DETAILED ACTION
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 4 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kruchoski et al. (US 2004/0026440 A1 – hereinafter Kruchoski).
Re Claims 1, 17, and 20:
Kruchoski discloses a container (10) for holding and dispensing a plurality of individual sheets (12) comprising: a carton (at 10) having at least one carton wall and defining a hollow enclosure (see Figs. 1 and 2); a stack of interfolded sheets (12) received within the hollow enclosure (see paragraph [0022]); an access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) disposed on the at least one carton wall, the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) having a size sufficient to receive one or more fingers of a user, the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) being positioned such that a user grasps a top sheet of the stack of interfolded sheets received within the hollow enclosure; a baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) in communication with the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34), the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) comprising a non-linear slit (see paragraph [0029] – oval pattern, wave-pattern); and wherein, when a top sheet is grasped by a user through the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34), an adjacent interfolded sheet is partially withdrawn from the container and is engaged by the non-linear slit of the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b), wherein the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) comprises a flexible member attached to the at least one carton wall of the carton (see paragraph [0027]), wherein the at least one carton wall and the flexible member are made from the same material (see paragraph [0027] – not using polymer film as described in claim 17) (see Figs. 1-7).
Re Claims 2 and 10:
Kruchoski discloses wherein the at least one carton wall comprises a first carton wall (16) and a second and adjacent carton wall (22), wherein the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) is located on the first carton wall (16) and the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) is located on the second and adjacent carton wall (22), the first carton wall (16) being perpendicular to the second carton wall (22) (see Figs. 1-7).
Re Claim 3:
Kruchoski discloses wherein the at least one carton wall comprises a first carton wall (22) and a second and adjacent carton wall (16), wherein the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) extends between the first carton wall (22) and the second and adjacent carton wall (16), the first carton wall (22) being perpendicular to the second carton wall (16), the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) being located on the first carton wall (22) (see Figs. 1-7).
Re Claim 4:
Kruchoski discloses wherein the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) intersects with the non-linear slit (see paragraph [0029] – oval pattern, wave-pattern) of the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b), the portion of the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) located on the first carton wall (22) having an hourglass-like shape (see bottom of hour-glass shape at 24 of Fig. 1) (see Figs. 1-7).
Re Claims 5 and 6:
Kruchoski discloses wherein the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) and the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) are located on the same carton wall (22), and wherein the non-linear slit (see paragraph [0029] – oval pattern, wave-pattern) is in direct communication with the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34 – Kruchoski shows slits in direct communication), and wherein the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) is located on one side of the carton wall (22 - front side) and the non-linear slit (see paragraph [0029] – oval pattern, wave-pattern) extends from the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) and towards an opposite side of the carton wall (22) (see Fig. 1 – linear slits are shown but Kruchoski discloses that the shapes of the slits can be non-linear (wave)) (see Figs. 1-7).
Re Claim 7:
Kruchoski discloses a spacer slit (the slit portion which extends from front to back in the direction of 24) (see Fig. 1) that extends between the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) and the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) for providing indirect communication between the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) and the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b), the spacer slit (the slit portion which extends from front to back in the direction of 24) intersecting the non-linear slit (see paragraph [0029] – oval pattern, wave-pattern) at an angle (90 degree angle) (see Figs. 1-7).
Re Claim 8:
Kruchoski discloses wherein the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) comprises only a single slit (see paragraph 0029 – “I pattern”, see Figs. 6 and 7) (see Figs. 1-7).
Re Claim 9:
Kruchoski discloses wherein the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) intersects with the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) and the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) comprises only two non- linear slits (see paragraph [0029] – oval pattern, wave-pattern) that extend from the access opening (at 24a, 28, 34) in opposite directions (see Figs. 1-5) (see Figs. 1-7).
Re Claims 11 and 12:
Kruchoski discloses wherein the stack of inter-folded sheets have a length and a width, the length being greater than the width, the non-linear slit (see paragraph [0029] – oval pattern, wave-pattern) of the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) being perpendicular/parallel to the length of the sheets (see Figs. 1-7).
Re Claim 13:
Kruchoski discloses wherein the non-linear slit (see paragraph [0029] – oval pattern, wave-pattern) of the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) comprises a sinusoidal pattern (wave) (see paragraph [0029]).
Re Claim 18:
Kruchoski discloses wherein the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) is integral with the at least one carton wall of the carton (Examiner notes that one-piece construction, in place of separate elements fastened together, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kohno, 391 F.2d 959, 157 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).)
Re Claims 21 and 23:
Kruchoski discloses wherein the flexible member is more flexible than the at least one carton wall of the container (see paragraph [0025]).
Re Claims 25 and 27:
Kruchoski discloses a container (10) for holding and dispensing a plurality of individual sheets (12) comprising: a carton (at 10) having at least one carton wall and defining a hollow enclosure (see Figs. 1 and 2); a first tearaway flap (24a) defined by a perforation line on the at least one carton wall, and wherein a user can optionally remove the tearaway flap (24a) for creating an access opening on the at least one carton wall, the tearaway flap (24a) having a size sufficient to create an access opening for receiving a hand of a user; a second tearaway flap (38) located on a wall of the container and defined by a perforation line; and a baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) positioned below the second tearaway flap (38), the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) comprising a non-linear slit (see paragraph [0029] – oval pattern, wave-pattern) through which sheet materials (12) can be dispensed, wherein the at least one carton wall and the baffle (30, 130, 330a, 330b) are made from the same material (see paragraph [0027]) (see Figs. 1-7).
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) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruchoski in view of Ellen Quintana (US 2021/0196419 A1 – hereinafter Quintana).
Re Claims 13 and 14:
Kruchoski discloses the device of claim 13, but where if fails to teach 13, and fails to teach wherein the sinusoidal pattern comprises a pattern of peaks and valleys having an amplitude defined by a distance extending from a peak to an adjacent valley, and wherein the amplitude is constant.
Quintana teaches wherein a sinusoidal pattern (104) comprises a pattern of peaks and valleys having an amplitude defined by a distance extending from a peak to an adjacent valley, and wherein the amplitude is constant (see Figs. 1-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kruchoski with that of Quintana to use a design capable of reducing waste and contamination of product within a dispenser.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruchoski in view of Quintana and Xiang-ying Xie (CN 202536051 – hereinafter Xie).
Re Claim 15:
Kruchoski discloses the device of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the amplitude varies over a length of the non- linear slit.
Xie further in view teaches wherein the amplitude varies over a length of the non- linear slit (see Fig. 6, see paragraphs [0037-0039]) (see Figs. 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kruchoski in view of Quintana with that of Xie to use a design capable of providing sufficient force for holding a dispensed product.
Re Claim 16:
Kruchoski in view of Quintana and Xie does not disclose specific values for amplitude from about 2mm to about 50mm and the peak to peak distance is from about 8mm to about 90mm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruchoski in view of Jiro Ishda (US 2004/0164087 A1 – hereinafter Ishda).
Re Claim 18:
Kruchoski discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the baffle is integral with the at least one carton wall of the carton
Ishda teaches wherein a baffle (8) is integral with at least one carton wall of a carton (see Figs. 1-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kruchoski with that of Ishda to provide an alternative dispensing formation as known within the art, for one-piece construction, in place of separate elements fastened together, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kohno, 391 F.2d 959, 157 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).)
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruchoski in view of Decker et al. (US 2010/0258580 A1 – hereinafter Decker).
Re Claim 22:
Kruchoski discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the carton is made from a single piece of material.
Decker teaches wherein a carton is made from a single piece of material (see paragraph [0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kruchoski with that of Decker to reduce a number of parts, for one-piece construction, in place of separate elements fastened together, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kohno, 391 F.2d 959, 157 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).)
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruchoski in view of Shuta Yasui (US 2020/0290792 A1 – hereinafter Yasui).
Re Claim 24:
Kruchoski discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the paperboard comprises a coated paper having a basis weight of from about 80 gsm to about 500 gsm.
Yasui teaches a coated paper having a basis weight of from about 80 gsm to about 500 gsm (see paragraph [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kruchoski with that of Yasui to provide a selection of material as known within the art for a particular purpose or need. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruchoski in view of Dohla et al. (US 2020/0031566 A1 – hereinafter Dohla).
Re Claim 26:
Kruchoski discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the baffle further comprises a plurality of transverse slits that intersect the non-linear slit.
Dohla teaches wherein a baffle further comprises a plurality of transverse slits (16) that intersect (a slit) (see Fig. 1, see Figs. 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kruchoski with that of Dohla to allow for it to be easier to initially remove a sheet from a container.
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 KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights