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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 14, 15, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sip (U.S. Patent No. 9,884,465).
Regarding claim 1: Sip discloses a device for producing dunnage, comprising:
an outlet chute configured to receive the dunnage and direct the dunnage to an exit of the device (Fig. 2-4; via output chute 20);
a dunnage mechanism configured to deform a stock material into the dunnage and to drive the dunnage into and through the outlet chute to the exit (via 16); and
a jam detector associated with the outlet chute and sensitive to detect a dunnage jam “caused by an accumulation of the dunnage” (intended use limitations of the jam detector not given much patentable weight in the device claims) within the outlet chute (via sensing device 26 and sensors 62), wherein the jam detector is further associated with the dunnage mechanism to cause the dunnage mechanism to stop driving the dunnage into the outlet chute when the jam is detected (“electronic monitoring and control system for detecting and resolving many jamming conditions”, “the sensor detects a jam condition”, “then the modulating step may include stopping the feeding step”, “the controller 60 will slow or stop the feed motor 54”).
Regarding claim 3: wherein the jam detector further comprises a movable surface exposed to an interior of the outlet chute, such that the accumulation of the dunnage caused by the jam depresses the movable surface so that the movable surface deflects the switch (Figs. 3-5; via wheels 74/76).
Regarding claim 4: wherein the dunnage mechanism is further configured to crumple the stock material into the dunnage (via feeding means 16 and/or chute 30).
Regarding claim 5: further comprising a controller operably connected to the dunnage mechanism and the jam detector, wherein the controller is configured to control the driving of the dunnage (via controller 60; “electronic monitoring and control system for detecting and resolving many jamming conditions”).
Regarding claim 6: wherein the controller is further configured to prohibit operation of the dunnage mechanism when the jam is detected (the controller 60 will slow or stop the feed motor 54”).
Regarding claim 14: wherein the jam detector further comprises a flap (Fig. 4; via spring 80 linked with sensor 76 via flap that includes the movable surface; “76 is biased by a spring 80 toward the other wheel 74”, while Figs. 3-5 showing a linked flap member, see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
768
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15: wherein the drive mechanism comprises one or more rollers configured to deform the stock material into the dunnage (via 51/52).
Regarding claim 18: wherein the movable surface is further configured so that movement of the dunnage within the outlet chute in a direction transverse to a lengthwise direction of the outlet chute depresses the movable surface (Fig. 5; via the formed dunnage will pass through chute 20 pressing against the biasing wheel 76 to solidly move transversely for any jam possibilities).
Regarding claim 19: Sip discloses a dunnage system, comprising:
a unit of stock material (abstract; “feeding device that feeds the sheet stock material…downstream of the feeding device”;
a supply station configured to hold the unit of stock material (via “the sheet stock material from a supply (not shown)”); and
a device for producing dunnage (Fig. 1; via conversion machine 10), comprising:
an outlet chute configured to receive the dunnage and direct the dunnage to an exit of the device (Figs. 3-5; via chute 20);
a dunnage mechanism configured to deform a stock material into the dunnage and to drive the dunnage into and through the outlet chute to the exit (via unit 16); and
a jam detector associated with the outlet chute and sensitive to detect a dunnage jam “caused by an accumulation of the dunnage” (intended use limitations of the jam detector not given much patentable weight in the device claims) within the outlet chute, wherein the jam detector is associated with the dunnage mechanism to cause the dunnage mechanism to stop driving the dunnage into the outlet chute when a jam is detected, see for example (“electronic monitoring and control system for detecting and resolving many jamming conditions”, “the sensor detects a jam condition”, “then the modulating step may include stopping the feeding step”, “the controller 60 will slow or stop the feed motor 54”).
Regarding claim 20: wherein the stock material comprises paper (via “stock material, such as a roll or stack of paper”).
Regarding claim 21: wherein the movable surface (via rotation of wheels 74/76 and chutes 20) is configured to be depressed in response to a force exerted on the movable surface by the accumulation of the dunnage caused by the jam (intended use of the claimed movable surface; not given much patentable weight).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sip (U.S. Patent No. 9,884,465) in view of Wetsch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,738,533).
Regarding claim 2: Sip does not suggest that the jam detector comprises a switch configured to be deflected by an accumulation of the dunnage. However, Wetsch discloses a similar dunnage device with the use of switch sensor deflected by an accumulatio of the dunnage, see for example (Figs. 15-16; via sensor 542 and/or “Suitable types of sensors 542 can be used, such as… a microswitch may be used”).
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 Sip’s jam detector to by a switch sensor, as suggested by Wetsch, in order to accurately be able to detect a full condition of the accumulator (column 3, lines 38-43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s main argued upon issue is that the filed amendments of 09/18/2025 is referring to the jam detector to be activated based on a jam caused by an accumulation of the dunnage within the outlet chute. The Office as set forth above believes that such language is nothing more than an intended use terms of the actual claimed “jam detector”, which not given much patentable weight in the apparatus claims.
It has been 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.
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 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