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 15,17,19 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 15 recites “wherein the pair of opposing support members are configured to move between a first position, in which the roll of sheet material mounted on the paper mandrel is at full size and the angled relationship of the respective first and second arms allows for the center of gravity of the full roll of paper material and paper mandrel to be positioned at a maximal distance from the driven roller to offset the weight of the full roll of sheet material and paper mandrel and wherein, as the operative diameter of roll of sheet material is reduced, the spacing of the center of gravity of the roll of paper material and paper mandrel relative to the driven roller is complementarily reduced to ensure that paper material is fed consistently to the driven roller”. The entirety of claim 15 is not understood by the Examiner. Clarification of the claim is required.
Claim 17 recites “as the sheet material roll of paper mat is used up and the operable radius of the roll of sheet material is reduced, the paper drum mandrel”; it is rather unclear these limitations refer to. Clarification of the claim is required.
Claim 19 recites “wherein each of the pair of opposing support members has a first arm that has a proximal end that is configured to be rotatably mounted to an upper surface of the housing and a second arm that has a distal end that defines a slot for operative receipt of a respective end of the paper mandrel, wherein, in the first position, the angled relationship of the respective first and second arms allows for the center of gravity of the full roll of paper material and paper mandrel to be positioned at a maximal distance from the select driven roller to offset the weight of the full roll of sheet material and paper mandrel, and wherein, as the operative diameter of roll of sheet material is reduced, the spacing of the center of gravity of the roll of paper material and paper mandrel relative to the driven roller is complementarily reduced to ensure that paper material is fed consistently to the select driven roller.” The entirety of claim 19 is not understood by the Examiner. Clarification of the claim is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: a fourth driven gear operatively coupled to the third driven gear such that the third driven gear and the fourth driven gear such that the third driven gear and the fourth driven gear rotate in like directions. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1,10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corley et al. (US 2014/0291437) in view of Fellhoelter (US 2015/0238056).
Claim 1,Corley discloses a sheet material dispenser, comprising: a dispenser housing; a first support assembly (40), each support assembly (40) supporting a respective supply of rolled sheet material (38) within the dispenser housing; a first roller assembly (74,76) mounted within an enclosure of the dispenser housing (see figures), wherein the first roller assembly (74,76) has a driven roller (74) configured to drive sheet material from the supply of rolled sheet material (38) supported by the first support assembly (40) and a first drive mechanism (88) operably coupled to the first roller assembly (74,76) to selectively drive rotation of the select driven roller (74), wherein the first drive mechanism (88) comprises a first push button assembly (68; para.0076) that is in geared cooperation with the select driven roller (74) of the first roller assembly (74,76); wherein a respective driven roller (74) from an actuated drive mechanism (92) is configured to rotate a selected number of rotations to dispense a select amount of sheet material upon actuation of the actuated drive mechanism (92).
Although Corley does not disclose a second support assembly; a second roller assembly; the second roller assembly has a driven roller configured to drive sheet material from the supply of rolled sheet material supported by the second support assembly; and a second drive mechanism operably coupled to the second roller assembly to selectively drive rotation of the select driven roller, wherein the second drive mechanism comprises a second push button assembly that is in geared cooperation with the select driven roller of the second roller assembly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate all the elements and features taught by Corley since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Corley does not disclose each support assembly rotatably supporting a respective supply of rolled sheet material within the dispenser housing.
Fellhoelter discloses each support assembly (76) rotatably supporting a respective supply of rolled sheet material (71) within the dispenser housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Corley with each support assembly rotatably supporting a respective supply of rolled sheet material within the dispenser housing because such configuration is widely known in the paper product dispensing art to hold and dispense a paper roll and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 10, Corley discloses wherein each first roller assembly (74,76) is configured to allow the user to manually retrieve additional sheet material by pulling the dispensed sheet material manually after the initial sheet material is dispensed via activation of a selected first drive mechanism (92).
Although Corley does not disclose wherein second roller assembly is configured to allow the user to manually retrieve additional sheet material by pulling the dispensed sheet material manually after the initial sheet material is dispensed via activation of a second drive mechanism, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate all the elements and features taught by Corley since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corley et al. (US 2014/0291437) in view of Fellhoelter (US 2015/0238056) in view of Alarcon (US 2020/0022416).
Claim 2, Corley in view of Fellhoelter do not disclose wherein each push button assembly comprises: a button member configured to be moved axially relative to the enclosure by manual actuation by an operator; a spring mounted within the enclosure and positioned in contact with a back side of the button member to exert an opposing bias force against the axial movement of the button member, and a gear rack configured to extend distally away from the backside of the button member along an axis that is parallel to the axis of movement of the button member, wherein the gear rack is in operative geared cooperation with the select driven roller of the roller assembly associated with the respective push button assembly.
Alarcon discloses wherein each push button assembly comprises: a button member (501) configured to be moved axially relative to the enclosure by manual actuation by an operator; a spring (507,508) mounted within the enclosure and positioned in contact with the button member (501) to exert an opposing bias force against the axial movement of the button member (501), and a gear rack (505) configured to extend distally away from the backside of the button member (501) along an axis that is parallel to the axis of movement of the button member (501), wherein the gear rack (505) is in operative geared cooperation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Corley in view of Fellhoelter with wherein each push button assembly comprises: a button member configured to be moved axially relative to the enclosure by manual actuation by an operator; a spring mounted within the enclosure and positioned in contact with the button member to exert an opposing bias force against the axial movement of the button member, and a gear rack configured to extend distally away from the backside of the button member along an axis that is parallel to the axis of movement of the button member, wherein the gear rack is in operative geared cooperation with the select driven roller of the roller assembly associated with the respective push button assembly because such dispensing push button mechanisms are very well-known in the art to act upon a drive system inside the device and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. Furthermore, although Alarcon does not disclose a spring in contact with a back side of the button member, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement such configuration since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corley et al. (US 2014/0291437) in view of Fellhoelter (US 2015/0238056) in view of Abraham et al. (US 2020/0154957).
Claim 8, Corley in view of Fellhoelter do not disclose wherein the driven roller for each first and second roller assembly comprises a drive roller and a main roller in geared cooperation, wherein the first drive mechanism is operably coupled to the drive roller and the main roller of the first roller assembly to selectively drive rotation of the first roller assembly, and wherein the second drive mechanism is operably coupled to the drive roller and the main roller of the second roller assembly to selectively drive rotation of the second roller assembly.
Abraham discloses wherein the driven roller (150) for each roller assembly (150,152) comprises a drive roller (150) and a main roller (152) in geared cooperation, wherein the first drive mechanism (153) is operably coupled to the drive roller (150) and the main roller (153) of the roller assembly to selectively drive rotation of the roller assembly (150,152). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Corley in view of Fellhoelter with wherein the driven roller for each roller assembly comprises a drive roller and a main roller in geared cooperation, wherein the first drive mechanism is operably coupled to the drive roller and the main roller of the roller assembly to selectively drive rotation of the roller assembly because such configuration is widely known in the paper product dispensing art to hold and dispense a paper roll and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation. Furthermore, although Abraham does not disclose wherein the driven roller for the second roller assembly comprises a drive roller and a main roller in geared cooperation, and wherein the second drive mechanism is operably coupled to the drive roller and the main roller of the second roller assembly to selectively drive rotation of the second roller assembly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate all the elements and features taught by Corley since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corley et al. (US 2014/0291437) in view of Fellhoelter (US 2015/0238056) in view of Starkey (US 2019/0350414).
Claim 9, Corley in view of Fellhoelter do not disclose wherein the driven roller for each first and second roller assembly is coupled to a clutch mechanism that is configured to allow the driven roller to rotate when rotated in one direction and to disengage from the driven roller when driven in the opposite direction.
Starkey discloses wherein the driven roller (350) for each first roller assembly (350) is coupled to a clutch mechanism (para.0058; one-way clutch) that is configured to allow the driven roller (350) to rotate when rotated in one direction and to disengage from the driven roller (350) when driven in the opposite direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Corley in view of Fellhoelter with wherein the driven roller for each first roller assembly is coupled to a clutch mechanism that is configured to allow the driven roller to rotate when rotated in one direction and to disengage from the driven roller when driven in the opposite direction in order to further enhance the control of how the paper roll spins in the dispenser which provides smooth pulling, prevents jams, saves paper, and stops extra spinning.
Although Corley in view of Fellhoelter in view of Starkey so not disclose wherein the driven roller for the second roller assembly is coupled to a clutch mechanism that is configured to allow the driven roller to rotate when rotated in one direction and to disengage from the driven roller when driven in the opposite direction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate all the elements and features since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corley et al. (US 2014/0291437) in view of Fellhoelter (US 2015/0238056) in view of Bartman et al. (US 2021/0085136).
Claim 11, Corley in view of Fellhoelter does not disclose a brake assembly for each roller assembly, each brake assembly having an elongate brake member being configured to pivot from an at rest position with respect to the housing for select braking contact with an upper guide roller of the roller assembly to cause the sheet material to cease feeding between a main roller and the upper guide roller such that the user can tear off the feed length of sheet material after which the brake assembly is configured to operatively bias back toward the at rest position.
Bartman discloses a brake assembly (90) for each roller assembly (31,33), each brake assembly (90) having an elongate brake member (97) being configured to pivot from an at rest position with respect to the housing for select braking contact with an upper guide roller (33) of the roller assembly (31) to cause the sheet material to cease feeding between a main roller (31) and the upper guide roller (33) such that the user can tear off the feed length of sheet material after which the brake assembly (90) is configured to operatively bias back toward the at rest position (para.0177-0180). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Corley in view of Fellhoelter with a brake assembly for each roller assembly, each brake assembly having an elongate brake member being configured to pivot from an at rest position with respect to the housing for select braking contact with an upper guide roller of the roller assembly to cause the sheet material to cease feeding between a main roller and the upper guide roller such that the user can tear off the feed length of sheet material after which the brake assembly is configured to operatively bias back toward the at rest position in order to further the user by providing a perforation tear assist feature configured to interact with the sheet product such that when a user pulls on the leading predetermined portion, the brake feature moves to engage and brake one of the rollers to prevent further sheet product from being pulled through.
Claim 12, Corley in view of Fellhoelter does not disclose wherein, in the rest position, a proximal end of the brake member is spaced from the surface of the upper guide roller, and wherein the brake assembly is rotatably mounted relative to the enclosure of the dispenser housing.
Bartman discloses wherein, in the rest position (fig.11a), a proximal end of the brake member (97) is spaced from the surface of the upper guide roller (33), and wherein the brake assembly (90) is rotatably mounted relative to the enclosure of the dispenser housing (90 pivots around 94). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Corley in view of Fellhoelter with wherein, in the rest position, a proximal end of the brake member is spaced from the surface of the upper guide roller, and wherein the brake assembly is rotatably mounted relative to the enclosure of the dispenser housing in order to further the user by providing a perforation tear assist feature configured to interact with the sheet product such that when a user pulls on the leading predetermined portion, the brake feature moves to engage and brake one of the rollers to prevent further sheet product from being pulled through.
Claim 13, Corley in view of Fellhoelter does not disclose wherein the brake assembly further comprise a bias member configured to urge the elongate brake member of the brake assembly toward the at rest position.
Bartman discloses wherein the brake assembly (90) further comprise a bias member (90 is biased to the first position) configured to urge the elongate brake member (97) of the brake assembly toward the at rest position (para.0180). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Corley in view of Fellhoelter with wherein the brake assembly further comprise a bias member configured to urge the elongate brake member of the brake assembly toward the at rest position in order to further the user by providing a perforation tear assist feature configured to interact with the sheet product such that when a user pulls on the leading predetermined portion, the brake feature moves to engage and brake one of the rollers to prevent further sheet product from being pulled through.
Claims 14-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corley et al. (US 2014/0291437) in view of Fellhoelter (US 2015/0238056) in view of Osborne JR. (US 2018/0263435).
Claim 14, Corley discloses wherein each support assembly (40) comprises a pair of opposing support members (40,40) that are spaced apart such that a roll of sheet material can be mounted therebetween; wherein each of the support members (40) has a first arm (40) that has a proximal end that is configured to be mounted to an upper surface of the enclosure and a second arm that has a distal end (fig.5).
Corley in view of Fellhoelter do not disclose wherein each support assembly comprises a pair of opposing support members that are spaced apart such that a roll of sheet material can be mounted therebetween on a paper mandrel, wherein each of the support members has a first arm that has a proximal end that is configured to be rotatably mounted to an upper surface of the enclosure and a second arm that has a distal end that defines a slot for operative receipt of a respective end of a paper mandrel.
Osborne discloses wherein each support assembly (28) comprises a pair of opposing support members (30,30) that are spaced apart such that a roll of sheet material (26) can be mounted therebetween on a paper mandrel (50), wherein each of the support members (30,30) has a first arm (fig.2b; bottom portion arms of 30 that’s attached to the housing) that has a proximal end that is configured to be rotatably mounted (fig.1b; arm 28 is biased inwardly meaning it rotates towards paper roll 26 or rotatably coupled; para.0029) to an upper surface of the enclosure (14) and a second arm (fig.2b; upper portion arm of 30 by 108) that has a distal end that defines a slot (48) for operative receipt of a respective end of a paper mandrel (50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Corley in view of Fellhoelter with wherein each support assembly comprises a pair of opposing support members that are spaced apart such that a roll of sheet material can be mounted therebetween on a paper mandrel, wherein each of the support members has a first arm that has a proximal end that is configured to be rotatably mounted to an upper surface of the enclosure and a second arm that has a distal end that defines a slot for operative receipt of a respective end of a paper mandrel because the use of such support for supporting a supply of paper roll sheet material is very well known in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation since it merely provides another means of supporting paper rolls.
Claim 15, Corley in view of Fellhoelter do not disclose wherein the pair of opposing support members are configured to move between a first position, in which the roll of sheet material mounted on the paper mandrel is at full size and the angled relationship of the respective first and second arms allows for the center of gravity of the full roll of paper material and paper mandrel to be positioned at a maximal distance from the driven roller to offset the weight of the full roll of sheet material and paper mandrel and wherein, as the operative diameter of roll of sheet material is reduced, the spacing of the center of gravity of the roll of paper material and paper mandrel relative to the driven roller is complementarily reduced to ensure that paper material is fed consistently to the driven roller.
Osborne discloses wherein the pair of opposing support members (28,28) are configured to move between a first position (para.0029; biased position), in which the roll of sheet material (26) mounted on the paper mandrel (50) is at full size and the angled relationship of the respective first (30) and second (30) arms allows for the center of gravity of the full roll of paper material (26) and paper mandrel (50) to be positioned at a maximal distance from the driven roller (32) to offset the weight of the full roll of sheet material (26) and paper mandrel (50) and wherein, as the operative diameter of roll of sheet material (26) is reduced, the spacing of the center of gravity of the roll of paper material (26) and paper mandrel (50) relative to the driven roller (32) is complementarily reduced to ensure that paper material is fed consistently to the driven roller (32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Corley in view of Fellhoelter with wherein the pair of opposing support members are configured to move between a first position, in which the roll of sheet material mounted on the paper mandrel is at full size and the angled relationship of the respective first and second arms allows for the center of gravity of the full roll of paper material and paper mandrel to be positioned at a maximal distance from the driven roller to offset the weight of the full roll of sheet material and paper mandrel and wherein, as the operative diameter of roll of sheet material is reduced, the spacing of the center of gravity of the roll of paper material and paper mandrel relative to the driven roller is complementarily reduced to ensure that paper material is fed consistently to the driven roller because the use of such support for supporting a supply of paper roll sheet material is very well known in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation since it merely provides another means of supporting paper rolls.
Claim 16, Corley discloses wherein the first (40) and second arms (40) are integral to each other and are positioned in a common plane at an acute angle with respect to each other (fig.5).
Claim 17, Corley in view of Fellhoelter do not disclose wherein as the sheet material roll of paper mat is used up and the operable radius of the roll of sheet material is reduced, the paper drum mandrel is maintained at a desired distance from the upper surface of the enclosure of the dispensing system.
Osborne discloses wherein as the sheet material roll of paper mat is used up and the operable radius of the roll of sheet material (26) is reduced, the paper drum mandrel (50) is maintained at a desired distance from the upper surface (14) of the enclosure of the dispensing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Corley in view of Fellhoelter with wherein as the sheet material roll of paper mat is used up and the operable radius of the roll of sheet material is reduced, the paper drum mandrel is maintained at a desired distance from the upper surface of the enclosure of the dispensing system because the use of such support for supporting a supply of paper roll sheet material is very well known in the art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation since it merely provides another means of supporting paper rolls.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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 19-33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18,34-35 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A sheet material dispenser including the features “a selection mechanism slidably mounted between the first push button assembly and the second push button assembly, the selection mechanism configured to allow for operator selection of the desired supply of rolled sheet material within the dispenser housing“ in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYODEJI H OJOFEITIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-6557. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/AYODEJI H OJOFEITIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights