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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 11th, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goodrich (US2016/0067938A1).
With regards to claim 1, Goodrich discloses a packaging product having a cushioning effect (i.e., a cushioning article) depicted as comprising an expanded sheet (i.e., a layer) having a length in one direction and a width in a perpendicular direction (i.e., the length is in an x direction, and the width is in a y direction, so as to co-operatively define an x-y plane), wherein the expanded sheet defines a plurality of cuts arrayed in a pattern via slitting (i.e., formed without removal of material from the layer) (Goodrich: abstract; para. [0089] and [0113]-[0115]; Figs. 8 and 12-13; claim 1). In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that the term “cuts” and the phrase “formed without the removal of material from the layer” constitute product-by-process language. Such language does not limit a claimed product to the material performance of the recited steps, but rather, only the structure implied, per MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited language specifies the formation of a gap, and Goodrich discloses such a product (i.e., other than the presence of a gap, no further structural distinction is seen). Goodrich further depicts portions of the expanded sheet as rotating out of the x-y plane in a z directional orthogonal to the x and y directions when pulled (i.e., when stress is applied to the layer in either the x direction or the y direction), though, Goodrich further notes its structure as having a “switch back” effect in which regions of its packaging product become inclined (i.e., rotated out of the x and/or y directions) (Goodrich: para. [0121]; Figs. 2-3, 8, and 12-13). As best understood, the product of Goodrich is capable of being disposed on a human body (i.e., as nearly any article is capable of being disposed on a human body), and given that the structure of Goodrich is the same as the structure of the claims, it should function in the same manner (i.e., that it would be capable of providing increased cushioning to the human body and increased breathability as measured by MVTR as compared to the cushioning article when stress is not applied) (see above discussion). Alternatively, the claimed functional properties are rather broad, in that any structure attached to a human body provides increased cushioning, and further, the fact that apertures are formed in the structure of Goodrich via tension necessarily results in increased breathability in the regions containing the apertures (i.e., a material no longer being present in an area automatically increases the breathability in such an area, as material no longer exists to block moisture vapor transmission) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 3, the portions of the layer extend in all three cardinal directions (i.e., the portions are orthogonal to the x-y plane when stress is applied to the layer) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 4, the plurality of cuts comprise a pattern of single slits (Goodrich: Figs. 1 and 12-13).
With regards to claim 5, in one embodiment, the plurality of cuts form a chevron shape (Goodrich: Fig. 12).
With regards to claim 6, the sheet material comprises a paper material (i.e., both a nonwoven web and an energy absorbing material, as any material is capable of absorbing energy) (Goodrich: para. [0003]).
With regards to claim 11, it is submitted that the stress is capable of being maintained by mechanical interlocking between the portions rotated out of the x-y plane, since the structure of Goodrich is the same as that of the claims (i.e., and therefore, it must function in the same manner) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 24, Goodrich discloses a packaging product having a cushioning effect (i.e., a cushioning article) depicted as comprising an expanded sheet (i.e., a layer) having a length in one direction and a width in a perpendicular direction (i.e., the length is in an x direction, and the width is in a y direction, so as to co-operatively define an x-y plane), wherein the expanded sheet defines a plurality of cuts arrayed in a pattern via slitting (Goodrich: abstract; para. [0089] and [0113]-[0115]; Figs. 8 and 12-13; claim 1). In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that the term “cuts” constitutes product-by-process language. Such language does not limit a claimed product to the material performance of the recited steps, but rather, only the structure implied, per MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited language specifies the formation of a gap, and Goodrich discloses such a product (i.e., other than the presence of a gap, no further structural distinction is seen). Goodrich further depicts portions of the expanded sheet as rotating out of the x-y plane in a z directional orthogonal to the x and y directions when pulled (i.e., when stress is applied to the layer in either the x direction or the y direction), though, Goodrich further notes its structure as having a “switch back” effect in which regions of its packaging product become inclined (i.e., rotated out of the x and/or y directions) (Goodrich: para. [0121]; Figs. 2-3, 8, and 12-13).
With regards to claim 25, as best understood, the product of Goodrich is capable of being disposed on a human body (i.e., as nearly any article is capable of being disposed on a human body) (see above discussion). Given that the structure of Goodrich is the same as the structure of the claims, it should function in the same manner (i.e., that it would be capable of providing increased cushioning to the human body). Alternatively, the claimed functional properties are rather broad, in that any structure attached to a human body provides increased cushioning (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 26, given that the structure of Goodrich is the same as the structure of the claims, it should function in the same manner (i.e., that it would be capable of providing increased cushioning to the human body and increased breathability as measured by MVTR as compared to the cushioning article when stress is not applied) (see above discussion). Alternatively, the claimed functional properties are rather broad, in that any structure attached to a human body provides increased cushioning, and further, the fact that apertures are formed in the structure of Goodrich via tension necessarily results in increased breathability in the regions containing the apertures (i.e., a material no longer being present in an area automatically increases the breathability in such an area, as material no longer exists to block moisture vapor transmission) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 27, portions of the layer rotate out of the x-y plane when stress is applied (i.e., orthogonal to the x-y plane) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 28, it is submitted that the stress is capable of being maintained by mechanical interlocking between the portions rotated out of the x-y plane, since the structure of Goodrich is the same as that of the claims (i.e., and therefore, it must function in the same manner) (see above discussion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 22-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-13 and 17 are allowed.
The following is a list of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record are Goodrich (US2016/0067938A1), Wedin et al (US5,061,344A), and Goodrich ‘871 (US5,667,871A).
With regards to claims 8 and 22-23, Goodrich does not disclose or teach the inclusion of an adhesive layer or a self-adhesive material, nor does Goodrich teach the inclusion of elastomeric filaments or a binder material. The specification’s definition of the phrase “self-adhesive material” as still requiring an adhesive material is noted. With respect to the inclusion of additional materials, Goodrich teaches against the selection of unrecyclable plastics in its Description of related Prior art. Instead, Goodrich directs a person of ordinary skill to select a soft paper such as that disclosed in the Wedin reference. Wedin specifically teaches against the inclusion of binders or other materials – Wedin teaches that its papers have a soft, loose structure, which would require an unsuitably slow production rate if binders are to be applied. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the combination of Goodrich and Wedin would have therefore been dissuaded from the incorporation of other materials, or the selection of materials other than paper. As an alternative, Goodrich further directs a person of ordinary skill to Goodrich ‘871 for further teachings as to the selection of appropriate materials. Goodrich ‘871 teaches a structure which is nearly identical to the structure of Goodrich. According to Goodrich ‘871, it is known in the art that use of adhesives and other materials is disadvantageous with respect to expanded paper cushioning articles (such as those of its own invention and Goodrich’s invention), as such materials interfere adhere with use of the expanded paper an impact absorber, and further, materials such as adhesives also tend to be non-biodegradable. Goodrich ‘871 notes that introduction of an adhesive, specifically, leads to higher rigidity, which adversely affects the use of expandable paper materials for their intended purpose (i.e., prevents expansion). A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the combination of Goodrich, Wedin, and Goodrich ‘871 (the combination of Goodrich and the prior art references which it further instructs a person of ordinary skill to consult) would have been dissuaded from the incorporation of other materials, or the selection of materials other than paper.
Claims 9-10 are considered to contain distinguishing subject matter, as they depend from claim 8.
With regards to claim 12, Goodrich fails to teach an article comprising a second layer which is thicker than a first layer, the second layer defining an array of cuts, which that when stress is applied, the cuts transition to form corresponding apertures, the first region of the second layer decreases in thickness, and the second regio of the second layer increases in thickness. Goodrich specifically requires its material to be expandable (i.e., increasing in thickness when stress is applied) in order to provide a cushioning effect. Therefore, Goodrich is considered to teach away from the inclusion of an additional material which decreases in thickness (i.e., as such a material would not aid in cushioning effect). Moreover, Goodrich teaches that its article can be made more resilient and with greater firmness, and lighter. Since Goodrich desires an article which is lighter in weight, a person of ordinary skill would have been lead away from incorporation of additional layers (such as an additional second layer which does not provide an expandable effect).
Claims 13 and 17 are allowed due to dependence on claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
