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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 07/14/2026
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11-13 and 15-17 have been amended and claims 19-22 have been added
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11-13 and 15-22 are presented for examination
This action is Non-Final
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowley et al. (US 7,469,786) in view of Schulman (US 10,850,883) in view of Husmann (US 2016/0271993).
Claim 1. Rowley discloses a protective package, comprising:
a stack 16 and one and only one corrugated board 18 that are adjacent each other and both overwrapped together by a shrink wrap plastic film 20 in a sealed condition, both the sheet stack and the one and only one corrugated board each having a plurality of corner regions all of which are unbent and uncurled (col. 3, ll. 53-67; fig. 5-6), the sheet stack being free from being contained within a box (fig. 2);
Rowley discloses a plurality of stacked products but fails to teach a sheet stack consisting of posterboard sheets, foam core sheets, and a combination of the posterboard sheets and the foam core sheets. Schulman teaches individual products sheets 26/28 of the sheet stack being selected from a group consisting of posterboard sheets, foam core sheets, and a combination of the posterboards sheets and the foam core sheets ([0009], [0036]; fig. 1, 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sheet stack of Rowley to include the alternate stacked materials of Schulman to provide easier shipping and storing arrangements for the currently stacked product.
Figure 2 of Rowley shows the shrink-wrapped product independent of an outer box. Husman also introduces a shrink-wrapped product independent of an outer box allowing a variety of products to be packaged, displayed and transported.
In order to further limit the claims there must be some distinction based upon the intended use recited. “However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, see M.P.E.P. § 2111.02 THE INTENDED USE MAY FURTHER LIMIT THE CLAIM IF IT DOES MORE THAN MERELY STATE PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE. The examiner can see no structural differences between the claimed invention and the prior art based upon the intended use recited.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann (US 3,404,771) in view of Schulman (US 10,850,883).
Claim 1. Mann discloses a protective package, comprising:
a stack 11 and one and only one corrugated board 23 that are adjacent each other and both overwrapped together by a shrink wrap plastic film 12 in a sealed condition (fig. 1), both the sheet stack and the one and only one corrugated board each having a plurality of corner regions all of which are unbent and uncurled (col. 2, ll. 30-67; fig. 1-2), the sheet stack being free from being contained within a box (fig. 1).
Mann discloses a plurality of stacked products but fails to teach a sheet stack consisting of posterboard sheets, foam core sheets, and a combination of the posterboard sheets and the foam core sheets. Schulman teaches individual products sheets 26/28 of the sheet stack being selected from a group consisting of posterboard sheets, foam core sheets, and a combination of the posterboards sheets and the foam core sheets ([0009], [0036]; fig. 1, 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sheet stack of Mann to include the alternate stacked materials of Schulman to provide easier shipping and storing arrangements for the currently stacked product.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 11-12, 15-17 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruppenthal (US 3,780,854) in view of Mann (US 3,404,771) in view of Schulman (US 2020/0082743).
Claims 1, 8: Ruppenthal discloses a protective package, comprising,
a paper stack 2 and one and only one corrugated board 1 that are adjacent each other and both overwrapped together by protection means 11 both the sheet stack and the one and only one corrugated board each having a plurality of corner regions all of which are unbent and uncurled (fig. 1), the sheet stack being free from being contained within a box (fig. 1).
Although the articles of paper are stacked and supported, Ruppenthal provides tie strings to assist in maintaining the position of the sheet stack when placed and stored onto the corrugated board. Ruppenthal fails to include a plastic film for overwrapping the protective package. Mann teaches a protective package having an individual loose stack wherein the sheet stack has a plurality of individual sheets 11 arranged one after another and both the single board 23 and sheet stack being overwrapped together by a shrink wrap plastic film in a sealed condition (col. 2, ll. 30-67; fig. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transport configuration of Ruppenthal with the wrapped configuration of Mann to provide a better hold of the product for transport.
Mann discloses a method of attaining a protective package comprising the steps of forming the protective package and arranging the stacked articles to produce the product taught above (col. 2, ll. 62-67- col. 3, ll. 1-22).
Ruppenthal discloses a plurality of individually stacked sheets that are supported by an outer wrapping and an open top carton on the bottom. Ruppenthal fails to include the sheets being made of a posterboard or foam core board material. Schulman teaches individual products sheets 26/28 of the sheet stack being selected from a group consisting of posterboard sheets, foam core sheets, and a combination of the posterboards sheets and the foam core sheets ([0009], [0036]; fig. 1, 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sheet stack of Ruppenthal to include the alternate stacked materials of Schulman to provide easier shipping and storing arrangements for the currently stacked product.
In order to use equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). Schulman represents evidence that stacked poster board can be stacked and supported and were art-recognized equivalent structures for stacked paper sheets. Therefore, because these two stacked sheets were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute posterboard sheets for general paper sheets. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claims 4, 11: Ruppenthal-Mann-Schulman discloses the protective package of claim 1, wherein the one and only one corrugated board is at least a same areal size of each of the individual sheets and thicker than each of the individual sheets (Mann; fig. 1).
Claims 6, 12: Ruppenthal-Mann-Schulman discloses the protective package of claim 1, wherein the one and only corrugated board is thicker (Mann; fig. 2) and larger in size than each of the individual sheets (Ruppenthal; fig. 1), whereby edges of the individual sheets are further protected from damage as a consequence of the corrugated board being larger in size (Ruppenthal; fig. 1).
Claim 13. Ruppenthal discloses a paper stack 2 and one and only one corrugated board 1 that are adjacent each other and both overwrapped together by protection means 11 both the sheet stack and the one and only one corrugated board each having a plurality of corner regions all of which are unbent and uncurled (fig. 1), the sheet stack being free from being contained within a box (fig. 1).
Although the articles of paper are stacked and supported, Ruppenthal provides tie strings to assist in maintaining the position of the sheet stack when placed and stored onto the corrugated board. Ruppenthal fails to include a plastic film for overwrapping the protective package. Mann teaches a protective package having an individual loose stack wherein the sheet stack has a plurality of individual sheets 11 arranged one after another and both the single board 23 and sheet stack being overwrapped together by a shrink wrap plastic film in a sealed condition (col. 2, ll. 30-67; fig. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transport configuration of Ruppenthal with the wrapped configuration of Mann to provide a better hold of the product for transport.
Ruppenthal discloses a plurality of individually stacked sheets that are supported by an outer wrapping and an open top carton on the bottom. Ruppenthal fails to include the sheets being made of a posterboard or foam core board material. Schulman teaches individual products sheets 26/28 of the sheet stack being selected from a group consisting of posterboard sheets, foam core sheets, and a combination of the posterboards sheets and the foam core sheets ([0009], [0036]; fig. 1, 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sheet stack of Ruppenthal to include the alternate stacked materials of Schulman to provide easier shipping and storing arrangements for the currently stacked product.
In order to use equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). Schulman represents evidence that stacked poster board can be stacked and supported and were art-recognized equivalent structures for stacked paper sheets. Therefore, because these two stacked sheets were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute posterboard sheets for general paper sheets. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
wherein the one and only corrugated board is thicker (Mann; fig. 2) and larger in size than each of the individual sheets (Ruppenthal; fig. 1), whereby edges of the individual sheets are further protected from damage as a consequence of the corrugated board being larger in size (Ruppenthal; fig. 1).
Mann discloses a method of attaining a protective package comprising the steps of forming the protective package and arranging the stacked articles to produce the product taught above (col. 2, ll. 62-67- col. 3, ll. 1-22).
Claim 15-16. Ruppenthal-Mann-Schulman discloses the protective package of claim 1, wherein the plastic film overwrap is transparent (Mann; col. 4, ll. 4-7).
Claim 17. Ruppenthal-Mann-Schulman discloses the protective package of claim 1, wherein the plastic film overwrap contains the corrugated board at the one end of the package with the stack filling a remainder of the package within confines of the plastic film overwrap and
with none of the corrugated board elsewhere within the package (col. 2, ll. 30-67; fig. 1-2).
Claim 18. Ruppenthal-Mann-Schulman discloses the protective package of claim 1, wherein the plastic film overwrap contains the corrugated board at the one end of the package with the stack filling a remainder of the package within confines of the plastic film overwrap and
with none of the corrugated board elsewhere within the package (col. 2, ll. 30-67; fig. 1-2).
Claim 19. Ruppenthal-Mann-Schulman discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising;
effecting shipment of the protective package in the sealed condition to a retail destination while the sheet stack remains free of the box (Ruppenthal; fig. 1).
Claim 20. Ruppenthal-Mann-Schulman discloses the protective package. of claim 1, wherein the sheet stack remains free of the box while in transit during shipment of the protective package in the sealed condition to a retail destination (Ruppenthal; fig. 1).
Claim 21. Ruppenthal-Mann-Schulman discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the plastic film overwrap is a shrink wrap (Mann; abstract).
Claim 22. Ruppenthal-Mann-Schulman discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the plastic film overwrap is a shrink wrap (Mann; abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but in view of the amendment the search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and applied, and a new rejection has been made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights