DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 6/22/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15, 18-19, 23-24, 26, 28-29, 31, 33, and 35 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13, and 15 are elected for prosecution.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-19, 23-24, 26, 28-29, 31, 33, and 35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the product of the unelected group requires the apparatus of the elected group to be made.
Examiner notes the use of general linking terms does not require the specific characteristic (configuration, shape, or size) of the elected group claim limitations. The same product could be made from similar apparatus in a different configuration resulting with a cushion of similar proportions and indentions.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LENCOSKI (US 6387029 B1).
For claim 1, LENCOSKI teaches an embossing (stamping) gear used in a conversion process on cushioning [abstract]. LENCOSKI teaches the gear is made of a series of raised pieces (teeth) along a radial circumference with valleys between each [Fig 2a]. LENCOSKI also teaches that the teeth can be arranged such that the gears when overlapped have smaller teeth in between [Fig 3a]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to make the two gears integral to save space and retain the functionality. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B). This teaches the limitation of “A stamping gear for a pair of embossing gears of an apparatus for forming a web material into a cushioning product, comprising: a plurality of embossing teeth; valleys arranged between adjacent embossing teeth of the plurality of embossing teeth; and punching nose arranged in a region of the valleys, wherein the plurality of embossing teeth are continuous in an axial direction”.
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.");
For claim 2, LENCOSKI teaches the stamping gear according to claim 1, as above. LENCOSKI teaches the gear has a rounded structure (element 238) between the teeth and the axial outer side surface [Fig 3a]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising axial outer side surfaces, rounded transition regions being provided between the respective outer side surfaces and a corresponding one of the plurality of embossing teeth”.
For claim 3, LENCOSKI teaches the stamping gear according to claim 1, as above. LENCOSKI teaches the use of a plurality of gear disks each with teeth [Fig 3b]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising a plurality of disk-shaped axial segments including: two edge segments having the plurality of embossing teeth and the valleys formed between the adjacent embossing teeth”. LENCOSKI also teaches the teeth can be arranged such that the gears when overlapped have smaller teeth in between [Fig 3a]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to make the two gears integral to save space and retain the functionality. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B). This teaches the limitation of “stamping segments arranged axially between the two edge segments and having punching noses arranged in a region of the valleys, the stamping segments including a plurality of tooth sections corresponding to the plurality of embossing teeth; and at least one center segment arranged between the stamping segments and being shaped to correspond to the two edge segments”.
For claim 5, LENCOSKI teaches the stamping gear according to claim 1, as above, used to make a cushion product [abstract]. This teaches the limitation of “A pair of embossing gears for an apparatus adapted to forming form a web material into a cushioning product, comprising: a stamping gear according to claim 1;”. LENCOSKI teaches the structure has a sealing end to cap the gears and pin the structures configuration [Fig 3b]. This teaches the limitation of “and a sealing gear adapted to engage the stamping gear,”. LENCOSKI does not teach the distance of the end cap to the first gear. The examiner notes the distance from the seal to the gear is not specified. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to understand that experimentation of the distance between the end seal and the gear would not be unreasonable. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a radial distance in a range of 0.01 mm to 1 mm is formed between the sealing gear and the stamping gear”.
For claim 6, LENCOSKI teaches the pair of embossing gears according to claim 5, as above. LENCOSKI teaches the use of a plurality of gear disks each with teeth and valleys in between [Fig 3b]. LENCOSKI teaches the structure has a sealing end to cap the gears and pin the structures configuration [Fig 3b]. LENCOSKI teaches smooth gears in between the gears with similar (smaller radially only) circular general shape [Fig 4b]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein: wherein the sealing gear comprises: a plurality of disk-shaped axial segments including two edge segments having a plurality of uniform embossing teeth and valleys formed between adjacent embossing teeth; and at least one sealing segment arranged axially between the two edge segments and having a rotationally symmetrical shape with respect to a gear axis and/or a maximum sealing segment radial extension which is not larger than a smallest edge segment radial extension in the region of the valleys, the least one sealing segment includes a sealing segment axial extension which is at least as large as an axial width of at least one the punching noses and/or as large as a stamping segment axial extension of a stamping segment of the stamping gear, the sealing segment axial extension being at least 0.1 mm and/or not more than 0.5 mm larger than the axial width of the at least one punching nose or the stamping segment axial extension”. The examiner notes the use of the language “or” allows for one of the surrounding limitations to meet the total claim limitation.
For claim 8, LENCOSKI teaches the pair of embossing gears according to claim 6, as above. LENCOSKI teaches the use of multiple sealing segments to hold the orientation and distance from the ends [Fig 3b and Fig 5c]. This teaches the limitation of “comprising: at least two sealing segments arranged between the two edge segments; and at least one center segment arranged between the at least two sealing segments, wherein the center segment is shaped to correspond to the two edge segments”.
For claim 9, LENCOSKI teaches the pair of embossing gears according to claim 5, as above.
LENCOSKI teaches the gear has a rounded structure (element 238) between the teeth and the axial outer side surface [Fig 3a]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein: the stamping gear and the sealing gear each have a pair of axial outer side surfaces opposite one another in the axial direction, rounded transition regions being provided between the outer side surfaces and the embossing teeth of the stamping gear and/or of the sealing gear; and/or the sealing gear is free of punching noses”. The examiner notes the use of the language “or” allows for one of the surrounding limitations to meet the total claim limitation.
For claim 11, LENCOSKI teaches the pair of embossing gears according to claim 5, as above. LENCOSKI teaches configurations with complete overlap of the teeth and all protrusions [Fig 2a]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the sealing gear is a second embossing gear with punching noses, wherein a first of the pair of embossing gears and the second embossing gear of the pair of embossing gears are matched to each other such that: the punching noses of the first embossing gear engage in punching-nose-free embossing-valley axial regions of the second embossing gear, and the punching noses of the second embossing gear engage in punching-nose-free embossing-valley axial regions of the first embossing gear”.
For claim 13, LENCOSKI teaches the stamping gear according to claim 1, as above, used to make a cushion product [abstract]. This teaches the limitation of “An apparatus for forming a web material into a cushioning product, the apparatus comprising: at least one stamping gear according to claim 1; and/or at least one pair of embossing gears comprising: the at least one stamping gear; and a sealing gear adapted to engage the at least one stamping gear”. LENCOSKI does not teach the distance of the end cap to the first gear. The examiner notes the distance from the seal to the gear is not specified. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to understand that experimentation of the distance between the end seal and the gear would not be unreasonable. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a radial distance in a range of 0.01 mm to 1 mm is formed between the sealing gear and the stamping gear, wherein the at least one stamping gear is biasedly held on a frame of the apparatus transversely to an axial direction”.
For claim 15, LENCOSKI teaches the apparatus according to claim 13, as above. LENCOSKI teaches the machine containing the gears and embossments has a feed component that feeds cushion material with distancing that aligns the shape/size of the cushion into the same size of the embossment configuration [Fig 1 and Fig 6]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising: a preforming device adapted to introduce turned-over and/or rolled-up cushioning regions along opposite longitudinal marginal edges of the web material, wherein the stamping gear and/or the pair of embossing gears has a gear axial width adapted to engage both cushioning regions, the preforming device including a guide having a dispensing distance equal to or larger than the gear axial width”. LENCOSKI does not teach cushion length. The examiner notes the cushion length is not specified. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to understand that experimentation of the cushion length would not be unreasonable. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the apparatus is adapted to dispense a cushioning product with: a piece length of not more than 30 cm; and/or a piece width of at least 4 cm”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights