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 .
Double Patenting
In light of the latest filed remarks made by the applicant on 03/16/2026, the previously filed Doble Patenting rejection on 09/15/2025 has bee withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1, 7-16, 19-21, 34-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuchar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,926,305).
Regarding claim 1: Kuchar discloses an expander for expanding expandable slit sheet material, comprising:
a) at least two expansion members arranged to receive an expandable slit sheet material from a wound roll of expandable slit sheet material, see for example (Figs. 13-15; via sheet 23 from roller 22 guided through expanding mechanism 13/14), each of said at least two expansion members having a length arranged to extend across a width of the expandable slit sheet material and having a periphery arranged to contact the expandable slit sheet material, see for example (Figs. 12-15; via the small width section of roller’s periphery 13/14 touching width section of web 23).
Further, the teaching of having those expansion rollers to have width throughout the entire width of the web, which something not claimed is old and taught by Goodrich, U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0203866, Fig. 17; via rollers 1710/1711.
b) said at least two expansion members including two adjacent expansion members arranged adjacent to one another (via 13/14 arranged adjacent each other’s);
c) said two adjacent expansion members being separated from one another by a distance greater than a thickness of said expandable slit sheet material in an expanded state (via web 23 between rollers 13 and 14), such that the said two adjacent expansion members do not concurrently press against opposite sides of the expanded slit sheet material at a same longitudinal position of the expanded slit sheet material so that said two adjacent expansion members avoid damaging the expanded slit sheet material, see for example (Figs. 12-15; via 13/14 pressing at section of the web 23);
wherein said two adjacent expansion members are arranged such that a portion of the path of the expanded slit sheet material passing around said two adjacent expansion members is S-shape (Fig. 15; via web 23 going through expansion rollers 13/14 in S-shape), with the path curving in a first direction around the periphery of one of said two adjacent expansion members and then in a second direction that is away from said first direction around the periphery of the other of said two adjacent members (Fig. 15);
wherein said two adjacent expansion members are arranged such that the path of the expanded slit sheet material passing around said two adjacent expansion members includes the expanded slit sheet material contacting each of said two adjacent expansion members around respective arcs of at least 60 degrees around each of said adjacent expansion members, see for example (Figs. 12-15; appears web 23 going through expansion rollers 13/14 with respective arcs of at least 60 degrees).
In case Kuchar may not be clear regarding the claimed slit sheet material to be contacting each of the two adjacent expansion members around respective arcs of at least 60 degrees around each of the adjacent expansion members.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Kuchar’s slit sheet material to be contacting the expansion members around arcs of at least 60 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective varieable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 7: wherein said expander is configured to expand the expandable slit sheet material due to friction imparted to said expandable slit sheet material by said at least two expansion members to enable wrapping of an item within the expanded slit sheet material for protection of the item (via “adjustable force applied” and/or “tension is applied at a second angle”).
Regarding claim 8: expanding an expandable slit sheet material with said expander, and wrapping an item with the expanded slit sheet material for protection of the item (via “a cellular structure could create packing meatier or an acoustic barrier”).
Regarding claim 9: wherein each of said at least two expansion members are rotatable (via rollers 13/14).
Regarding claims 10-16: Kuchar does not specifically suggest that the two adjacent expansion members are separated from one another by a distance greater than said thickness of said expandable slit sheet material and up to 140% of said thickness, up to 160% of said thickness, up to 180% of said thickness, up to 200% of said thickness, up to 240% of said thickness, up to 260% of said thickness, and/or up to 300% of said thickness.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Kuchar’s adjacent expansion member 13/14 to be separated from one another by up to 140% of said thickness, up to 160% of said thickness, up to 180% of said thickness, up to 200% of said thickness, up to 240% of said thickness, up to 260% of said thickness, and/or up to 300% of said thickness of the slit sheet material, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective varieable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claims 19-21: Kuchar may not specifically disclose that the two adjacent expansion members are arranged such that the path of the expanded slit sheet material passing around each of said two adjacent expansion members includes the expanded slit sheet material contacting each of said two adjacent expansion members around respective arcs of at least 90 degrees around each of said adjacent expansion members, between 180 degrees and 270 degrees, and/or between 180 degrees and 270 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Kuchar’s adjacent two adjacent expansion members 13/14 to form a path of the slit sheet material with an arcs of at least 90 degrees around each of said adjacent expansion members, between 180 degrees and 270 degrees, and/or between 180 degrees and 270 degrees, 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.
Regarding claim 34: wherein said at least two expansion members is two expansion members (via two members 13 and 14).
Regarding claim 35: wherein the periphery of each of said at least two expansion members each include friction surfaces (Figs. 14 & 15; inherently each of 13 and 14 would have friction surface at the periphery).
Regarding claim 36: Kuchar may not disclose that the friction surfaces include hooks. However, the Office takes an official notice that a use of rollers with hooks or lugs while conveying and contacting a continuous web is very old and know in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Kuchar’s expansion rollers 13/14 to have lugs or hooks at their peripheries, in order to gain more control of conveying and expanding the web and avoid any chance of slipping the sheets away.
Regarding claim 37: wherein said friction surfaces include rubber or foam surfaces (inherently in the art of using rollers contacting webs, those rollers made of elastic and soft material such as rubber or foam).
Regarding claim 38: wherein the periphery of each of said at least two expansion members has an arcuate contact region that contacts the expandable slit sheet material (Fig. 12-15; via surface of rollers 13/14 contacting web material 23).
Regarding claim 39: wherein the periphery of each of said at least two expansion members that contacts the expandable slit sheet material is cylindrical (via rotating core of the rollers 13/14 are in cylindrical shape).
Regarding claim 40: wherein said at least two expansion members includes at least two expansion rolls (via rollers 13 and 14).
Regarding claim 41: wherein said at least two expansion rolls each extend substantially parallel to one another (via rollers 13 and 14 arranged parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 42: wherein said at least two expansion members are rotatable (via rotatable rollers 13 and 14).
Regarding claim 43: wherein the periphery of each of said at least two expansion members is a circumference that frictionally engages said expandable slit sheet material (via the periphery of each of rollers 13 and 14).
Regarding claim 44: further including a wound roll of expandable slit sheet material with said expandable slit sheet material of said wound roll in an unexpanded state, said expandable slit sheet material extending from said roll downstream to said at least two expansion members with said expandable slit sheet material contacting at least a portion of the periphery of each of said at least two expansion members, see for example (Fig. 13; via slitted web 23 out of roller 22).
Regarding claims 45-46: Kuchar may not suggest that the two adjacent expansion members are separated from one another by a distance greater than 260% or greater than 300% of said thickness of said expandable slit sheet material in an expanded state.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Kuchar’s adjacent expansion member 13/14 to be separated from one another by a distance greater than 260% or greater than 300% of said thickness of said expandable slit sheet material in an expanded state, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective varieable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 47: wherein said expandable slit sheet material is an expandable slit sheet paper (via 23; “from a paper product”).
Regarding claim 48: expandable slit sheet material with said expander (via web 23 expanded by member 13 and 14).
Regarding claim 49: further including: wrapping an item with the expanded slit sheet material for protection of the item (via 23 as “a packing material”).
Regarding claim 50: wherein said expanding the expandable slit sheet material with said expander includes that the periphery of each of the expansion members has a friction surface that frictionally engages said expandable slit sheet material (inherently that the surface of rollers 13 and 14 have friction surface to hold on and expand web 23).
Regarding claim 50: wherein the expandable slit sheet paper includes an array of slits, wherein each of the slits extends in a cross direction across a width of the expandable slit sheet paper and expands upon a pulling force in a machine direction in a lengthwise direction of the expandable slit sheet paper (product claim describing the actual sheet paper, not given much patentable weight in the apparatus claims; Further; Figs. 2-7 shows the web with array of slits).
Regarding claim 51: wherein the at least two expansion rolls each extend substantially parallel to the roll of expandable slit sheet material, see for example (Fig. 13; via web roller 22 “substantially” parallel to the expansion rollers 13/14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites “each of said at least two expansion members having a length arranged to extend across a width of the expandable slit sheet material and having a periphery arranged to contact the expandable slit sheet material”, while the applied art of Kuchar ‘305 shows “sheets” 13 and 14 only contacting a small lateral region of the web material.
The Office draws applicant’s attention that the claims are given the broadest reasonable meaning, in this case the claimed language only referring to the expansion members as having a length “extend across a width of the expandable slit sheet material”, not further description claimed to identify that “width” to be large, small, nor with certain any dimensions! Therefore, it is believed that ‘305 indeed suggest that the expansion rollers 13 and 14 extend across a width of the slit sheet material, regardless to how small or big the contacted width is, something not claimed.
Further, applicant argues that claim 1 recites “said two adjacent expansion members being separated from one another by a distance greater than a thickness of said expandable slit sheet material in an expanded state, such that the said two adjacent expansion members do not concurrently press against opposite sides of the expanded slit sheet material at a same longitudinal position”, while ‘305 “grasps the web material” and, thus, requires wheels directly adjacent one another.
The Office believes that ‘305 shows the expansion members 13/14 being separated from one another by a distance than a thickness of the sheet material, as that is the only way the sheet material can be conveyed between the members, see for example (Figs. 13-15 & 32).
Adding to that, indented use limitations of the actual “expansion members” are not given much patentable weight. It is noted that, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant also argues that claim 1 recites “wherein said two adjacent expansion members are arranged such that the path of the expanded slit sheet material passing around said two adjacent expansion members includes the expanded slit sheet material contacting each of said two adjacent expansion members around respective arcs of at least 60 degrees around each of said adjacent expansion members”, while ‘305 apply grasping pressure between the sheets, with no reason nor need to include arcs as recited in the present claims.
The Office believes that ‘305 shows the path of the sheet material between two expansion members 13/14 to be in an arcs shape as shown in Figs. 15 & 32. Regardless to the argued upon matter of ‘305 applying a grasping pressure and no reason nor need to include arced path, the filed drawings of Figs. 15 & 32 clearly showing the claimed arc path of the fed materials between the two expansion members.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731