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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 and 17-29 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the preamble of claim 1 is directed to “a deployable paper roll” and lines 6-8 recite “a front face of the top layer receives a downward force from a paper roll while the paper roll is in contact with the wrap layer”. This later limitation is unclear whether this is directed to an intended use property or if this positively requires that the claimed inventions includes a paper roll deployed in onto the wrap layer above the top layer. For purposes of this Office action, the later limitation is being interpreted as “a front face of the top layer is configured to receivewhen the paper roll is in contact with the wrap layer”.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsh et al (USPGPUB 2012/0099941) in view of Hoffman (USPGPUB 2017/0173920) and Marc (USPGPUB 2011/0206926).
Regarding claim 1, Larsh discloses bulkheads used in securing and protecting cargo loads during transportation, and in particular, to reusable, water-resistant encapsulated bulkheads [0002]. The encapsulated bulkhead is strong, absorbs shock without transferring the force of impact to the cargo loads, is water-resistant and reusable, and is economically feasible [0007]. In one embodiment, the encapsulated bulkhead 300 is comprised of bulkhead member 302 and encapsulation or coating 380 [0062] [Figs. 17-20]. Bulkhead member 302 is a uniform, integrally formed, substantially solid foam [id]. Coating 380 is adhered to and covers the outside of bulkhead member 302, preferably in its entirety [0066].
Larsh further discloses that the encapsulated bulkhead can be used in rail cars, trucks, or shipping containers with or without other types of void fillers to secure and protect cargo loads [0074]. After the cargo loads are placed, one or more encapsulated bulkheads are placed in the space in the medial section of the rail car between the sections of cargo to fill the space such that there is no remaining space along longitudinal axis L [0074]. Examiner’s note: it is clear from above that the side of Larsh’s bulkhead facing the cargo receives the claimed “downward force”.
The limitations “A deployable paper roll cushion” and “a front face of the top layer receives a downward force from a paper roll while the paper roll is in contact with the wrap layer” are deemed to be statements with regard to the intended use and are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed 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. MPEP 2111.02.
Larsh is silent with regard to a layer having a composition composed of ferromagnetic material.
Hoffman discloses insulation that can protect from physical damage [0002]. The insulation is combined with and unpadded and uncushioned magnetic material such as ferromagnetic materials [0012]. Insulation combined with magnetic material is practical because it saves labor time during installation and is simple to remove and replace [id]. It is useful in any application that has a magnetically attractive substrate and temperatures within the tolerances of the insulation and magnetic material [id]. Flexible and rigid magnetized panels or sheets in single, dual, and multiple layers can be achieved [0013]. In some embodiments, a sheet of magnetic material can be attached or bonded to a sheet of non-magnetic material such that the sheet of magnetic material can cover a face or surface area of the non-magnetic material [0015]. The insulation component can be selected for physical protection or resilience and can be a foam [0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Hoffman’s sheet of ferromagnetic material to the back side of Larsh’s foamed bulkhead member 302 (a bottom layer having a composition composed of ferromagnetic material which is layered to a rear face of the top layer). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add such a layer in this position because of the advantages disclosed above by Hoffman, i.e., ease of installation and removal when used.
Regarding the limitation “a wrap layer having a first portion covering an exposed area of the top layer and a second portion covering an exposed area of the bottom layer”, it is evident from the figures that the combination of Hoffman’s sheet of ferromagnetic material applied to the back side of Larsh’s foamed bulkhead member 302 meets this limitation. As discussed above, Larsh’s coating 380 is adhered to and covers the outside of bulkhead member 302 and therefore this coating would cover the outside of the laminate of the foamed bulkhead member 302 and Hoffman’s sheet of ferromagnetic material.
Regarding the limitation that the wrap layer is a thin layer of film material, Larsh discloses a coating that forms a thin layer of material onto the cushioning material. This broadly reads on the claim limitation that the “wrap layer is a thin layer of film material”. Further, if the claim is intended to read as though the wrap layer is a distinct thin film layer, as opposed to a coating, Marc discloses composite foam products and processes for making the composite foam products [0004]. The composite foam product 20 comprises a foam core 24 and a gas impermeable film 22 surrounding the exterior surface of the foam core [0020] [Fig. 1A]. The composite foam product exhibits improved rebound and compression set properties [0021-22]. The gas impermeable film surrounding the foam core can alter the physical properties of the composite foam product, such as tensile strength, abrasion, and tear strength [0023]. The intimate adherent contact between the foam core and the gas impermeable film gives rise to an unexpected degree of product integrity and unexpectedly superior impact absorbing capabilities [0046]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepared the cushion of Larsh as modified by Hoffman, wherein the wrap is a thin layer of film material instead of a coating layer, as taught by Marc, motivated by the desire to obtain a cushioning material that has desirable physical properties, such as tensile strength, abrasion, and tear strength.
Claims 2-15 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsh et al and Hoffman and Marc as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bayer et al (US Patent 3,336,069).
Regarding claims 2-3, the limitations of claim 1 have been set forth above. Hoffman further discloses that polyethylene foam can be used [0015]. Additionally, Marc discloses that a closed-cell foam can be used (Figures 1A and 1B, claim 3). Further, Bayer discloses cushioning devices and pertains more specifically to protective cushioning devices employed in cargo-carrying vehicles for attenuating shocks ordinarily applied to the walls of such vehicles as a result of the shifting of cargo within the vehicles [Col 1, lines 9-14]. The protective cushioning device comprises a flexible foam material placed between the cargo and the door structure and has a relatively large area so as to absorb the shock of impacts resulting from the shift of drums rearwardly toward doors [Col 2, lines 50-59]. A variety of materials can be used in the cushioning device such as cushioning material capable of resilient deflection [Col 3, lines 43-47]. Flexible plastic foam materials such as closed cell polyethylene (PE) foam can be used [Col 3, lines 47-49].
Bayer is analogous because it discloses cushioning devices comprising foam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use closed cell PE foam as Larsh’s foam material (wherein the cushion material may be composed of a closed cell foam or an open cell foam – claim 2) (wherein the closed cell foam of the cushion material is composed of a polyethylene – claim 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such foam material because such foam material is capable of resilient deflection as disclosed by Bayer above. Both Larsh and Bayer disclose foam-based composites/laminates useful for shock absorption. Larsh discloses that other types of foam can be used [0062].
Regarding claims 4-5, Larsh discloses that bulkhead member 102 (corresponding the claimed cushion material top layer) can have a thickness of 8 inches [0041] [0044]. In another embodiment, bulkhead member 302 has a thickness of 1 inch (wherein the cushion material is a sheet of foam material that is equal to, or at least 0.75", or 1", or 1.25" in thickness – claim 4) (wherein the cushion material is a sheet of foam material that is equal to, or less than 2", or 1.5", or 1.25" in thickness – claim 5) [0064].
Regarding claim 6, Larsh discloses that the encapsulated bulkhead can have any three-dimensional geometric shape such as a rectangular, square, or other shapes, that is complemental to the shape of the space it is being used to fill [0034] [0051] [0062]. Examiner’s note: since foamed bulkhead member 102/302 forms some surfaces of the encapsulated bulkhead (including the top/outer face coated with coating 380), the shape of the foamed/top layer takes on the aforementioned geometric shapes (wherein the elongated raised member is a polygon).
Regarding claim 7, Hoffman discloses that the magnetic material can be a sheet attached or bonded to a sheet of non-magnetic material (wherein the bottom layer is an elongated plate like member) [0015].
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Marc discloses that the wrap layer is a protective impervious film layer (claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hoffman discloses that the sheet of magnetic material can cover a face/be a facer of the non-magnetic material (wherein the top layer and the bottom layer are in alignment) [0015] [0018] [0032].
Regarding claim 11, Marc discloses that the wrap layer can be a single layer of film (ref # 122).
Regarding claims 12-13, Larsh discloses that the encapsulated bulkheads can be used in rail cars, trucks, or shipping containers (wherein the deployable paper roll cushion can be utilized in an internal transport carrier – claim 12) [0074]. Regarding claim 13, it is evident that rail cars can be either open/external or closed/internal transport carriers. Alternatively (regarding both claims 12 and 13), the limitation “wherein the deployable paper roll cushion can be utilized in an internal transport carrier” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed 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. MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding claims 14-15, Larsh is silent with regard to the claimed dimensions of the intended use of the deployable cushion in a carrier. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the dimensions for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Larsh discloses that the bulkhead can have any 3D shape that is complemental to the shape of the space it is being used to fill [0034]. The bulkhead member 102 can be made any size that is useful for securing a particular load in a particular container [0041].
Regarding claims 24-27, Marc discloses that the wrap layer can be applied as more than one film layer [0033], which is depicted in Figures 3A and 3B where a first and second joint regions (see arrows in below annotated figure) is formed opposite each other at the areas where the two films a joined together so as to fully enclose and seal the foam material.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Marc discloses that the film layer can be poly(vinylidene chloride), i.e., saran, or polyethylene [0033].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-23 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been overcome by the present amendment to the claims.
Additionally, the previous prior art rejections have been modified as set forth above in view of the present amendments and arguments. Specifically, it is argued that Larsh does not disclose a wrap layer that is a thin layer of film material. This argument is addressed above in paragraph 15. Namely, Larsh discloses a coating that forms a thin layer of material onto the cushioning material. This broadly reads on the claim limitation that the “wrap layer is a thin layer of film material”. Further, if the claim is intended to read as though the wrap layer is a distinct thin film layer, as opposed to a coating, Marc discloses that is it known in the foam composite art to provide a foam core with an outer gas impermeable film.
The arguments that the prior art as a whole does not disclose or suggest the claimed combination of the claimed plurality of deployable cushions mounted inside a container and the bottom layer is an elongated plate like member composed of a magnetic material mounted to a side of the container, i.e., independent claim 21, is persuasive. Accordingly, claims 17-23 are deemed to be allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blaine Copenheaver whose telephone number is (571)272-1156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571)270-1547. 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.
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights