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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/5/26 has been entered.
REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
All previous rejections have been withdrawn.
REJECTIONS REPEATED
There are no rejections repeated.
NEW REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because claim 1 recites the limitation, “wherein each of the layers, when seen orthogonally to a plane of the layer, has a 2D shape, at least some of the layers within the protective packaging product have different 2D shapes allowing to obtain a final and specific 3D shape of the protective packaging product by means of stacking the layers one above the other.” The final and specific 3D shape is not defined and it is not clear how a shape can be specific if the shape is not defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 6,083,586) in view of Wu et al. (US 5,757418).
Andersen discloses a protective packaging product (see inter alia column 42, lines 31-33), comprising a plurality of stacked layers (see from column 40, line 56 to column 42, line 3; see also column 42, lines 21-31), at least some layers being adhered to an adjacent layer, at least some layers are made of a polysaccharide material (starch, paper, cellophane, see column 41, lines 5-17), and that adjacent polysaccharide layers are adhered to each other by means of a polysaccharide bonding material (see column 41, lines 41-42: vegetable starch-based adhesives).
Andersen also discloses that some layers may be a foamed polysaccharide material (see column 26, lines 4-36), corrugated layers (see figure 7, see column 42, line 4 to 51), and paper layers (column 41, lines 14-15). Andersen also discloses the bonding of the polysaccharide layers by dissolving a surface area of at least one polysaccharide material layer (see column 41, lines 25-31) and wherein at least two of the layers (12) are different in density (since all of the materials disclosed have different densities, column 41, lines 5-17), wherein at least two of the layers (12) have orthotropic properties with an orthotropic axis (22), the layers (12) preferably being arranged such that the orthotropic axis (22) are parallel, at an angle of 45°, or at an angle of 90° (since fiber reinforced composites are disclosed).
Andersen does not disclose wherein each of the layers, when seen orthogonally to a plane of the layer, has a 2D shape, at least some of the layers within the protective packaging product have different 2D shapes allowing to obtain a final and specific 3D shape of the protective packaging product by means of stacking the layers one above the other.
Wu discloses wherein each of the layers, when seen orthogonally to a plane of the layer, has a 2D shape, at least some of the layers within the protective packaging product have different 2D shapes allowing to obtain a final and specific 3D shape of the protective packaging product by means of stacking the layers one above the other, since Wu discloses a packaging material wherein at least some of the layers have different 2D shapes and has a final 3D shape (Fig. 1d, column 6, lines 52-63) in a package for the purpose of providing improved shelf life (column 1, lines 10-17).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided wherein at least some of the layers within the protective packaging product have different 2D shapes allowing to obtain a final and specific 3D shape of the protective packaging product in Andersen in order to provide improved shelf life as taught or suggested by Wu.
9. Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (US 6,083,586) in view of Wu et al. (US 5,757418), as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Eitermoser et al. (US 2016/0264279).
Modified Andersen does not disclose wherein it comprises at least one solid insert made from wood.
Eitermoser discloses at least one solid insert made from wood (paragraph [0040]) in cardboard food packaging (paragraph [0001]) for the purpose of providing improved stiffening (paragraph [0040]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided at least one solid insert made from wood in modified Andersen in order to provide improved stiffening as taught or suggested by Eitermoser.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
10. Applicant’s arguments of 7/6/26 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant has argued, “The indefiniteness rejection is respectfully traversed. It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner's analysis fails to take into account the overall context defined in claim 1. Claim 1 covers a packaging product made up of stacked layers. Layers are typically relatively thin and therefore have an overall two-dimensional shape. By stacking multiple two-dimensional layers with different two-dimensional shapes, one then obtains a specific shape of the three-dimensional product formed therefrom. No lack of clarity has been found in claim 1.”
However, it is not clear how a shape can be specific if the shape is not defined.
Applicant has argued, “Wu relates to a corrugated cardboard packaging box. A gas-impermeable polymer layer is incorporated into the corrugated cardboard. Apparently, the Examiner is of the view that the corrugated cardboard is made of layers that have different 2D shapes, namely the flat outer layers and the corrugated inner layer. It is respectfully submitted, however, that the different types of layers in the corrugated cardboard do not influence the specific 3D shape of the protective packaging product, i.e., the packaging carton.
Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to apply Wu's technology to Andersen's corrugated starch layers. A key element of Wu's invention is the use of a more or less gas-impermeable film. Applying this technology would compromise the material purity of the starch in Andersen's technology.
This applies even more to claim 1 as amended, which clarifies that the layers have different 2D shapes in the top view, and that the specific 3D shape of the final product is created by stacking these layers. In the top view, the corrugated cardboard layers of Wu's invention do not have different 2D shapes, and the specific 3D shape of Wu's packaging carton is not achieved by stacking the corrugated cardboard layers.”
However, the individual layers of Wu influence the specific 3D shape of the protective packaging product because the final shape is flat just like some of the stacked layers of Wu. Furthermore, the modification is not include or exclude the materials of Wu in Andersen but is to include the shapes of the layers of Wu in Andersen for the purpose of providing improved shelf life.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 1-9 pm EST.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C MIGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
MCM
September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights