite above. Therefore, Applicant respectfully asserts that claim 6 is sufficiently definite. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection should be withdrawn and the claims allowed.”
Applicant equates the claimed “means for coupling” as the transmission 100 in the response however the specifications do the not disclose specifically that the transmission 100 is the “means for coupling” as recited in claim 6.
Applicant further argues “In other words, the speed of the paper dispense speed of the sheet product dispenser 10 is always proportional to the speed of the motor 14 because the feed roller 20 is fixed to a rotor of the motor 14. In contrast, the present claims provide a transmission that provides a spindle rotational speed that increases from an initial speed to a maximum speed and then decreases to a final speed...with the rotor of the motor rotating at a substantial constant rotational speed. Further, because the spindle speed can vary in relation to the motor speed, it can be understood that the paper dispense speed of the dispenser 10 can be different from the motor speed of the motor 50 unlike Cittadino. Therefore, because Cittadino fails to provide any teaching or suggestion concerning a transmission that can delink a spindle speed from a motor speed, and consequently, delink a paper dispense speed from a motor speed, Cittadino alone fails to disclose the claims as currently amended.”
In view of the Examiner, the limitations recite wherein the transmission is configured such that a rotational speed of the spindle increases from an initial speed to a maximum speed and then decreases to a final speed during dispensing of the roll of web material with the rotor of the motor rotating at a substantially constant rotational speed is disclosed by the Cittadino reference wherein the speed of the spindle changes from an initial speed below the maximum speed to a maximum speed with the rotor of the motor rotating at a substantially constant rotation speed, when the initial speed of the motor is slightly below the maximum motor speed as shown in Figure 4 and when the motor speed slightly increases further to attain the maximum rotation speed of the spindle thus the speeds of the spindle change as cited and the motor speed is substantially constant; see Figure 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8314. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-6:30PM EST.
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.
/RAKESH KUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights