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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 30 April 2026.
Claims 1-26 are currently pending and being examined.
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 1-6, 10-11, 15-20, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demers (US 2005/0181924) in view of Meyer (US 5,947,882).
Claims 1 and 18, Demers teaches a packaging material production machine (30-fig.1) for manufacturing a packaging material product (34-fig.1; ¶[0045]), comprising:
a feed funnel (116-fig.8) including a feed opening (annotated fig.11) configured to accept packaging material (¶[0061]) from a web-shaped packaging material supply (32-fig.5), the feed funnel (116-fig.11) being configured to introduce the packaging
PNG
media_image1.png
580
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
material (¶[0061]) received via the feed opening into the packaging material production machine (¶[0060]-[0061],[0067]-);
feed rods (134-fig.11) each having a constant diameter (see figs. 9-11 showing 134 having a center rod with a constant diameter with a plurality of grippers 136 attached to the rod), the feed rods being arranged at the feed opening (see annotated fig.11 showing 134 at the feed opening) and configured to pass the accepted packaging material into the feed opening (¶[0067]-[0070]); and
a deflection shaft (110-fig.8) mounted on the packaging material production machine and configured to introduce redirect the packaging material (¶[0060]-[0061]) to the packaging material into the feed funnel (¶[0059]-[0060]) via the feed rods (134-fig.11), wherein the deflection shaft (110-fig.8) and feed funnel (116-fig.8) are configured to cooperatively accept the packaging material from different positions and/or angles to cooperatively redirect the packaging material into the packaging material production machine (“The stand 40 allows the packer to orient the converter 30 so that the converter 30 discharges discrete dunnage products exactly where the packer wants them” ¶[0048]; ¶[0046]; See also figs.5-6 showing the dunnage machine accepting packaging material from different positions and angles; ¶[0054]).
Demers does not expressly teach a shaft mounted in a free-wheeling manner and the shaft including lateral end sections whose diameters increase continuously outwardly at least in portions.
However, Meyer teaches a shaft (9,11-fig.6) mounted in a free-wheeling manner (4:1-9) and the shaft (9,11-fig.6) including lateral end sections (26,28-fig.6) whose diameters increase continuously outwardly at least in portions (4:14-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Demers, by the roller configuration, as taught by Meyer, to keep the dunnage material centered and allows for easy movement of the dunnage material since it is not likely to get caught on another part of the dunnage machine (Meyer 4:14-29), also is a known equivalent roller for conveying. (MPEP §2144.06(II))
Claim 2, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 1, wherein the lateral end sections are formed frustoconical at least in sections or each have a peripheral surface curved (Meyer: 26,28-fig.6; 4:14-29), wherein the frustoconical end sections have a cone angle in the range from 20° to 178° (Meyer: see fig. 6 showing frustoconical sections 26,28 appear to be between 20° and 178°).
Claim 3, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim1, wherein:
the deflection shaft (Demers: 110-fig.8).
Demers does not teach the deflection shaft has a length in the range of 150 mm to 1000 mm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the shaft length between 150-1000mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 4, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim1, wherein the deflection shaft is positioned upstream of the feed funnel in a feed direction (Demers: see fig. 8 showing 110 upstream of 116).
Claim 5, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim1, comprising an adjuster (Demers: connection point of 114 to the housing-fig.9) configured to:
attach the deflection shaft (Demers: 110-fig.9) to the feed funnel (Demers: attached via 114 and 52-fig.9), and
displace the deflection shaft (Demers: 110-fig.9) relative to the feed funnel (Demers: ¶[0060]).
Claim 6, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 5, wherein the adjuster (Demers: connection point of the housing, where 114 is connected) is configured as a pivoting mechanism and to: permit a pivoting movement of up to 180° (Demers: see fig.9 showing two positions of 110. With 114 externally mounted the housing 110 is capable of moving up to 180°).
Claim 10, Demers as Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim1, wherein a feed opening of the feed funnel includes an opening height, oriented transversely to a feed direction of the packaging material (Demers: see fig.8 showing 116 having an opening height where the packaging material enters).
Claim 11, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 1, wherein the feed opening of the feed funnel (Demers: 116-fig.9) is delimited by the feed rods (Demers: 54-fig.10) arranged at a distance from one another and mounted on the feed funnel at the feed opening (Demers: ¶[0062]).
Claim 15, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 11, wherein:
the packaging material production machine comprises a pair of identically shaped and/or oriented deflection rods (Demers: 54-fig.10) that are configured to delimit a feed opening of the feed funnel (Demers: ¶[0062]); and
the feed opening has an opening height, oriented transversely to the feed direction of the packaging material (Demers: see fig.8 showing 116 having an opening height where the packaging material enters).
Claim 16, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 1, wherein the feed funnel (Demers: 116-fig.8) is configured to form a chute:
having circumferential chute walls configured to guide the packaging material to the discharge opening (Demers: see fig.8 showing 116 has circumferential chute walls).
Claim 17, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 11, further comprising a packaging material processing device releasably connected to the feed funnel (Demers: 116-fig.8) in a form-fitting manner (Demers: ¶[0062]), wherein the packaging material processing device being configured to perform form and/or separate the packaging material (Demers: ¶[0057]).
Claim 19, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 1, wherein the web-shaped packaging material supply is a leporello stack or in roll form (Meyer: 102-fig.5; ¶[0053]).
Claim 20, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 1, wherein the deflection shaft (Demers: 110-fig.8) further comprises:
a cylinder section (Meyer: 25-fig.6) connecting the lateral end sections (Meyer: 26,28-fig.6); and
cylindrical end sections respectively connected to the lateral end sections, the cylindrical end sections having a diameter greater than a diameter of the cylinder section (Meyer: “FIG. 6 illustrates the construction of one of the rollers 9 or 11 in more detail. In addition to a central part whose outer surface is formed by one or more outer rods 25, each such roller 9 and 11 has a pair of frustoconical end parts 26 and 28 that taper toward each other and that are centered on the respective axis A. One of the frustoconical end parts 26 can be unitary with the outer rod 25 and carry a pin 27 secured in a link of the respective chain 8 and the other unitary with the core rod 24 and carrying a pin 29 secured in a link of the respective chain 8.” 4:14-23).
Claim 23, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 1, wherein the deflection shaft is mounted on the feed funnel (Demers: see fig. 8 showing 110 is mounted to 116 via the housing 52 and arms 114).
Claim 25, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the deflection device according to claim 18, wherein:
the deflection shaft (Demers:110-fig.8; Meyer: 9,11-fig.6) further comprises: a cylinder section (Meyer: 25-fig.6) connecting the lateral end sections (Meyer: 26,28-fig.6); and cylindrical end sections respectively connected to the lateral end sections, the cylindrical end sections having a diameter greater than a diameter of the cylinder section (Meyer: 4:14-23; see fig.6 showing the end section of 26 and 28 are of a greater diameter than 25); and
the deflection rods are connected to a feed funnel configured to introduce the packaging material into the packaging material production machine (Demers: see fig. 8 showing 110 is mounted to 116 via the housing 52 and arms 114), the feed funnel being configured to form a chute including: a circumferential chute walls configured to guide the packaging material to the discharge opening (Demers: see fig.8 showing 116 has circumferential chute walls).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demers (US 2005/0181924) in view of Meyer (US 5,947,882), further in view of Schmid (US 2015/0273784).
Claim 7, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 5, wherein the adjuster (Demers: connection point of the housing, where 114 is connected).
Demers as modified by Meyer does not teach a latch that defines at least two predefined latching positions for the deflection shaft in which the deflection shaft is configured to be releasably fixed.
However, Schmid teaches a latch (64-fig.4) that defines at least two predefined latching positions (65-fig.4) for the shaft (at least 61-fig.4) in which the shaft is configured to be releasably fixed (¶[0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the devices of Demers and Meyer, by locking adjustment means, as taught by Schmid, to lock the adjustment means, so as the shaft does not move after the shaft has been placed where the operator desires.
Claim 8, Demers modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 5.
Demers as modified by Meyer an adjuster defines at least two fixing positions for the deflection shaft in which the deflection shaft is configured to be fixed in a releasable frictionally engaged manner.
However, Schmid teaches an adjuster (at least 61,64,65-fig.4) defines at least two fixing positions (65-fig.4) for a shaft (at least 61-fig.4) in which the shaft is configured to be fixed in a releasable frictionally engaged manner (¶[0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the devices of Demers and Meyer, by locking adjustment means, as taught by Schmid, to lock the adjustment means, so as the shaft does not move after the shaft has been placed where the operator desires.
Claim 9, Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 7.
Demers as modified by Meyer does not teach a latch comprises at least two feed funnel-side latching elements and at least one deflection shaft-side latching member, which are configured to releasably engage with the latching elements to fix the deflection shaft in a latching position.
However, Schmid teaches a latch (at least 61,64,65-fig.4) comprises at least two feed funnel-side latching elements (65-fig.4) and at least one deflection shaft-side latching member (at least 61-fig.4), which are configured to releasably engage with the latching elements to fix the deflection shaft in a latching position (¶[0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the devices of Demers and Meyer, by locking adjustment means, as taught by Schmid, to lock the adjustment means, so as the shaft does not move after the shaft has been placed where the operator desires.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demers (US 2005/0181924) in view of Meyer (US 5,947,882), further in view of Stockstill (US 2003/0138297).
Claim 21, Demers and Meyer teaches the packaging material production machine according to claim 20.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
247
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Demers as modified by Meyer teaches the cylindrical end sections extend axially outward from respective axially outer ends of the lateral end sections.
However, Stockstill teaches the cylindrical end sections extend axially outward from respective axially outer ends of the lateral end sections (see annotated fig. 6 showing the cylindrical end sections extend axially outward).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the roller of Demers and Meyer, by the roller shape, as taught by Stockstill, as a known alternative roller in a free-wheeling manner to feed an article. (MPEP §2144.06(II)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14, 22, 24, and 26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The subject matter of the packaging material production machine for manufacturing a packaging material product is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. The following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 12, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 12 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art: “a pair of deflection rods connected, upstream of the feed funnel in a feed direction, to the feed opening of the feed funnel, and configured to cooperatively delimit the feed opening of the feed funnel and redirect the packaging material to introduce the packaging material into the feed funnel, the deflection rods each having a constant cross-section and being curved, away from the feed funnel, along its respective longitudinal extension, wherein opposing ends of each deflection rod of the pair of deflection rods are directly connected to respective inner surfaces of opposing sidewalls of the chute walls.” The prior art of record that comes closest to teaching the limitations is Chesterson (US 2003/0073558), which teaches the deflection rod having a constant cross-section and being curved, away from the feed funnel, along its respective longitudinal extension. The prior art is silent in regard to opposing ends of each deflection rod of the pair of deflection rods are directly connected to respective inner surfaces of opposing sidewalls of the chute walls. Therefore, the combination set forth in the claims are not discussed, taught, or suggested in the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in regard to claims 1 and 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument:
(1) “Demers and Meyer, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest each of these features. Demers describes a feed mechanism that uses "opposed paddle-wheel feed members" with "grippers" that are "driven by a motor." Demers, paragraphs [0067]-[0068]. These are not feed rods of constant diameter arranged at a feed opening” (Remarks p.9)
(2) “Demers also does not disclose a deflection shaft, let alone a shaft that cooperatively functions with a funnel.” (Remarks p. 9)
(3) “Demers fails to disclose or suggest that a shaft and funnel cooperatively accept material from different positions and/or angles to redirect it.” (Remarks p. 9)
(4) “Given the absence of a feed funnel and the required cooperative configuration, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated or enabled to modify Demers in light of Meyer to arrive at the claimed arrangement.” (Remarks p. 10)
Examiner’s Response:
(1) Demers does teach “feed rods each having a constant diameter, the feed rods being arranged at the feed opening”, see figs. 9-11 showing 134 having a center rod with a constant diameter with a plurality of grippers 136 attached to the rod. See annotated fig. 11 showing the feed rods at the opening of one of the to feed openings of the feed funnel. Therefore, meeting the claim limitations. The fact the they are driven by a motor is irrelevant.
(2) Demers does teach a deflection shaft that cooperates with a funnel, “a constant-entry member or guide 110 mounted at the upstream end of the housing 42 defines a substantially constant entry point for the stock material 32 entering the forming assembly 52 as the feeding assembly 54 draws the stock material through the conversion assembly.” (¶[0059]).
(3) Demers does disclose the shaft and funnel accepting material from different positions and/or angles. "The supply of stock material is separate, and can be supported in a trolley 104, as shown in FIG. 5." ¶[0054]. As shown in figures 5-6 the storage is movable and the stand is adjustable as well, therefore the stock is received from different positions and angles.
(4) Meyer is not used to teach the feed funnel, but is merely used to teach a roller configuration with the motivation of to keep the dunnage material centered and allows for easy movement of the dunnage material since it is not likely to get caught on another part of the dunnage machine (Meyer 4:14-29), also is a known equivalent roller for conveying. (MPEP §2144.06(II))
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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, Shelley Self can be reached on (571)272-4524. 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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights