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 Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “wherein the a cutter” is believed to be in error for “wherein a cutter” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeren (US 2,336,842) in view of Waltz (US 2,751,163).
Regarding claim 1, Broeren (figs. 13-14) discloses a package adapted for storage and dispensing of web material from a roll, the package comprising a container including:
a base portion defining a compartment, 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 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;
a lid portion 53, 54 extending from the back panel 51, the lid portion 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 90 arranged in the compartment of the container, the roll of web material 90 being wound around a central axis that extends through the first base side tab and the second base side tab, wherein the roll of web material 90 is positioned in an overhand orientation with the web material extending over a top of the roll toward the front base panel and is routed under a front lid 54 before extending over a top of the front base panel so that the front lid 54 can apply a shear force to the web material during dispensing and reduce the tendency of the web material to curl when a portion of the web material is removed from the roll of web material.
However, Broeren fails to disclose the front lid 54 discussed above having a dowel arranged in the compartment that extends from the first base side tab to the second base side tab.
However, Waltz teaches a front lid 11 having a dowel 12 arranged in the compartment that extends from a first base side to the second base side (figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the front lid 54 of Broeren, a dowel, as taught by Waltz, to guide and control the web as it is withdrawn and directed toward the dispensing edge.
The combination teaches the claimed routing and curl-reducing effect since Walz teaches routing the web under dowel 12 and then upward toward the dispensing region. The resulting redirection of the tensioned web about dowel 12 inherently applies a force to the web that reduces its tendency to curl.
Regarding claim 2, Broeren further discloses a cutter 70 disposed on the top of the front base panel 50 to enable removal of the portion of the web material from the roll of web material (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Broeren further discloses the dowel (of Waltz) being arranged nearer to a bottom side of the front base panel than to the top of the front base panel since it is attached to the front lid panel 54 (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Broeren further discloses the dowel being arranged nearer to the front base panel than to the back panel (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Broeren further discloses the dowel having a round cross section (fig. 6 of Waltz).
Regarding claim 6, Broeren further discloses the roll of web material includes a paper- based web material (col. 1, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 8, Broeren (figs. 13-14) discloses a container for storing and dispensing a roll of web material, the container comprising a base portion defining a compartment, 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 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;
a lid portion 53, 54 extending from the back panel 52, the lid portion 53, 54 moveable between an open position for access to the compartment and a closed position blocking access to the compartment; and a front lid panel 54 arranged in the compartment that extends from the first base side tab to the second base side tab.
However, Broeren fails to disclose the front lid 54 discussed above having a dowel arranged in the compartment that extends from the first base side tab to the second base side tab.
However, Waltz teaches a front lid 11 having a dowel 12 arranged in the compartment that extends from a first base side to the second base side (figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the front lid 54 of Broeren, a dowel, as taught by Waltz, to guide and control the web as it is withdrawn and directed toward the dispensing edge.
The combination teaches the claimed routing and curl-reducing effect since Walz teaches routing the web under dowel 12 and then upward toward the dispensing region. The resulting redirection of the tensioned web about dowel 12 inherently applies a force to the web that reduces its tendency to curl.
Regarding claim 9, Broeren further discloses a cutter 70 being disposed on a free edge running along a top of the front base panel 50 to enable removal of the portion of the web material from the roll of web material (figs. 13-15).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Broeren further discloses the dowel (of Waltz) being arranged nearer to a bottom side of the front base panel 50 than to a free edge along a top of the front base panel since it is attached to the front lid panel 54 (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Broeren further discloses the dowel being arranged nearer to the front base panel than to the back panel (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Broeren further discloses the dowel having a round cross section and forming a cylinder (fig. 6 of Waltz).
Regarding claims 13-19, the recited method merely sets forth the disclosed use of the claimed package as set forth in claims 1-6, 8-12. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as the device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broeren (US 2,336,842) in view of Waltz (US 2,751,163) as applied to claims 6 and 19 above, further in view of Vegliante (US 10,894,688).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, the modified Broeren discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claims 6 and 19 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 having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the roll of the modified Broeren, a parchment paper, because such substitution would have been motivated by routine design considerations.
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 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The newly applied reference Walz teaches routing the web under dowel 12 and then upward toward the dispensing region. The resulting redirection of the tensioned web about dowel 12 inherently applies a force to the web that reduces its tendency to curl. Thus, the combination teaches the claimed routing and curl-reducing effect.
Conclusion
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