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 § 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 1, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US 1,984,780) in view of Grebonval (US 2004/0251292)
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Baker (figs. 1-2 and 7) discloses a package adapted for storage and dispensing of web material from a roll, the package comprising:
a container including (1) a base portion 12 defining a compartment, the base portion 12 having a bottom panel defining a bottom of the compartment, a front base panel extending upwardly from the bottom panel to define a front of the compartment, a back panel extending from the bottom panel to define a back of the compartment, and first and second base side tabs extending between the bottom panel, the front base panel, and the back panel at opposing sides thereof to define opposing sides of the compartment; and (2) a lid portion 14 extending from the back panel, the lid portion 14 moveable between an open position for access to the compartment and a closed position blocking access to the compartment, and a roll of web material 10 in the container, the roll of web material 10 being wound around a central axis and including a first fold line 11 perpendicular to the central axis that can act as a structural rib in sheets of the web material after the web material is pulled from the roll and dispensed from the container so as to reduce curl in the web material upon use outside the container.
Baker fails to disclose:
the roll of web material including a second fold line perpendicular to the central axis that can act as a structural rib in sheets of the web material after the web material is pulled from the roll and dispensed from the container;
Wherein the roll of web material is folded along the first fold line and the second fold line such that the overall length of the roll of web material along the central axis is reduced while the roll of web material is in the compartment of the container;
wherein the first fold line and the second fold line are arranged to establish a trifold configuration in which opposing ends of the web material are folded toward a center point of the roll of web material along the central axis without the opposing ends of the web material touching one another; and
wherein the first fold line and the second fold line are spaced equidistantly from the center point of the roll of web material along the central axis.
However, Grebonval teaches a roll of folded material folded one or more times prior to winding, wherein the folding configurations, possibly including a V, C, Z fold, to enable a larger sheet to be dispensed from a roll having a shorter height (paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the material of Baker more than one time, to enable a larger sheet to be dispensed from a roll having a shorter height as taught by Grebonval in paragraph 0026. Modifying the fold pattern to have three equal sections or two shorter outside sections would have been an obvious design choice to optimize sheet handling and user convenience.
Regarding claim 9, Baker further discloses the roll of web material 10 includes a web of paper-based material (col. 1, lines 1-8).
Regarding claims 11,13-14 and 16, Baker (figs. 1-2, 7 an col. 2, lines 19-50) discloses a method of preparing, dispensing, and using a web material 10 from a roll, the method comprising:
generating a sheet of paper-based web material,
creating a first fold line 11 in the sheet of paper-based web material 10,
rolling the sheet of paper-based web material around a central axis to create a roll of web material 10,
placing the roll of web material 10 in a compartment defined by a base portion 12 of a container,
closing a lid portion 14 of the container to enclose the roll of web material 10 in the container for storage, and
dispensing a portion of the roll of web material 10 by pulling the portion of the roll of web material out of the compartment and tearing off the portion of the roll of web material from the remainder so that a dispensed portion of the web material is created with the first fold line providing a structural rib so as to reduce curl.
Baker fails to disclose:
creating a second fold line in the sheet of paper-based web material;
wherein the second fold line is parallel to the first fold line;
wherein the roll of web material is folded along the first fold line and the second fold line such that the overall length of the roll of web material along the central axis is reduced when placing the roll of web material in the compartment;
wherein the first fold line and the second fold line are arranged to establish a trifold configuration in which opposing ends of the web material are folded toward a center point of the roll of web material along the central axis without the opposing ends of the web material touching one another;
wherein the first fold line and the second fold line are spaced equidistantly from the center point of the roll of web material along the central axis.
However, Grebonval teaches a roll of folded material folded one or more times prior to winding, wherein the folding configurations, possibly including a V, C, Z fold, to enable a larger sheet to be dispensed from a roll having a shorter height (paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the material of Baker more than one time, to enable a larger sheet to be dispensed from a roll having a shorter height as taught by Grebonval in paragraph 0026. Modifying the fold pattern to have three equal sections or two shorter outside sections would have been an obvious design choice to optimize sheet handling and user convenience.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Baker further discloses the steps of creating a first fold line in the sheet of paper-based web material and creating a second fold line in the seat of paper-based web material are completed before the sheet of paper-based web material is rolled around the central axis (fig. 1 of Baker).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US 1,984,780) in view of Grebonval (US 2004/0251292) as applied to claims 9 and 11 above, in view of Vegliante (US 10,894,688).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Baker discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claims 9 and 11 above, but fails to disclose the paper-based material being parchment paper.
However, Vegliante teaches a dispenser for a roll of wax paper or parchment paper (col.1, lines 15-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to substitute parchment paper for the wax paper of the modified Baker, since it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Neither Baker nor Grebonval teach or suggest a web material folded in trifold configuration wherein opposing ends of the web material do not touch. However, Grebonval in paragraph 0026 clearly teaches a “Z” fold configuration, which inherently results in the opposing ends of the web material being spaced apart and not touching.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art includes folds for cost and efficiency benefits, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 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
Prosecution Insights