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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant amendment received on 12/30/2025:
Amendments of Claims 4 to 33 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Currently amended claims 4 and 28 to 31 and 5 to 13 and 33 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Group I, claims 1 to 3, 14 to 27 and 32, drawn to a pallet wrap, classified in B31D5/0065.
Group II, claims 4 and 28 to 31, drawn to a combination of the pallet wrap of Claim 1 and a pallet assembly, classified in B65D71/0088.
Group III, claims 5 to 13 and 33, drawn to a method, comprising providing the pallet wrap of claim 1 and wrapping said pallet wrap around a pallet assembly, classified in B65B11/585.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I, II and III are unrelated. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06). In the instant case, the different inventions have in common the pallet wrap of claim 1, that as discussed in the last action is well-known in the art; while the pallet assembly of the combination of Groups II and the method of Group III are not disclosed to be the same as the mentioned on Group I, while the Method of Group III requires a pallet assembly that is not disclosed to be the same as the one on Group II.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The examination of all the groups and the associated divergent subject matter, as identified above, would require an undue burden on search and examination.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, corresponding to Group I, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, the claims corresponding to Groups II and III, 4 to 13, 28 to 31 and 33, are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1 to 3, 14 to 27 and 32 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitations "cross direction” and “machine direction" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 to 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerial (US 2017/0225441) in view of Goodrich (US 2018/0370702).
Regarding Claims 1 to 3:
Zerial discloses a pallet wrap, comprising: a non-slit paper support wrap, wherein a expandable slit sheet paper is configured to be wrapped around a load placed over a pallet of a pallet assembly and said paper support wrap is configured to surround at least a portion of the load (Figures 8a and 8b, paragraphs 0075 and 0089, slip sheet 56, made of an extensible kraft paper laminate, surround a portion of load 52 placed over pallet 60, the pallet, paper support wrap and load will be considered a pallet wrap).
Zerial does not disclose an expandable slit sheet paper is configured to be wrapped around a load placed over a pallet or the paper support wrap being configured to surround at least a portion of said expandable slit sheet paper wrapped around said pallet assembly.
Goodrich teaches using an expandable slit sheet paper made of extensible paper to wrap loads (Abstract, Paragraph 007, an expanded slit sheet paper is made with an extensible paper, Paragraph 0062, Figure 5 shows the expansion on the machine direction); the expanded extensible paper can be used to wrap an object for shipping by wrapping and cushioning the object in the expanded slit sheet material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Zerial the teachings of Goodrich and use the expandable slit sheet paper made of extensible paper to completely wrap the load of Zerial for shipping and cushioning the object in the expanded slit sheet material, and , since the load would be completely wrapped, then the paper support wrap is configured to surround at least a portion of the non-slit paper support wrap.
Claims 1, 14, 15, 25 to 27 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page (US 2014/0027553) in view of Jones (US 2020/0407089).
Regarding Claim 1:
Page discloses a pallet wrap, comprising: an expandable slit sheet paper having a slit pattern including a plurality of slits extending in a cross direction that forms a plurality of open cells upon expansion in a machine direction, and a non-slit paper support wrap (Figures 2, 7 and 8, Paragraph 0068 and 0085, cushioning wrap material 54, that will be considered the pallet wrap, includes Expandable slit material 52 includes a pattern of slits 53 extending in a cross direction that form an array of openings 53a, that will be considered open cells when the expandable sheet material is stretched to an expanded form in a machine direction, interleaf material 42 is surrounding at least a portion of the expandable slit sheet paper).
Page does not disclose an expandable slit sheet paper is configured to be wrapped around a load placed over a pallet or the paper support wrap being configured to surround at least a portion of said expandable slit sheet paper wrapped around said pallet assembly.
Jones teaches using an expandable sheet paper to wrap a pallet load, that can be considered a pallet assembly (Figures 6 and 11, Abstract, paper material 420 or 1100) for stabilizing the loads and facilitating general movement of the pallets, including the loading and unloading of pallets into and out of transport vehicles, includes wrapping the loads with stretchable paper, that can be produced and recycled with less environmental impact than conventional plastic wrap material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Page the teachings of Jones and use the expandable paper cushioning wrap material of Page to wrap a pallet assembly, for stabilizing the loads and facilitating general movement of the pallets as an alternative paper wrapping recyclable material, note that when the cushioning wrap material 54 is placed around the load, the interleaf material 42 will be surrounding at least a portion of the expandable slit sheet paper 52).
Regarding Claim 14:
Page discloses using the expanded cushioning wrap material 54 of Figure 8 to wrap articles, that can be considered as “flexibly contouring”, note that the expanded material 52 is now made of openings 53a considered the cells.
Page does not disclose the articles being boxes
As already discussed for Claim 1, Jones teaches using an expandable sheet paper to wrap a pallet load, that can be considered a pallet assembly comprising boxes having corners (Figures 4 and 11, boxes 402, 404 and 406, the wrapping material going around the corners of the boxes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Page the teachings of Jones and use the expanded cushioning wrap material of Page to wrap around the corners of boxes.
Regarding Claim 15:
Page discloses that paper support wrap adds tensile strength to the pallet wrap beyond the tensile strength of the expandable slit sheet paper (Figure 8, the tensile strength of the expanded cushioning wrap material 54 would be the combination of the tensile strength of the expanded material 52 plus the one of sheet 42).
Regarding Claims 25 and 26:
Page discloses that the expandable slit sheet paper is configured to be wrapped concurrently with said paper support wrap, with said paper support wrap overlapping said expandable slit sheet paper (Figure 8, the expandable slit sheet paper 52 is wrapped concurrently with paper support wrap 42, that at least partially overlaps the expandable slit sheet paper).
Regarding Claim 27:
Page discloses that the expandable slit sheet paper is configured to be wrapped independently with respect to said paper support wrap (Figure 7 shows that expandable sheet material 52 can be dispensed independently from interleaf material 42).
Regarding Claim 32:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Page discloses the invention as claimed, in particular the paper support being the same width or narrower than the expandable slit sheet paper.
The modified invention of Page does not specifically disclose if the paper support wrap has a width of between about 6.0 inches and 36 inches.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a paper support of a width of between about 6.0 inches and 36 inches depending on the width of the expandable slit sheet paper.
Claims 16, 17, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page (US 2014/0027553) in view of Jones (US 2020/0407089) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sangho (US 3104197).
Regarding Claims 16 and 17:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Page discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Page does not disclose that the paper support wrap includes an extensible non-slit paper having an extensibility of the paper in a machine direction of between 5% to 20%.and in a cross direction of between 5% to 20%.
Sangho teaches a paper material mechanically treated to obtain extensibilities of as high as 26% in the machine direction, so surely an extensibility on the range can be obtained, and 7% in the cross direction (Column 4, lines 5 to 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Page the teachings of Sangho and use a material treated as indicated by Sangho to obtain a paper support wrap having an extensibility of the paper in a machine direction of between 5% to 20%.and in a cross direction of between 5% to 20% since that material and the way to obtain it are well known in the art.
Regarding Claims 20 and 21:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Page discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Page does not disclose the expandable slit sheet paper is made from an extensible paper having an extensibility in a machine direction, in an unslit state, of between 5% to 20% and an extensibility in a cross direction, in an unslit state, of between 5% to 20%.
Sangho teaches a paper material mechanically treated to obtain extensibilities of as high as 26% in the machine direction, so surely an extensibility on the range can be obtained, and 7% in the cross direction (Column 4, lines 5 to 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Page the teachings of Sangho and use a material treated as indicated by Sangho to obtain an extensible paper to make expandable slit sheet paper having an extensibility of the paper in a machine direction of between 5% to 20%.and in a cross direction of between 5% to 20% since that material and the way to obtain it are well known in the art.
Claims 18, 19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page (US 2014/0027553) in view of Jones (US 2020/0407089) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goodrich (US 5688578).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Page discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Page does not disclose that the paper support wrap a weight of at least 30# or having a weight of between 30# to 70#.
Goodrich teaches an expandable wrapping material comprising an expandable slit sheet paper and a paper support wrap (Figure 8, separator sheets 250 and 252 will be considered the paper support wrap and expanded paper 256 and 254 are formed of an expandable slit paper), the paper support wrap having a weight of between 30# to 70# (Column 6, 40 to 44, The unexpanded, separator sheet can use a light weight separator of 40 kraft paper or less)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Page the teachings of Goodrich and use a paper support wrap having a weight of between 30# to 70# since that is a well-known weight range for that element in the art.
Regarding Claims 22 and 23:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Page discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Page does not disclose that the expandable slit sheet paper is a paper having a weight of at least 30# or having a weight of between 30# to 70#.
Goodrich teaches an expandable wrapping material comprising an expandable slit sheet paper and a paper support wrap (Figure 8, separator sheets 250 and 252 will be considered the paper support wrap and expanded paper 256 and 254 are formed of an expandable slit paper), the expandable slit sheet paper having a weight of between 30# to 70# (Column 6, 40 to 44, 40 and 50 pound kraft paper can be used for the expanded layers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Page the teachings of Goodrich and use an expandable slit sheet paper having a weight of between 30# to 70# since that is a well-known weight range for that element in the art.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page (US 2014/0027553) in view of Jones (US 2020/0407089) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Corrigan (WO 2021130616).
Regarding Claim 24
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Page discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Page does not disclose a slit length of between 0.15 inches to 0.45 inches; in general page and the references on the record establish a relationship between the length of the slit and the thickness of the cells formed.
Corrigan teaches slits of a length as low as 0.25 inches (Paragraph 00145, Claim 35) as a length required depending on the paper material thickness or for a final material thickness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Page the teachings of Corrigan and have a slit length of between 0.15 inches to 0.45 inches depending on the thickness of the paper to be expanded and the thickness desired for the expanded material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant presents arguments regarding the way wrapping material is used commonly for wrapping a pallet containing boxes. The arguments may be valid, but the contents of the pallet and not even the way it is wrapped are part of Claims 1 to 3.
In reference to the amended Claims, the Examiner made a new rejection over Page (US 2014/0027553) in view of Jones (US 2020/0407089) that disclose a different wrapping material applied to a pallet.
Note that as indicated in the previous action a restriction by original presentation was required.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular Drolet (US 2021/0102337) and Lilley (US 2022/0090328) teach high stretch wrapping papers, Talda (US 10773839) teach a relevant wrapping expended material with a paper support wrap, while Anderson (US 6096152) teach papers with added latex including stretchability in the claimed ranges.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
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, SHELLEY 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.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731