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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/14/2025 has been entered.
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 7, 40 and 161-165 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2020/0407089) in view of Goodrich (US 5,688,578), hereafter referred to as ‘578, and Goodrich (US 2018/0370702), hereafter referred to as ‘702.
Regarding claim 7, Jones teaches methods for unitizing groups of packages into pallet loads and, more particularly, to a new use for crepe paper as a replacement for plastic stretch wrap material for unitizing such loads (Paragraph [0002]). As illustrated in figure 4-10, a plurality of individual packages may be stacked on a pallet and wrapped by a roll of the paper (“a pallet assembly having a plurality of stacked items, boxes or containers” & “a pallet wrap including a roll of pallet wrapping paper”) (Paragraphs [0031]-[0034]). The roll of paper is supported on the machine #400 (“a support rotatably supporting said roll of pallet wrapping paper”) (Paragraph [0032]). As illustrated in figures 4-10, the roll of paper wraps fully around the plurality of packages (“said pallet wrapping paper being extended from said roll of pallet wrapping paper and wrapped around said pallet assembly with said pallet wrapping paper extending completely around an outer periphery of said plurality of stacked items, boxes or containers”). The paper may include an adhesive applied to all, a portion, one side or on both sides of the paper (“a glue or adhesive adhered to said pallet wrapping paper that is wrapped around the outer periphery of the pallet assembly”) (Paragraph 0039]). The machine further includes a brake that retards rotation of the roll, thereby maintaining tension (“a brake that brakes feeding of said pallet wrapping paper that is wrapped around the outer periphery of the pallet assembly”) (Paragraph [0033]). The paper may be longitudinally stretched to at least 10% (“said pallet wrapping paper further being elongated in the machine direction with said pallet wrapping paper being made with an extensible paper having an extensibility in a machine direction of between 8% and 15% under TAPPI standards”) (Paragraph [0045]).
Jones is silent with respect to the paper having the properties required by d), e) and f).
Goodrich (‘578) teaches a composite packaging material including an expanded slit paper and a separator sheet (Col. 1, Lines 26-30). The paper may be used as a wrapping material (Col. 4, Lines 51-62). The paper may have any slit pattern to produce hexagonal cells which are rigidly self-supporting as compared to oval cells (Col. 6, Lines 11-18). This includes having slits which produce an expansion of 10% to 20% and have slit lengths of less than 0.5 inches (Col. 10, Lines 36-40; Col. 13, Lines 64-65). Furthermore, the paper may be from 40 to 50 pound Kraft paper which provides sufficient stiffness and resiliency (Col. 6, Lines 37-50).
Goodrich (‘702) teaches expanded slit sheet paper that is employed in packaging wrap applications (Paragraph [0002]). The sheets include a plurality of individual slits in a slit pattern extending transversely from one end of the sheet to the other such that upon expansion of the sheet, the slits form three-dimensional hexagonal cells (Paragraph [0014]). The use of these sheets provided enhances wrapping and cushioning of objects wrapped in the sheets (Paragraph [0014]). When used as a wrapping material, the weight of the paper is preferably 50 pounds per 3000 square feet (Paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the papers of Jones from the papers of Goodrich (‘578) which are taught to have a weight of 40 to 50 pounds providing stiffness and resiliency (further considered to be 40-50 pounds per 3000 square feet as taught by Goodrich ‘702 to be suitable for wrapping applications). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to form the papers as the papers from Goodrich (‘578) which include an expanded slit paper and a separator sheet in which the slit pattern includes slits of less than 0.5 inches and produce expansion of 10% to 20% in order to produce hexagonal cells which are rigidly self-supporting as compared to oval cells.
Jones and Goodrich (‘578) are silent with respect to the paper having a tensile strength supporting a tensile load in a machine direction of at least 1.5 pounds per inch across a width of the pallet wrapping paper.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials of the expandable slit sheet wrap such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an identical product would have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In the instant case, the expandable slit sheet paper of the claims appears to be formed from Kraft paper having a weight of at least 45# and have slits formed throughout (Instant Specification; PGPUB; Paragraph [0399])
This is taught by Jones and Goodrich (‘578) as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the papers of Jones and Goodrich (‘578), which are identical to those of applicant’s claimed invention, would have identical properties as well including having a tensile strength supporting a tensile load in a machine direction of at least 1.5 pounds per inch across a width of the pallet wrapping paper.
Regarding claim 40, Jones teaches the methods as discussed above with respect to claim 6. As discussed above, the papers may include an additional separator sheet and may overlap in wrapping the packages as shown in figure 10. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of a second layer increases the strength of the sheets in comparison to a single layer of sheet paper.
Regarding claims 161-162, Jones teaches the methods as discussed above with respect to claim 6. As discussed above, the papers may have a longitudinal stretch of at least 10%, and further 10% to 20%.
Regarding claim 163, Jones teaches the methods as discussed above with respect to claim 7. As discussed above, the wrapping papers of Goodrich (‘578) further include separator sheets which prevents the nesting of adjacent expanded sheets and may be a simple sheet of paper as illustrated in figures 6-9 (Col. 3, Lines 14-22; Col. 7, Lines 13-40). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of separator sheets causes the wrapping papers of Jones and Goodrich to be a “flat planar” sheet of extensible paper. Furthermore, as discussed above, Goodrich (‘578) teaches the papers may be kraft papers.
Regarding claim 164, Jones teaches the methods as discussed above with respect to claim 163. As discussed above, the papers may be kraft papers which Goodrich (‘702) teaches as including clupak papers (Paragraphs [0071]; [0072]).
Regarding claim 165, Jones teaches the methods as discussed above with respect to claim 6. As discussed above, the machine includes a brake to retard rotation of the roll. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that something must be used to activate the brake retarding the roll (“control unit”).
Claims 152-160 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2020/0407089) in view of Goodrich (US 5,688,578), hereafter referred to as ‘578, and Goodrich (US 2018/0370702), hereafter referred to as ‘702.
Regarding claim 152, Jones teaches methods for unitizing groups of packages into pallet loads and, more particularly, to a new use for crepe paper as a replacement for plastic stretch wrap material for unitizing such loads (Paragraph [0002]). As illustrated in figure 4-10, a plurality of individual packages may be stacked on a pallet and wrapped by a roll of the paper (“a pallet assembly having a plurality of stacked items, boxes or containers” & “a pallet wrap including a roll of pallet wrapping paper”) (Paragraphs [0031]-[0034]). The roll of paper is supported on the machine #400 (“a support rotatably supporting said roll of pallet wrapping paper”) (Paragraph [0032]). As illustrated in figures 4-10, the roll of paper wraps fully around the plurality of packages (“said pallet wrapping paper being extended from said roll of pallet wrapping paper and wrapped around said pallet assembly with said pallet wrapping paper extending completely around an outer periphery of said plurality of stacked items, boxes or containers”). The paper may include an adhesive applied to all, a portion, one side or on both sides of the paper (“a glue or adhesive adhered to said pallet wrapping paper that is wrapped around the outer periphery of the pallet assembly”) (Paragraph 0039]). The machine further includes a brake that retards rotation of the roll, thereby maintaining tension (“a brake that brakes feeding of said pallet wrapping paper that is wrapped around the outer periphery of the pallet assembly”) (Paragraph [0033]). The paper may be longitudinally stretched to at least 10% (“said pallet wrapping paper further being elongateable in the machine direction with said pallet wrapping paper being made with an extensible paper having an extensibility in a machine direction of between 8% and 15% under TAPPI standards”) (Paragraph [0045]).
Jones is silent with respect to the paper having the properties required by d), e) and f).
Goodrich (‘578) teaches a composite packaging material including an expanded slit paper and a separator sheet (Col. 1, Lines 26-30). The paper may be used as a wrapping material (Col. 4, Lines 51-62). The paper may have any slit pattern to produce hexagonal cells which are rigidly self-supporting as compared to oval cells (Col. 6, Lines 11-18). This includes having slits which produce an expansion of 10% to 20% and have slit lengths of less than 0.5 inches (Col. 10, Lines 36-40; Col. 13, Lines 64-65). Furthermore, the paper may be from 40 to 50 pound Kraft paper which provides sufficient stiffness and resiliency (Col. 6, Lines 37-50).
Goodrich (‘702) teaches expanded slit sheet paper that is employed in packaging wrap applications (Paragraph [0002]). The sheets include a plurality of individual slits in a slit pattern extending transversely from one end of the sheet to the other such that upon expansion of the sheet, the slits form three-dimensional hexagonal cells (Paragraph [0014]). The use of these sheets provided enhances wrapping and cushioning of objects wrapped in the sheets (Paragraph [0014]). When used as a wrapping material, the weight of the paper is preferably 50 pounds per 3000 square feet (Paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the papers of Jones from the papers of Goodrich (‘578) which are taught to have a weight of 40 to 50 pounds providing stiffness and resiliency (further considered to be 40-50 pounds per 3000 square feet as taught by Goodrich ‘702 to be suitable for wrapping applications). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to form the papers as the papers from Goodrich (‘578) which include an expanded slit paper and a separator sheet, being equivalent to the second layer of the instant claim, in which the slit pattern includes slits of less than 0.5 inches and produce expansion of 10% to 20% in order to produce hexagonal cells which are rigidly self-supporting as compared to oval cells.
Jones and Goodrich (‘578) are silent with respect to the paper having a tensile strength supporting a tensile load in a machine direction of at least 1.5 pounds per inch across a width of the pallet wrapping paper.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials of the expandable slit sheet wrap such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an identical product would have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In the instant case, the expandable slit sheet paper of the claims appears to be formed from Kraft paper having a weight of at least 45# and have slits formed throughout (Instant Specification; PGPUB; Paragraph [0399])
This is taught by Jones and Goodrich (‘578) as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the papers of Jones and Goodrich (‘578), which are identical to those of applicant’s claimed invention, would have identical properties as well including having a tensile strength supporting a tensile load in a machine direction of at least 1.5 pounds per inch across a width of the pallet wrapping paper.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the papers may include an additional separator sheet and may overlap in wrapping the packages as shown in figure 10. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of a separator sheet, or a second layer, increases the strength of the sheets in comparison to a single layer of sheet paper.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the wrapping papers with the separator sheets attached together would be co-rolled around the containers.
Regarding claim 153, Jones teaches the methods as discussed above with respect to claim 149. As discussed above, the papers include the slit sheet and the separator sheet which may be glued together (Col. 4, Lines 9-16).
Regarding claim 154, Jones teaches the methods as discussed above with respect to claim 149. As discussed above, the papers include the slit sheet and the separator sheet.
Regarding claim 155, Jones teaches the methods as discussed above with respect to claim 149. As discussed above, the papers include the slit sheet and the separator sheet wherein the separator sheet has a width less than the slit sheet (Col. 12, Lines 38-43).
Regarding claim 156-158, Jones teaches the methods as discussed above with respect to claim 155. Jones further teaches the papers having widths of at least 10 inches (Claim 9).
Regarding claim 159, Jones teaches the methods as discussed above with respect to claim 156. As discussed above, the papers have widths of at least 10 inches and the separator sheet has a width less than the slit sheet which includes separator sheets having widths of less than 4 inches.
Regarding claim 160, Jones teaches the methods as discussed above with respect to claim 157. As discussed above, the papers have widths of at least 10 inches and the separator sheet has a width less than the slit sheet which includes separator sheets having widths of greater than 4 inches.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see pages 6-9, filed 04/14/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 112 rejections of claims 6 and 163 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 03/12/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see pages 6-9, filed, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 112 rejection of claim 146 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 03/12/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-9, applicant argues that the combination of Jones, Goodrich (‘578) and Goodrich (‘702) fails to teach each of the limitations of claims 7 and 152. Specifically, the claim requires the pallet wrapping paper to be a flat planar sheet which is contrary to what Jones teaches being a creped sheet of paper which would not be a flat planar sheet. Furthermore, the claims are directed to a multilayer wrapping material (Claim 7 requiring a support wrap; Claim 152 requiring a second layer) which is very different from the cushioning materials of the Goodrich references such that the tensile load characteristics of the claimed pallet wrap would not be described, or inherently featured, in the cushioning materials of either of the Goodrich references. Lastly, the amendment to require the slit lengths of 0.275 or less are not taught by either of the Goodrich references such that the claimed slit lengths provide improved tensile strength.
The examiner first notes, as indicated in the Advisory Action dated 04/04/2025, the claims require an option of the pallet wrapping paper having either the slits or being a flat planar sheet. One of ordinary skill in the art would read this limitation as the pallet wrapping papers as having either slits and may be flat or not flat or be a flat planar sheet that may or may not have slits. Therefore, the teachings of Jones are still relevant to what is required by claims 7 and 152 such that the papers of Jones may be provided with slits, and further the separator sheets, as taught by both Goodrich (‘578) and Goodrich (‘702).
Concerning the teachings of the Goodrich references, the slit lengths required by the claims, and the tensile property required by the claim, the examiner is still not persuaded by applicant’s arguments such that Goodrich (‘702) teaches expanded slit sheet paper employed in packaging wrap applications (Paragraph [0002]). Furthermore, Goodrich (‘702) discussed employing Kraft paper which are formed by placing an emphasis on tensile strength in both the cross and machine directions. These are discussed in paragraphs [0044]-[0046] and in Table III which shows a tensile strength well above 1.5 as required by the claims. Specifically, Table III lists ranges for the tensile strength of 12.6 to 22.4 lbs/in. As such, the papers of Goodrich (‘702) appreciate having a tensile strength in the claimed range.
Additionally, the examiner notes that the paper materials taught by both Goodrich references are identical to those of applicant’s invention. Specifically, as indicated in the rejections above, Goodrich (‘578) and Goodrich (‘702) teach clupak paper materials which have slit lengths of less than 0.5 inches and have a basis weight of 40 to 50 pounds which appear to be identical to those of applicant’s claimed invention. As such, the examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the identical materials of the Goodrich references would result in identical properties such as the required tensile properties required by claim 7 and claim 152. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Ultimately, the examiner contends that based on the language of the claim requiring the “slits or the flat planar sheet” and the relevant teachings of the Goodrich references including appreciating higher tensile properties and identical materials, the combination of Jones, Goodrich (‘578) and Goodrich (‘702) is proper and teaches each of the limitations of claims 7 and 152.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783