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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed 2/2/2026. Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 12-13, 17-24, 26, and 29-32 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended. The cancelation of claim 27 is acknowledged. Claims 2, 5-8, 9, 11, 14-16, 25, and 28 have been previously canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luca (US 2010/0330330 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Luca discloses an expanding material defining a tension axis (an axis running vertical through 40 as seen in the view of Fig. 2A), comprising: a sheet of material (40 – Fig. 2A) having a plurality of slits (A6-A13 and B6-B13 – Fig. 2A) defining a slit pattern including rows (A6, B6; A7, B7; A8, B8; A9, B9; A10, B10; A11, B11; A12, B12; A13, B13 – Fig. 2A; a row is interpreted to be a left to right alternation of the above slits) of slits, wherein the plurality of slits include a group of slits each having adjacent to a straight portion (see annotated Fig. 2A below) at least two curved terminal ends (see annotated Fig. 2A below, there is the curved terminal end indicated in the annotated drawing and its mirror image terminal end opposite it) that do not form a closed path (see annotated Fig. 2A below, there is clearly no closed path), wherein the material defines a plane in a pretensioned form (as seen in Fig. 2A, 40 is planar), and wherein portions of the material rotate 45 degrees or greater from the plane when tension is applied along the tension axis (the connections 62 are described as hinges, para. 0085; it is noted that this limitation is a recitation of functional language and it is possible to rotate the material 45 degrees due to the resiliency of the material).
Annotated Fig. 2A
PNG
media_image1.png
288
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Luca further discloses:
Claim 3, the slits are a multi-slit pattern (see Fig. 2A, the slits in the A group are inverted with respect to the slits in the b group; hence they are interpreted to form a multi-slit pattern).
Claim 4, the slits define a double slit pattern (in this case, slits are interpreted to be grouped in pairs, hence they form a double slit pattern).
Claim 10, the rows of slits are generally perpendicular to the tension axis (comparing Figs. 2A and 2B, the tension axis runs in the up-down direction with, as noted above, the rows running from left to right, hence the rows of slits are generally perpendicular to the tension axis).
Claim 12, the slits (A6-A13 and B6-B13 – Fig. 2A) have a slit shape (see Fig. 2A, the slits clearly have a shape) and a slit orientation (see Fig. 2A, the slits clearly have an orientation), wherein the slit orientation varies within a row of slits (as can be seen in Fig. 2A, the slits of group A are inverted with respect to the slits of group B, hence the slit orientation varties within a row).
Claim 13, the slits (A6-A13 and B6-B13 – Fig. 2A) have a slit shape (see Fig. 2A, the slits clearly have a shape) and a slit orientation (see Fig. 2A, the slits clearly have an orientation) and wherein the slit orientation varies in adjacent rows (in this case the slits of group A of one row are inverted with respect to the slits of group B of another row, hence the slit orientation is interpreted to vary in adjacent rows).
Claim 18, a packaging material comprising the expanding material of claim 1 (para. 0004; the expanding material of Fig. 2A is capable of being used as a packaging material).
Claim 20, the expanding material is one or more individual sheets (para. 0035).
Claim 22, a method of making any of the expanding material of claim 1, comprising: forming the plurality of slits in the material by water jetting (para. 0099).
Claim 23, a method of using any of the expanding material of claim 1, comprising: applying tension to the expanding material along a tension axis to cause the material to expand (para. 0036 and see Figs. 2A and 2B).
Claim 24, the application of tension causes one or more of the slits to form openings in the material adjacent the slits to move out of the plane (see Figs. 2A and 2B, since 62 is described as a hinge, para. 0084, it is clear that the material adjacent the slits must move out of plane).
Claim 26, applying tension to the expanding material along the tension axis causes the material to change from a two-dimensional structure to a three-dimensional structure (as noted above, since 62 is described as a hinge, the material adjacent the slits must necessarily move out of plane, since they are moved out of plane, the material changes from a two-dimensional structure to a three-dimensional structure).
Claim 30, a multi-slit pattern (as noted above in the rejection of claim 3, there is a multi-slit pattern) having at least one curved terminal end (see annotated Fig. 2A above).
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luca (US 2010/0330330 A1) in view of Kuchar ‘303 (US 2015/0176303 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Luca discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 20.
However, Luca does not disclose an envelope having the expanding material disclosed in the envelope.
Kuchar ‘303 teaches an expanding packaging material and an envelope having the expanding material disposed in the envelope (para. 0058, lines 9-13 and see Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have provided the expanding material of Luca in an envelope as taught by Kuchar ‘303 since Kuchar ‘303 teaches a known application of the expanding material.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luca (US 2010/0330330 A1) in view of Gold (US 2019/0187345 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Luca discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Luca does not disclose using a die to cut the slits since Luca discloses using a water jet (para. 0099).
Gold teaches an expanding material (10 – Fig. 14A) comprising slits (11 – Fig. 14A). Gold further teaches a rotary die capable of forming the slits and using the rotary die to form the slits in the expanding material (para. 0056). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Gold, would have recognized that that rotary die of Gold is an alternative to the water jetting of Luca since both form slits in a sheet of material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have provided a rotary die and made the slits in the expanding material of Luca using rotary die cutting as suggested by Gold since Gold teaches a known alternative to water jetting.
Claims 19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luca (US 2010/0330330 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Luca discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 18 and further teaches that the uncut expanding material is provided in the form of a roll (para. 0099).
However, Luca does not expressly disclose placing the expanding material that has slits cut into it in the form of a roll.
In this case, since Luca already discloses that the uncut expanding material can be provided in the form of a roll and Luca is also silent with respect to how the cut expanding material is configured, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to have also placed the cut expanding material in the form of a roll as well since Luca already provides a known solution for configuration the expanding material and is silent with respect to the cut expanding material.
Regarding claim 29, Luca discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1 and further disclosing a plurality of curved terminal ends (see annotated Fig. 2A above, there are two terminal curved ends).
However, Luca does not expressly disclose the degree of curvature of the plurality of terminal ends.
In this case, when the expanding material is in the configuration of Fig. 2B, it appears that the plurality of curved terminal ends each have a curvature of at least 90 degrees (see annotated Fig. 2b below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have cut the slits such that they have a curvature of at least 90 degrees, at least in the configuration of Fig. 2B, since that it what appears to be disclosed.
Annotated Fig. 2B
PNG
media_image2.png
444
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesch (US 3655501).
Regarding claims 1, 31, and 32, Tesch discloses an expanding material defining a tension axis (running from left to right as seen in Fig. 27), comprising: a sheet of material (the unlabeled sheet of Fig. 27) having a plurality of slits (the vertical lines connected to the horizontal lines – Fig. 27) defining a slit pattern including rows of slits (a row is interpreted to run in the up-down direction as seen in Fig. 27), wherein the plurality of slits include a group of slits each having adjacent to a straight portion (the vertical portion of the slit – Fig. 27) at least two terminal ends (each of the terminal of the horizontal portion of the slit – Fig. 27), wherein the material defines a plane in pretensioned form (it is clear that Fig. 27 depicts the material in a pretensioned form ), and wherein portions of the material rotate 45 degrees or greater from the plane when tension is applied along the tension axis (although not expressly disclosed, this limitation is a recitation of functional language, in this case, since the material is capable of expanding, abstract, it is necessarily deformable, and thus it is possible to rotate the material at least 45 degrees at the same time tension is being applied), wherein each slit includes at least four terminal ends (see Fig. 27, each slit has two horizontal portions that provide for four terminal ends).
Tesch does not disclose that the terminal ends are curved.
However, Tesch discloses in several other embodiments, for example, the embodiments of Figs. 42-46, slits that have curved terminal ends. One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Tesch would have recognized that curved ends would provide less stress on the material since that is general engineering knowledge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the embodiment of Fig. 27 to include curved terminal ends as taught in any of Figs. 42-46 in order to provide less stress on the material when it is being tensioned.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Luca does not disclose the limitation “portions of the material rotate 45 degrees or greater from the plane when tension is applied along the tension axis” since the angles formed in Luca are within the plane of the material and the claim requires the that the material rotate 45 degrees from the plane of the material.
In response, it is noted that the rejection of claim 1 under Luca also notes that the limitation recites functional language and since Luca is an expandable foam, it is fully capable of rotating 45 degrees when tension is applied. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Tesch does not disclose the limitation “a group of slits each having, adjacent to a straight portion, at least two curved terminal ends that do not form a closed path” because none of Tesch Figures 27 and 42-26 disclose at least two curved terminal ends that do not form a closed path adjacent to a straight portion.
In response, it is noted that the rejection of claim 1 is an obviousness type rejection. Figure 27 of Tesch is relied upon to teach 4 terminal ends that do not form a closed path adjacent to a straight portion. Any of Figures 42-46 are relied upon to teach the curved terminal ends. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
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 THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
2/17/2026