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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/22/2025 has been entered.
Amendment of Claim 16 is acknowledged.
New Claims 28 to 30 are acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments regarding the restriction requirement for Claims 23 to 27 on the last office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction requirement has been withdrawn since the claims only require placing the expandable slit sheet paper on a separate dispenser for dispensing of said expandable slit sheet paper during use of said expandable slit sheet paper, as already disclosed on Claim 16 and no structure in being claimed for the dispenser beyond being manual.
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.
Claims 16, 19 and 21 to 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenzel (US 3698548) in view of Shiffler (US 6564942), Goodrich (US 5667871) and Kuchar (US 2013/0240657).
Regarding Claims 16, 22, 23, 26 and 27:
Stenzel discloses a corrugated shipping container product to transport and dispense sheet material, comprising:
a shipping box having a plurality of perimeter walls surrounding an interior space (Figure 1, Box 10; made of a one-piece corrugated paperboard blank);
a roll of sheet material contained within said interior space, said roll of sheet material being wound around a core member (Figure 8 shows roll 15 wound around core 18 and spindle 19); and
said box including at abutment members at opposite sides of the core member arranged to support said roll of sheet material during shipping of the shipping container assembly (Figures 6 and 8, Column 2, lines 19 and 20, sockets 20 and 22 formed in the top and bottom portions 12 and 14 of the box 10);
wherein said perimeter walls of said shipping box include four contiguous rectangular panels having lengths greater than said axial length of said core member and of the spindle 19 (Figures 1 and 6, the closed box include a top formed of top panel 8, the bottom by bottom panel 42 and the two sidewalls, the four are considered four contiguous rectangular panels);
the roll of expandable slit sheet paper is shipped within said shipping box (Paragraph 22, the box 2 can be shipped and stored).
Stenzel does not disclose that core member has an axial length that is longer than an axial length of the roll such as to extend beyond at least one end of the roll or the abutment members at opposite sides of the core member arranged to support said roll of sheet material during shipping of the shipping container assembly.
Shiffler teaches a similar corrugated shipping container product to transport and dispense sheet material (Column 7, lines 57-58, carton for retention, suspension, and dispersal of rolls of web material), comprising a similar box, a roll of sheet material contained within its interior space, said roll of sheet material being wound around a core member (Figure 5, roll 30, of material 32 wound around a not numbered core member, has an axial length that is longer than an axial length of the roll material 32 such as to extend beyond both ends of the roll with ends 130 and 132); the length of the core allows for positioning roll 30 on abutment members at opposite sides of the core member arranged to abut said roll of sheet material during shipping of the shipping container assembly without the need of a spindle (Figure 3, end walls 40, 42 include abutting elements not numbered including interior walls 98 that limit the axial displacement of material 32 on roll 30 since the length of 130 and 132 is substantially the same as the width of the space 150, Column 5, lines 53-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Stenzel the teachings of Shiffler and make the core member of an axial length that is longer than an axial length of the roll such as to extend beyond at least one end of the roll so the roll can be supported in the abutment members without the need of a spindle and the make the abutting members at opposite sides of the core member abut to the roll of material to limit the axial displacement of the roll.
Stenzel does not disclose the sheet material being expandable slit sheet paper.
Goodrich teaches (Column 1, lines 39 to 44 storing slit material in roll form and the rolls of unexpanded slit material provide storage and use advantages over the rectangular sheets and having flexible paper material is expandable for increasing length (abstract, col. 2, lines 11-19). Among other things, the use of a continuous roll of unexpanded sheet material permits the user to withdraw a material of varying lengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Stenzel the teachings of Goodrich and store the slit material in roll form of unexpanded slit material to transport and dispense the roll of unexpanded sheet material and/or for having material able to increase in length.
As mentioned above, the modified invention of Stenzel discloses that the corrugated shipping container product is configured for shipping said roll of expandable slit sheet paper (Paragraph 22, the box 2 can be shipped and stored), also if the package is being shipped to a customer the dispensing can’t start until the container is received and placed in the working area; the walls of the corrugated shipping box, considered the same peripheral walls, are solid and free of openings.
The modified invention of Stenzel does not disclose that the walls obstruct dispensing through said solid walls a distal end of the expandable slit sheet paper extended from said roll of expandable slit sheet paper while said roll is within said shipping box. Stenzel includes a slot 24 that allows for dispensing with the shipping box closed. It has been held that the omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired (Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031) so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the container free of a dispensing slot if the container would be used only for shipping and storing, and dispensing would not be required.
If the rejection is argued,
As discussed above, Shiffler teaches a similar corrugated shipping container with walls that obstruct dispensing through said solid walls a distal end of the expandable slit sheet paper extended from said roll of expandable slit sheet paper while said roll is within said shipping box while the box is closed (Figure 7 show the box one step short of completely close).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Stenzel the teachings of Shiffler and make the container free of a dispensing slot if the container would be used only for shipping and storing and dispensing through a slot would not be required.
As mentioned above, the modified invention of Stenzel discloses if the core member is a paper core or that the corrugated shipping container product is configured for shipping the roll of expandable slit sheet paper (Paragraph 22, the box 2 can be shipped and stored) and the roll being removable from the corrugated shipping container.
The modified invention of Stenzel does not specifically disclose removing the roll of expandable slit sheet paper for placement on a separate dispenser for dispensing of said expandable slit sheet paper during use of said expandable slit sheet paper.
Kuchar teaches spiral wounding the expandable slit material on a paper core (Figure 21, Paragraph 0075, core 39 is made of cardboard, that will be considered paper) and in particular for large rolls as can be seen on the figures, placing a roll of expandable slit sheet paper on a separate dispenser for manually dispensing of said expandable slit sheet paper during use of said expandable slit sheet paper (Figures 4, 5, 6, 19 and 31 show different embodiments); the dispenser includes an improved braking mechanism that creates web tension to pull the paper from the roll more effectively, so simply pulling the web material on the opposite side from the rollers deploys and expands it simultaneously. Also, the unit can accommodate a plurality of rolls of web material mounted to deploy and expand either individually or simultaneously and can be motorized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Stenzel the teachings of Kuchar and store the slit material in roll form of unexpanded slit material on a paper core, and provide the shipping container and a separate dispenser, removing the roll of expandable slit sheet paper from shipping box to place it on the separate dispenser for manually dispensing of said expandable slit sheet paper as taught by Kuchar, in particular for large rolls, to provide a consistent braking system, having the capacity to dispense several rolls at the same time since that is a common practice in the art.
Regarding Claim 19:
Stenzel discloses that the abutment members include panels at opposite ends of the core member (Figures 6 and 7, end members 52, 54, 86 and 94 contain semicircular cutouts that support the core member, Note that Shiffler teach the same limitation ).
Regarding Claim 21:
Stenzel discloses that corrugated box includes a plurality of contiguous perimeter walls, and wherein said panels at opposite ends of the core member are corrugated panels folded inwardly from respective ones of said plurality of contiguous perimeter walls (Figures 6 and 7, the panels at opposite ends of the core member comprise end members 52, 54, 86 and 94, that are corrugated panels folded inwardly from the perimeter walls).
Regarding Claims 24 and 25:
As discussed for Claim 16 above, the modified invention of Stenzel discloses the invention as claimed, including manually dispensing the slit sheet paper material and placing the roll from the shipping container to the separate dispenser.
The modified invention of Stenzel does not specifically disclose having a user remove said roll of expandable slit sheet paper from said corrugated shipping container and place said roll of expandable slit sheet paper upon said separate dispenser.
The roll has to be placed in the separate dispenser, but it would not make any difference if the roll is taken from the shipping container by a user, a different person or is it automatically done, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the user remove the roll of expandable slit sheet paper from the corrugated shipping container and place the roll of expandable slit sheet paper upon said separate dispenser.
Regarding Claim 29:
Stenzel discloses that the panels include opposing sub-panels having side surfaces that extend parallel to said paper core at opposite sides of said paper core (Figures 3 and 6, the panels include side surfaces 48 and 84 on one end and 50 and 92 at the opposite end that extend parallel to the paper core at opposite sides of said paper core).
Regarding Claims 28 and 30:
As discussed for Claims 16 and 29 above, the modified invention of Stenzel discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Stenzel does not disclose if the core member extends at least one inch beyond said at least one end of said roll.
The extension of the core member would depend on factors such as the size of the roll, the size of the abutment members and the size of the place it is received on the separate dispenser.
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have core member extends at least one inch beyond said at least one end of said roll since 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Not implying any impropriety of the previous rejections, a new rejection over Stenzel (US 3698548) in view of Shiffler (US 6564942), Goodrich (US 5667871) and Kuchar (US 2013/0240657) was made considering that Shiffler teaches a roll more similar to the one of the claimed invention.
The Applicant argues that:
With respect to the Stenzel reference, Applicant again notes that the reference does not even relate to expandable slit sheet paper. Particularly, the Stenzel reference relates to a "dispensing box" for a "sheet material" that is entirely unlike, unrelated to and non-analogous to an "expandable slit sheet paper." Notably, an "expandable slit sheet paper cannot even be dispensed with a dispensing box like that of Stenzel because, among other things, the Stenzel box does not have any mechanism to apply necessary resistance to enable expansion of the cells of the expandable slit sheet paper.
The Examiner agrees, but Stenzel was not used as a dispenser but as a means to transport and storage of the material (Paragraph 22, the box 2 can be shipped and stored). Also, as discussed in the previous action, the teachings of Goodrich were used for placing the “expandable slit sheet paper” in rolls and until expanded there is little or no difference between “expandable slit sheet paper" and "sheet material", the claims only require a box of a certain shape with supports for a roll of sheet material, so the modified box of Stenzel meets the claim.
The Applicant further argues:
Furthermore, in contrast to both the Stenzel and Kuchar references which relate to dispensers of different types products - i.e., the Stenzel reference relating to a dispenser of non- slit "sheet material" and the Kuchar reference relating to a complex dispenser for dispensing an expandable slit sheet paper - the presently-claimed invention does not even relate to a dispenser, but rather, relates to a "corrugated shipping container" and, particularly, "a corrugated shipping container product [that] is configured for shipping said roll of expandable slit sheet paper without dispensing said expandable slit sheet paper
Again, the Examiner agrees, Kuchar was used as the separate dispenser for slit material, but Stenzel was used only as a means to transport and storage of the material.
The Applicant presents Figures 2 and 4 of the Application, and the Examiner agrees that they don’t even look alike to the box of Stenzel beyond the basic exterior shape, and the Examiner indicates that maybe claiming the structure of the box and not the function would be more productive. The Examiner also points out to the box of Shiffler, that on Figure 7 shows similarities to the box of Figures 2 and 3.
The Examiner invites the Applicant for a phone interview to discuss similarities and differences between the claimed invention and the references on the record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular Shiffler (US 6564942) could have been used for a proper rejection of the independent claim, same as Danenbauer (US 247251), Burt (US 3262620), Hurh (US 4998656), and Anderson (US 5971150); Shimura (US 5511663) teaches a case body for storing a wrap film with no openings or mentions for dispensing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
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, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731