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 .
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 32-35 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 32 recites the limitation "the second front lid panel" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeren (US 2,336,842) in view of Osborn (US 3,229,876).
Regarding claim 12, Broeren (Figs. 10-14) discloses a method of dispensing web material from a roll, the method comprising:
providing a container, the container including a base portion defining a compartment and a lid portion moveable between an open position for access to the compartment and a dispensing position;
the base portion having: a bottom panel 51 defining a bottom of the compartment, a front base panel 50 extending upwardly from the bottom panel 51 to define a front of the compartment, a back panel 52 extending from the bottom panel to define a back of the compartment, and first and second base side tabs 57 extending between the bottom panel 51, the front base panel 50, and the back panel 52 at opposing sides thereof to define opposing sides of the compartment,
the lid portion having: a top panel 53 defining a top of the lid portion, the top panel 53 hingedly-coupled to the back panel 52, and a front lid panel 54 extending from the top panel 53, the front lid panel 54 having a front lid panel pressure edge opposite the top panel , the front lid panel 54 including a second portion to define the front lid panel pressure edge, the front lid panel 54 configured in the dispensing position to extend within the compartment along the front base panel 50;
disposing a roll of web material 90 in the container in an overhand arrangement, the web material 90 extending over a top of the roll toward the front base panel 50; and
dispensing web material 90 from the roll with the lid portion in the dispensing position, the web material being directed between the front lid panel pressure edge and the bottom panel 51, the web material being further directed between the front lid panel 54 and the front base panel 50.
Broeren fails to disclose the front lid panel including a first portion folded along a fold line behind the second portion to define the front lid panel pressure edge along the fold line.
However, Osborn teaches container having a front lid panel including a first and second portion 14, 15 connected along a fold line and adhered together (fig. 3 and col. 2, lines 3-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the front lid panel of Broeren of two panels folded along a fold line and adhered together, to provide reinforcement, as taught by Osborn.
Regarding claim 14, Broeren further discloses the web material being parchment paper, greaseproof paper and/or papers of the like (col. 1, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 16, Broeren further discloses the dispensed web material has a length between approximately 6 inches and approximately 60 inches (figs. 10-11).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeren (US 2,336,842) in view of Osborn (US 3,229,876) as applied to claim 12 above, further in view of Miles (US 3,531,032)
Regarding claim 13, the modified Broeren discloses all elements of the claimed invention but fails to disclose dispensing web material from the roll includes applying pressure to the lid portion to pinch the web material between the front lid panel pressure edge and the bottom panel.
However, Miles teaches pulling on an exposed portion of the initial amount of web material while applying pressure to the top panel of the lid portion pressing the pressure edge of the front lid panel toward the bottom panel of the base portion to pinch the web material (figs. 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have pulled on the exposed portion of the initial amount of web material of Broeren, while applying pressure on the top panel of the lid portion, as taught by Miles, to prevent displacement of the web material during tearing.
Regarding claim 15, Broeren further discloses the web material 90 has a dispensed web curvature A, the dispensed web curvature measured as a distance between a high point on the dispensed web material and a flat surface on which the dispensed web material is placed (fig. 13).
Claims 21 and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeren (US 2,336,842) in view of Miles (US 3,531,032).
Regarding claim 21, Broeren (figs. 10-14) discloses a method of dispensing web material from a roll, the method comprising:
providing a container including
(1) a base portion defining a compartment, the base portion having a bottom panel 51defining a bottom of the compartment, a front base panel 50 extending upwardly from the bottom panel to define a front of the compartment, a back panel 52 extending from the bottom panel 51 to define a back of the compartment, and first and second base side tabs 57 extending between the bottom panel 51, the front base panel 50, and the back panel 52 at opposing sides thereof to define opposing sides of the compartment; and
(2) a lid portion, the lid portion moveable between an open position for access to the compartment and a dispensing position, the lid portion having a top panel 53 defining a top of the lid portion, the top panel 53 coupled via a hinge to the back panel 52 and having opposed free side edges, and a front lid panel 54 extending from the top panel and having opposed free side edges, the front lid panel 54 having a front lid panel pressure edge opposite the top panel 53, disposing the roll of paper based web material 90 in the container in an overhand arrangement with the web material extending over a top of the roll toward the front base panel 50 and having an initial amount of web material up and over the front base panel 50 free edge, placing the lid portion of the container in the dispensing position, in which the front lid panel 51 extends within the compartment along the front base panel, and dispensing paper based web material from the roll with the lid portion in the dispensing position by pulling on an exposed portion of the initial amount of web material; and
dispensing paper based web material from the roll with the lid portion in the dispensing position by pulling on an exposed portion of the initial amount of web material.
Broeren fails to disclose:
pulling on an exposed portion of the initial amount of web material while applying pressure to the top panel of the lid portion pressing the pressure edge of the front lid panel toward the bottom panel of the base portion to pinch the web material between the front lid panel and the bottom panel thereby increasing pulling force associated with removal of the web material from the container and creating a shear stress in the web material thereby reducing shape memory effect in the web material dispensed from the container to address shape memory affect caused by prolonged storage of the web material in a rolled-up configuration inside the container.
However, Miles teaches pulling on an exposed portion of the initial amount of web material while applying pressure to the top panel of the lid portion pressing the pressure edge of the front lid panel toward the bottom panel of the base portion (figs.5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have pulled on the exposed portion of the initial amount of web material of Broeren, while applying pressure on the top panel of the lid portion, as taught by Miles, to prevent displacement of the web during tearing.
Regarding claims 25-28, Mills further teaches applying pressure at the boundary between the top panel and the front lid panel, mid-way between the opposed free side edges of the top panel included in the lid portion (figs. 5-8).
However, the modified Broeren fails to disclose a text indicator suggestive of where to apply pressure to the top panel of the lid during dispensing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided a text indicator on the package to indicate the location intended for manual depression, as providing user instructions on a packaging is a well-known matter of design choice to improve usability. The printed mater merely conveys information and does not functionally alter the structure of the package.
Regarding claim 29, Broeren further discloses a cutter 70 is disposed on the front base panel 50 disposed proximate a front base panel free edge, and the method further comprises using the cutter to separate the web material dispensed out of the container from web material remaining inside the container (figs. 15-16).
Regarding claim 30, Broeren further discloses providing the container includes folding a blank to form the base portion and the lid portion (fig. 11).
Regarding claim 31, Broeren further discloses the blank prior to folding includes the front base panel having a front base panel free edge and a front base panel fold line opposite the front base panel free edge, the bottom panel extending from the front base panel fold line to a bottom panel fold line, the bottom panel having opposing first and second bottom side fold lines, first and second bottom panel side tabs 56 extending from the first and second bottom side fold lines, respectively, and the back panel 52 extending from the bottom panel fold line to a base-lid hinge line (fig. 11).
Claims 22-24, 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeren (US 2,336,842) in view of Miles (US 3,531,032) as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Osborn (US 3,229,876).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Broeren discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the front lid panel including a first portion and a second portion folded along a fold line behind the first portion to define the front lid panel pressure edge along the fold line.
However, Osborn teaches container having a front lid panel including a first and second portion 14, 15 connected along a fold line and adhered together (fig. 3 and col. 2, lines 3-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the front lid panel of the modified Broeren of two panels folded along a fold line and adhered together, to provide reinforcement, as taught by Osborn.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Broeren discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the first portion of the front lid panel is sized to extend over at least 95% the second portion of the front lid panel. However, it has been held that 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.
Regarding claim 24, the modified Broeren further discloses the free edge of the first portion of the front lid panel is spaced apart from the top panel capable of accommodating movement of the front lid panel to form an included angle with the top panel of less than 90 degrees without the free edge of the first portion contacting the top panel during movement of the lid portion from the open position to the dispensing position (fig. 3 of Osborn).
Regarding claim 32, Broeren further discloses the blank prior to folding includes the top panel 53 extending from the base-lid hinge line to a top front fold line, the first front lid panel 54 extending from the top front fold line (fig. 11).
However, the modified Broeren fails to disclose the first front lid panel 54 extending from the top front fold line to a front lid panel fold line, and a second front lid panel extending from the front lid panel fold line to a front lid panel free edge.
However, Osborn teaches container having a front lid panel including a first and second portion 14, 15 connected along a fold line and adhered together (fig. 3 and col. 2, lines 3-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the front lid panel of the modified Broeren of two panels folded along a fold line and adhered together, to provide reinforcement, as taught by Osborn.
Regarding claim 35, Broeren further discloses the front base panel 50 includes opposing first and second front base panel side fold lines, the blank further comprising first and second front base panel side tabs 55 extending from the first and second front base panel side fold lines, respectively (fig. 11).
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeren (US 2,336,842) in view of Miles (US 3,531,032) further in view of Osborn (US 3,229,876) as applied to claim 32 above, further in view of Danenbauer (US 2,472,521).
Regarding claims 33-34, Broeren further discloses a front base panel width being defined between the front base panel free edge and the front base panel fold line and a front lid panel width is defined between the top front fold line and the front lid panel fold line (fig. 11).
However, the modified Broeren fails to disclose the front lid panel width being greater than the front base panel width; wherein the front lid panel width is between approximately 3 percent and approximately 5 percent greater than the front base panel width.
However, Danenbauer teaches a front lid panel 15 of a dispensing container, having a height greater than the height of a front base panel 11 wherein the front lid panel width is between approximately 3 percent and approximately 5 percent greater than the front base panel width (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the front lid panel of the modified Broeren longer than the front base panel, as taught by Danenbauer, to improve user convenience by making the front lid panel easier to grasp, manipulate and securely close.
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 BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735