DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-8 & 16-17 in the reply filed on March 12th, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 12th, 2026.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-8 & 16-17 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, it is unclear what the scope of the term “crumpled” is in relation to the “elements” extending between first and second substrates. While the term crumpled implies a product-by-process type limitation such as crushing, pressing, or squeezing, the specification states that “a crumpled element is an element that appears crumpled regardless of the process of making the element” which is kind of like saying “A ball is an object that appears ball-like” which while true is not particularly helpful in conveying its structural qualities. While an exemplary definition is given in that a crumpled element “is typically irregularly wrinkled along a length and width of the element” it is unclear if that is a required claim limitation, wherein while claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, it is also unclear what the length and width of the elements would be if that were the claimed definition. For instance, while the depicted elements appear “crumpled” in the thickness direction, would elements crumpled (i.e. comprising folds/creases/bends/curves regular or irregular as recited below) only in a longitudinal direction such as those set forth Jan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0215613 A1), Komoly (U.S. Patent No. 3,616,018), or Vetter (U.S. Patent No. 4,211,525) also meet the claimed invention? Or textured surface elements such as those set forth in Thiagarajan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0240370 A1).
For purposes of examination, the term “crumpled element” will be interpreted to mean any element that displays creases, pleats, folds, bends, curves, or other analogous non-linearities along any one of its directions on a periodic, aperiodic, or random basis, with emphasis placed on the depicted embodiments, but not limited thereto if a more narrow and concrete definition is not provided.
Regarding claims 16-17, the first portion is directly attached in claim 2 and the second portion is not directly bonded in claims 16-17. Are these two aspects different or the same in reference/scope?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(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.
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 & 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giacchino (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0127345 A1) (hereinafter “Giacchino”).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, Giacchino teaches a multilayered extruded board (film) comprising polyethylene [0007], wherein comprising first and second substrates spaced apart to form a hollow core having a plurality of spaced irregularly crumpled ribs that create a channeled rigid structure along a length that not only minimizes compression of the substrates but also provides torsional stability [0029], wherein the board is extruded [0028], wherein due to the molecular alignment of polymers during the extrusion process inherently would provide at least some birefringence to at least one of the first or second substrates.
Claims 1, 5-6, & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maas et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0123719 A1) (hereinafter “Maas”).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, and 7-8, Maas teaches a multilayered extruded sheet (film) comprising polycarbonate [0007], wherein at least one layer comprises first and second substrates separated by a gap (Fig. 2 [14]) by a plurality of dividers (Fig. 2 [18]) that have buckled and/or collapsed (crumpled) [0050-0051], wherein due to the molecular alignment of polymers during the extrusion process inherently would provide at least some birefringence to at least one of the first or second substrates, and the depicted embodiment clearly depicts the gap/spacing formed between any two first and second substrate layers as having a thickness far greater than 10 times the thickness of either the first or second substrates, which either anticipates or makes prima facie obvious the ranges set forth in the claims
Claims 1, 5-6, & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Topolkaraev (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0089412 A1) (hereinafter “Topolkaraev”), wherein claims 7-8 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Topolkaraev.
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, and 7-8, Topolkaraev teaches a multilayered film comprising at least coextrusion of first and second elastomeric substrates and having a non-elastomeric polymeric layer disposed therebetween having undergone stretching such that the non-elastomeric polymeric layer disposed therebetween is provided with a plurality of irregular wrinkled/crumpled elements extending between first and second surfaces producing channels having void spaces between the corrugations [Fig. 1, 0031-0032, 0034, 0036, 0086], which have a plurality of benefits such as forming soft and more drapable films, with increased opacity and thermal insulation and reduced noise, potentially for fluid transport purposes [0055], wherein the due to the molecular alignment of polymers during the extrusion process inherently would provide at least some birefringence to at least one of the first or second substrates, and wherein while microlayers are taught to be very thin such as having a thickness of 0.1 to 150 microns, such as below 50 microns [0038] and explicit distance between any two first and second substrates is not taught. However, the SEM micrographs appear to depict the gap/spacing formed between any two first and second substrate layers as having a thickness far greater than 10 times the thickness of any individual microlayer, which either anticipates or makes prima facie obvious the ranges set forth in the claims.
Claims 1, 5-6, & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umezawa (JP 50-133263 A) (hereinafter “Umezawa”) as evidenced by Okada et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,308,192) (hereinafter “Okada”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Umezawa in view of Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0234012 A1) (hereinafter “Wang”), and optionally Clark (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0028318 A1) (hereinafter “Clark”) or Topolkaraev (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0089412 A1) (hereinafter “Topolkaraev”), OR Giacchino (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0127345 A1) (hereinafter “Giacchino”), and wherein claims 7-8 are optionally (further) in view of Ausen et al. (WO 2020/003065 A1) (hereinafter “Ausen”) OR Kamo (JP 2002-187226 A) (hereinafter “Kamo”).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, Umezawa teaches forming a hollow thermoplastic film usable as a cushioning and/or packaging material comprising an outer film substrate (All Figs. [7]) and inner film substrate (All Figs. [6]) a plurality of partitions extending therebetween (All Figs. [8]) defining a plurality of channels (All Figs. [9]), wherein the film, comprising polyethylene and other similar thermoplastics, is extruded and then blown/stretched before being compressed by a pinch roll, wherein both post-extrusion actions should inherently form at least partially crumpled partitions extending therebetween as evidenced by Okada which teaches that the process of Umezawa would inherently lead to irregularly deformed/distorted/bent legs/partitions due to air cooling leading to irregular stretching and cooling, wherein completely linear/straight legs/partitions, if desired, would only be possible via immediate water cooling following the die exit along with the conventional gas pressure (col. 1, lines 38-60), wherein the due to the molecular alignment of polymers during the extrusion process inherently would provide at least some birefringence to at least one of the first or second substrates.
In the event that the partitions are not inherently at least partially crumpled or desirable as recited above:
Wang teaches a pad for cushioning having a top film plate and a bottom film plate connected by a flexible mediate portion including a plurality of plates defining channels extending substantially perpendicularly therebetween, wherein the plates may be straight and then deformed to absorb a load [Figs. 1-2] or the plates may already be pre-curved (crumpled) [Fig. 3] [0017-0018].
And optionally,
Furthermore, Clark teaches a panel that may be micro or macro sized able to withstand compression [0033], wherein the shapes connecting first and second plates separated by a shaped layer, wherein the protrusions connecting the first and second plates are pleated/corrugated as such to be collapsible and may be supported by a biasing element to allow for adjustable cavities/channels therein [0033, 0042].
or,
Furthermore, Topolkaraev teaches a film comprising a film comprising at least coextrusion of first and second substrates comprising a plurality of irregular wrinkled/crumpled elements extending between first and second surfaces producing channels having void spaces between the corrugations [Fig. 1, 0031-0032, 0034, 0036, 0086], which have a plurality of benefits such as forming soft and more drapable films with increased opacity and reduced noise [0055].
OR
Giacchino teaches a multilayered extruded article comprising polyethylene [0007], wherein comprising first and second substrates spaced apart to form a hollow core having a plurality of spaced irregularly crumpled ribs that create a channeled rigid structure along a length that not only minimizes compression of the substrates but also provides torsional stability [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art forming a double-wall hollow structure intended for cushioning and/or packaging to provide crumpled partitions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a deformable wall in a known alternative manner [Wang] with predetermined collapsibility for adjustable spacing between the upper and lower substrates [Clark] or forming a softer/more drapable film having increased opacity and reduced noise [Topolkaraev] OR would have been motivated to form a wall providing the substrates with not only relatively increased resistance to compression but also torsional stability [Giacchino].
Regarding claims 7-8, the stretched and rolled thickness of the inner, outer, and partition walls have an average thickness of about 0.1 mm (100 microns), wherein the die exit thickness conditions are about 0.7 mm with a gap spacing between the films of about 5 mm [translation pg. 6, patent pg. 391], and while the final gap spacing is not clearly disclosed it should inherently be within or near the claimed range.
Alternatively, Ausen teaches a channel web/film for cushioning applications [0009] comprising first and second substrates as having a thickness of at least 25 micrometers, such as 25 to 300 [0058-0059] and a partition height of not greater than 3000 micrometers, such as 50 to 3000 micrometers [0028], defining an approximate spacing to wall thickness ratio range of less than 120 times, such as 0.16 times to 120 times.
OR
Kamo teaches a hollow plate/film for cushioning/packaging applications [0011, 0015] comprising upper and lower films having a thickness of 50 to 70 µm and a 3 to 6 mm spacing, wherein proportional increases and decreases are acceptable [0007].
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art forming a double-wall hollow structure intended for cushioning and/or packaging to look to the art for other known dimensions acceptable for the same purposes.
Claims 2-4 & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezawa, optionally in view of Wang, and optionally Clark or Topolkaraev, OR Giacchino, as applied to claim 1 above, and (further) in view of Coste et al. (EP 1726428 A1) (hereinafter “Coste”), wherein claim 17 is further in view of Ausen et al. (WO 2020/003065 A1) (hereinafter “Ausen”) as evidenced by WO 2019/142089 A1 OR WO 2019/166935 A1.
Umezawa alone or in combination as recited above teach(es) the multilayer polymeric film, but does not teach the crumpled partitions to comprise first and second crumpled portions comprising respective first and second different compositions, which may further match the compositions of the first and second layers and/or the second composition not directly bonded/connected to one or both substrates
Coste teaches alveolar plastic sheets comprising first and second sheets connected by a plurality of spacing walls defining channels, wherein the composition and therefore mechanical properties are determined by providing different compositions to the first and second layers and in part to a portion of each partition/wall coextensive along the extrusion direction such that neither portion extends entirely to the opposing surface, such as in packaging applications to provide a first side that is more flexible and a second side that is more rigid for stability and resistance [0006, 0040, 0043] but may differ in other ways as well [0045-0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art forming a double-wall hollow structure intended for cushioning and/or packaging to provide the crumpled partitions with first and second crumpled portions comprising first and second compositions as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form hollow film that different in function and/or form on each side, such as having a relatively harder and softer sides with corresponding partitions sections [Coste].
Further regarding claim 17, Coste would not provide a second crumpled portion that is not directly bonded/integral with either substrate.
Ausen teaches a channel web/film for cushioning applications [0009] comprising first and second substrates separated by partitions formed by a shim-like extrusion die that allows for first and second layers and the partitions to each be formed of the same or different compositions [0054-0055], wherein partitions may comprise a first wall having a plurality of second walls which can comprise a different composition to tune mechanical properties [0048], wherein the second wall can be dispensed in such a manner as to provide a conjoined wall [0049], wherein a conjoined wall (coextensive along a thickness and extrusion direction) comprising a first portion and a second portion being different heights is possible by providing coextensive openings one of which is a different length as evidenced by WO 2019/166935 A1 and/or wherein a conjoined wall comprising a first portion and a second portion being only a segment of the length of the first portion is possible by providing coextensive openings adjacent only the projections as evidenced by WO 2019/142089 A1, both teaching the first substrate having first composition with the plurality of projections comprising first and second coextensive portions (along a thickness and extrusion direction) comprising a second and third compositions, wherein only the first (or second) and third compositions are the same and the second (or first) is a different composition [‘935; 0039 & ’089; 0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art forming a double-wall hollow structure intended for cushioning and/or packaging to provide first and second portions as a cojoined wall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to fine tune mechanical properties along the partitions [Ausen], which would have also enhanced the joining strength by increasing the length of the joined portion, wherein an exemplary mechanical segment would be providing a compressible/collapsible wall partition with a stiffer reinforcing/biasing element [Clark] that does not detract from resilient connections at the top and bottom of the partition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Solbeck (FR 2009099 A1) teaches a similar product to that of Umezawa in that it can be used for packaging and wrapping due to its beneficial shock absorption or for construction materials. Therefore, it could be modified by any of the above references in a manner similar/identical to Umezawa.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 May 25th, 2026
Prosecution Insights