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.
Claim 16 is 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.
In claim 16, line 4, the phrase “a container” is a double recitation of claim 1. It should be replaced with --the container--.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by The International Publication No. WO2021/150207 to Wilson or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilson in view of The European Patent Application No. EP 0 930 243 to Chasid and/or Lenz et al. (6,419,114).
As to claim 1, Wilson discloses a container (Figs. 1-2 & 8) for holding and dispensing a plurality of individual sheets (50) comprising a carton (20) having at least one carton wall (26, 40) and defining a hollow enclosure for receiving a plurality of sheets; a dispensing opening (32, 42, 44) disposed on the at least one carton wall, the dispensing opening having a perimeter sufficient to permit sheets to be dispensed therethrough; a first parabolic flap (see Fig. 8 below) having a first apex end (46) and a second parabolic flap (see Fig. 8 below) having a second apex end (46), the first apex end being spaced from the second apex end, the first and second apex ends forming a portion of the perimeter of the dispensing opening, and the first parabolic flap comprises two diverging slits (48) that extend from the first apex end and the second parabolic flap comprises two diverging slits (48) that extend from the second apex end; a first edge/first resilient edge (see Fig. 8 below) opposing and spaced from a second edge/second resilient edge (see Fig. 8 below), the first resilient edge forming a portion of the perimeter of the dispensing opening between the first and second apex ends and the second resilient edge forming a portion of the perimeter of the dispensing opening between opposite sides of the first and second apex ends, the first and second resilient edges defining a linear or curved shape that is non-convex with respect to the dispensing opening. To the extent that Wilson fails to disclose the first edge is a first resilient edge and the second edge is a second resilient edge, Chasid teaches a container (1, 20) for holding and dispensing a plurality of individual sheets comprising a bag/carton (1, 20) having at least one wall (top wall), a dispensing opening (25) disposed on the at least one wall, and a first resilient flap/first resilient edge (9) opposing and spaced from a second resilient flap/second resilient edge (9), the first resilient edge and the second resilient edge forming a portion of the dispensing opening. Chasid further teaches that resiliency of the resilient flaps is obtained by forming one or more fold lines on the resilient flaps (column 6, lines 1-9). Lenz teaches a container (1, 14) for holding and dispensing a plurality of individual sheets comprising a carton (10, 14) having at least one wall (top wall), a dispensing opening (11) disposed on the at least one wall, and a first resilient edge (18; column 2, lines 60-67) opposing and spaced from a second resilient edge (18), the first resilient edge and the second resilient edge forming a portion of the dispensing opening. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Chasid and/or Lenz to modify the container of Wilson so the container is constructed with the first edge is a first resilient edge and the second edge is a second resilient edge to prevent the individual sheets from getting damage while removing the sheets.
PNG
media_image1.png
317
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Wilson further discloses the first resilient edge has a concave shape and the second resilient edge has a concave shape with respect to the dispensing opening.
As to claim 8, Wilson discloses the dispensing opening has a length and a width. However, Wilson fails to disclose the length of the dispensing opening is from about 40 mm to about 65 mm and the width of the dispensing opening is from about 40 mm to about 65 mm as claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Wilson so the dispensing opening is constructed with the length of the dispensing opening is from about 40 mm to about 65 mm and the width of the dispensing opening is from about 40 mm to about 65 mm because the selection of the specific dimensions for the dispensing opening such as the length and width as claimed or as disclosed by Wilson or Chasid or Lenz would have been an obvious matter of design choice based upon conventional design considerations, such as for dispensing the specific size of the individual sheets.
As to claim 9, the container of Wilson as modified is capable to provide sheets being dispensed from the carton travel through at least one of the slits defined by the parabolic flaps, the slits are capable of applying sufficient pressure to a sheet emerging from the dispensing opening for holding the sheet in a partially extended position while preventing the sheet from falling back into the carton.
As to claim 16, Wilson further discloses a stack of individual sheets being positioned within the hollow enclosure as claimed.
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asman (3,036,729) and/or Droege et al. (2016/0318685; hereinafter Droege).
As to claim 10, the container of Wilson as modified fails to show that there is no polymer film located below the dispensing opening and attached to the carton. Asman teaches a container comprising a carton having at least one wall (32), a dispensing opening (after the opening panel 41 is removed), and there is no polymer film located below the dispensing opening. Droege teaches a container comprising a carton (150) having at least one wall and a dispensing opening disposed on the at least one wall (the dispensing opening defined by the flaps 52-58), and there is no polymer film located below the dispensing opening. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Asman and/or Droege to modify the container of Wilson as modified so the carton is constructed with no polymer film located below the dispensing opening and attached to the carton because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claim 11, the container of Wilson as modified from the teaching of Asman and/or Droege formed from a single piece of material.
As to claims 12 and 15, Wilson discloses the carton comprises a paperboard (page 5, lines 18-20 and page 6, lines 15-22). Asman teaches the carton comprises a paperboard (column 1, lines 64-66).
As to claim 13, Wilson further discloses a paper dispensing window (40) has been coated and has a basis weight from about 50 to about 80 gsm (page 6, lines 15-22) within the range as claimed.
As to claim 14, Asman or Droege teaches the dispensing opening as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 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.
Claims 17-25 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN K BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4552. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F, 7-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531 or orlando.aviles-bosques@uspto.gov. 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.
/LUAN K BUI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736