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 filed 10/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Lin and Boon is improper and does not have proper motivation and relies on improper hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Using the dispensing box of Lin to dispense which is for dispensing “high end” goods to dispense tissues broadens the market for Lins box by dispensing tissues. Additionally, the dispensing box of Lin could be used to dispense ANY object which could fit with in the box. No structural change to Lin is required, merely placing the a stack of tissues in the box. This is analogous to “Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). In this case, the dispensing box of Lin is the structure and the article is the stack of tissues being substituted for a moon cake or other article. Boon is merely relied on to show that drawer type dispensers for a stack of sheets are already known in the art. The additional claims to structure not disclosed in claim 1 will be addressed in response to the arguments directed to the dependent claims. For at least the foregoing reasons claim 1 and its dependent claims stand rejected.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 7 and 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the examiner does not explain how elements 1 and 33 in figures 1 and 2 disclose that when the tab member is pulled out, the tray moves out of the second opening and that when the tab member is pushed the tray moves into the second opening. Figures one and 2 show a simple mechanical system nearly identical to applicant’s own system. Pulling on the tab 33 rotates the conveyor belt 32, which forces the tray 1 to extend out of the second opening. Pushing on the tab 33 rotates the conveyor belt 32, which forces the tray 1 to retract into the second opening. Pushing or pulling the tray 1 would also cause the tab to move into or out of the first opening. For at least the foregoing reasons claims 7 and 8 stand rejected.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the drawstring 332 is exposed when the inner box is disclosed and does not read on claim 11. Claim 11 only requires that the tab 33 be positioned within the housing when the tray member is in the closed position. The drawstring 332 is not the tab 33 and the claims does not even require that no part of the tab extends beyond the housing. The tab 33 would be entirely inside of the housing when the tray 1 is in the closed position. For at least the foregoing reasons claim 11 stands rejected.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Lin shifts out “fully” and therefore does not disclose the tissue tray stopping at 60% to 98% extension. However, when the attachment points 11 and 35 reach the end of the dividing sheet 31 the tray is “fully” extended and further extension would cause damage to the structure. At least 2% of the length of the tray 1 extends past the connection point 11 and would remain in the housing when the tray 1 is fully extended. For at least the foregoing reasons claim 16 stands rejected.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lin does not disclose an endless loop formed around the stationary member. Lines 11 and 35 are where the endless loop 32 (‘soft flexible film belt’) is connected to the tray 1, and the tab 33 and do not constitute breaks in the endless loop. For at least the foregoing reasons claim 3 stands rejected.
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) 1-3 and 6-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin CN 201193123 Y (IDS) in view of Boon et al. WO 2021/050450 A1 (IDS).
Lin discloses a dispenser for sheet materials comprising:
(re claim 1) "a housing defining an interior enclosure, the housing comprising a top, a bottom, and a pair of opposing sides, the housing further including a first open end opposite a second open end" (2 figure 1). "a stationary member having a fixed position within the interior enclosure of the housing" (31 figure 1,2). "a tray member positioned on one side of the stationary member within the interior enclosure of the housing, the tray member being laterally movable between a closed position within the housing and a dispensing position" (1 figure 1,2). "a tab member positioned on a side of the stationary member opposite the tray member, the tab member being laterally movable" (33 figure 1,2). "a conveyor in operative association with the stationary member, the tray member and the tab member being attached to the conveyor such that, when the tab member is laterally moved, the tray member moves from the closed position to the dispensing position for dispensing from the tray member" (32,11,35 figure 1,2).
Lin does not disclose that the tray member containing at least one sheet material, wherein the tray member is configured to dispense the at least one sheet material comprising a stack of tissue products.
Boon teaches that the tray member containing at least one sheet material, wherein the tray member is configured to dispense the at least one sheet material comprising a stack of tissue products (abstract, 281,282 figure 7A).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the dispenser of Lin to include that the tray member containing at least one sheet material, wherein the tray member is configured to dispense the at least one sheet material comprising a stack of tissue products because it provides an attractive dispensing box for tissues.
(re claim 2) "wherein the conveyor comprises a film" (32 figure 1,2).
(re claim 3) "the conveyor forms an endless loop around the stationary member" (32 figure 1,2).
(re claim 4) Canceled
(re claim 5) Canceled
(re claim 6) Lin is mute with regard to the stack of sheet materials are note interfolded.
Boon teaches that the stack of sheets materials are or are not interfolded (page 1 lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the dispenser of Lin to include that the stack of sheet materials are not interfolded because it might cause the sliding mechanism to jam.
(re claim 7) "when the tab member is pulled out from the first open end of the housing, the tray member moves out of the second open end of the housing" (1,33 figure 1,2).
(re claim 8) "when the tab member is pushed into the first open end of the housing, the tray member moves into the second open end of the housing into the closed position" (1,33 figure 1,2).
(re claim 9) Lin does not disclose that the tray member can hold from about 5 to about 50 individual sheet materials in a stack.
Boon teaches that the tray member can hold from about 5 to about 50 individual sheet materials in a stack (page 4 lines 9-15).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the dispenser of Lin to include that the tray member can hold from about 5 to about 50 individual sheet materials in a stack because it limits the size of the container to a manageable size for a pocket or purse.
(re claim 10) "the tray member has a first end and a second end, and wherein the tray member is attached to the conveyor at the first end" (1,11 figure 1). "the tab member has a first end and a second end, and wherein the tab member is attached to the conveyor at the second end" (33,35 figure 2).
(re claim 11) "when the tray member is in the closed position, the tab member is also positioned within the housing" (1,33 figure 1,2).
(re claim 12) "the tray member is adjacent to a top surface of the stationary member and wherein the tab member is adjacent to a bottom surface of the stationary member" (1,33 figure 1,2).
(re claim 13) Lin does not disclose the tray member is adjacent to a bottom surface of the stationary member and the tab member is adjacent to a top surface of the stationary member. This feature lacks an inventive step as it is merely a reversal of the configuration of Lin and would have been obvious to try.
(re claim 14) Lin is silent with regard to the materials used in constructing the housing and the tray.
Boon teaches that the housing and the tray member are formed from a paperboard" (page 2 lines 21-32).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the dispenser of Lin to include that the housing and the tray member are formed from a paperboard because it's a well-known material for sheet dispensing cartons, is low cost and is recyclable.
(re claim 15) "the interior enclosure of the housing has a length and the stationary member extends over at least about 75% of the length of the interior enclosure" (31 figure 1,2).
(re claim 16) "the tray member has a length and wherein the tray member is attached to the conveyor such that when the tray member is in the dispensing position, from about 60% to about 98% of the length of the tray member extends out from the interior enclosure of the housing, the conveyor preventing any further lateral movement" (1,11,32 figure 2).
(re claim 17) "wherein the stationary member has a plate-like shape" (31 figure 2).
(re claim 18) "the tab member has a plate-like shape" (33 figure 1,2).
(re claim 19) "the housing has a width and the tab member has a width and wherein the width of the tab member is about the same width as the housing" (2,33 figure 1).
(re claim 20) Lin does not disclose that the housing has a width and the tab member has a width and wherein the width of the tab member is less than about 50% of the width of the housing. This feature lacks an inventive step as it merely reduces the with of the tab which has the benefit of reducing the cost of manufacture and the weight of the dispenser.
(re claim 21) "the dispenser further comprises at least one track member attached to the bottom of the housing and positioned over the tab member" (34 figure 1,2).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin/Boon in view of Wharton US 2010/0230316 A1.
Lin/Boon discloses the system as rejected above.
(Re claim 22) Lin/Boon do not disclose that the dispenser further comprises an anti-friction agent applied to a surface of the conveyor.
Wharton teaches that the dispenser further comprises an anti-friction agent applied to a surface of the conveyor (para 0034, 42 figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify they system of Lin/Boon to include that the dispenser further comprises an anti-friction agent applied to a surface of the conveyor because it helps ensure that the dispensing mechanism works smoothly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
