DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 3-4 in the reply filed on 02 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
As such, claims 1-18 remain pending, claims 5 and 14-18 are withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1-4 and 6-13 are under consideration on the merits.
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US 2025/0135760, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 16 April 2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The reference character “(20b)” in line 4 of claim 13 is objected to as constituting inconsistent claim language/formatting, given that the reference characters have been deleted from every other claim – respectfully suggested to delete reference character (20b) from line 4 of claim 13
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the terms/phrase “essentially and generally” of the phrase “a plurality of essentially and generally flat panels” render the claim indefinite. The terms “essentially” and “generally” are relative terms of degree, each of which are not defined in the spec (MPEP 2173.05(b), (b)(I), and (b)(III)(B)). The recitation of the terms together in the aforesaid phrase creates confusion as to how each term, and how the combination of terms, limits the panels, i.e. the requisite degree of flatness is unclear. “Essentially”, defined/interpreted as “in essence; fundamentally”, differs from, and is not equivalent to, “generally”, defined/interpreted as “in a general manner; usually”. It is unclear how the panels are/can be both generally flat and essentially flat. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot envisage or readily determine the metes and bounds of the scope of the invention defined by claim 1 for which patent protection is sought.
For examination on the merits, claim 1 is interpreted in accordance with the following amendment, of which is also respectfully suggested in order to overcome the indefiniteness issues: “…comprising a plurality of
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “preferably by a cut” constitutes preferential claim language which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the depression is, or is not, required to be a cut. See MPEP 2173.05(d) – description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In the instance where it is not clear whether the claimed preference is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made.
Additionally, it can be reasoned that the term “the thickness (D2)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis, as there is no prior introduction/recitation of “a thickness (D2)” of the panels in claim 6, or in claim 1 upon which claim 6 is directly dependent.
For examination on the merits, claim 6 is interpreted in accordance with the following amendment, of which is also respectfully suggested in order to overcome the indefiniteness issue and antecedent basis issue noted above: “…comprises a depression, a thickness (D2) of the panels.”
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “at least one of the second and the third layers” renders the claim indefinite, as “the third layer” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 11 is directly dependent upon claim 8, which recites the “first layer comprising a 3D foamed polysaccharide material” and the “second (2D) layer”, but does not recite/introduce a third layer. As such, it is unclear whether it was intended to introduce the third layer in claim 11, or to introduce the third layer in claim 8, or if it was intended for claim 11 to be dependent upon claim 10 which does introduce a third 2D layer. Thus, the metes and bounds of the scope of claim 11 are not clear and cannot be readily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art. For examination on the merits, claim 11 is interpreted to be dependent upon claim 10 instead of claim 8. It is respectfully suggested to amend the dependency of claim 11 in accordance with said interpretation in order to overcome the indefiniteness issue.
Claim 12 is indefinite and rejected on the same grounds as claim 11 above. Claim 12 recites “at least one of the second and third layer”, but is directly dependent upon claim 8. For examination on the merits, claim 12 is interpreted to be dependent upon claim 10 instead of claim 8.
Claim 7 is indefinite and rejected under 112(b) as it is dependent upon claim 6 and therefore includes, and does not remedy the indefiniteness issue(s) of claim 6 identified above.
Claims 2-4 and 6-13 are indefinite and rejected under 112(b), as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy the indefiniteness issue(s) of claim 1 identified above.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wetsch (US 2022/0032598; “Wetsch”).
Regarding claim 1, Wetsch discloses a web stock of expansion (38)/expanded (36) walls, said web comprising a plurality of interconnected, separable packaging containers (88, 92), e.g. envelopes or mailers in a fanfold [Fig. 13] stack configuration (85) [Abstract; Figs. 5, 9A-9B, 10A-10C, 11A-11B, 13; 0009, 0027-0033, 0039-0040, 0042, 0035, 0054-0055, 0059-0060, 0078-0079, 0093-0095] (A stock of protective packaging material). It is noted that the packaging container designated (92) is also designated by Wetsch as (93) in certain instances throughout the disclosure, of which the Examiner believes to be a typographical error – hereinafter the designation (92) is utilized in and corresponds to any/all instances where (92) or (93) is recited or depicted. The foregoing (use of different number indicators for same element) also applies to expansion (38) versus expanded (36) walls (e.g. [0047, 0049]), wherein (36) is utilized hereinafter.
The expanded walls (36) – and packaging container (88, 92) formed therefrom – include a first ply (32), a second ply (34) overlying the first ply, and an expansion space formed therebetween and comprising therein an expanded material (48), wherein the expanded walls are essentially flat, and wherein each of the first (32) and second (34) plies are formed from paper or cardboard material [Figs. 8, 9B, 11B; 0040, 0059-0062] (see MPEP 2131.02(II)) (a plurality of essentially/generally flat panels). The expanded material (48) comprises, inter alia, foamed starch or foamed cellulose [0063-0066, 0069-0077] (MPEP 2131.02(II)) (protective packaging material comprised foamed polysaccharide material).
Each packaging container (92) defines an interior cavity (138) enclosed by superimposed expanded wall(s) (36) [Figs. 8, 9A-9B, 10A-11B; 0082, 0085, 0088]. Further, each packaging container (92) of the interconnected plurality is separable from the respectively adjacent packaging container(s) by a weakened region/line (134) [Figs. 10B, 13; 0054-0058, 0095] (flat panels each having at least a straight side edge, wherein adjacent panels are connected to each other at their common straight side edges; hinge portion) which extends perpendicular (transversely) to the common longitudinal edges (108/112, 158, 164) (machine direction) of the web [Figs. 8, 9A, 10A-10C; 0051, 0061-0062, 0084] – the weakened line (134) (hinge portion) allows the interconnected packaging containers to be folded over one another into said fanfold stack (85), and ultimately separated into [the] individual packaging containers [Figs. 7A, 13; 0054-0058, 0093-0095] (adjacent panels are folded relative to each other such that they form a stack of essentially parallel panels).
Wetsch discloses that in the fanfold stack (85) configuration, the walls (36) defining each packaging container may be expanded walls (36) [Figs. 7A, 13; 0093-0095], i.e. the state in which material (48) has been expanded, as set forth/cited above, thereby defining a low-density supply configuration of the stock (MPEP 2131.02(II)), in contrast to the alternative embodiment wherein the walls are in an expandable (38), i.e. pre-expanded state and thereby defining a high-density supply configuration of the stock.
The web stock of Wetsch in the aforesaid fanfold stack low-density supply configuration, as set forth/cited above, reads on and thereby anticipates the stock of protective packaging material (hereinafter “stock”) defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the stock defined by claim 2 – that is, the interconnected packaging containers (92), each defined by the superimposed expanded wall(s) (36) (flat panels), are quadrangular [Figs. 5, 7A, 9B, 10B, 11B, 13] (wherein the flat panels are quadrangular).
Regarding claim 6, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Wetsch discloses that the weakened line (134) (hinge portion) is suitably provided by, inter alia scoring or perforating the expanded wall (36) [0054-0055]. Further, the score or perforation may be through one or both of the first ply (32) and second ply (34) [0055].
Thus, Wetsch anticipates the embodiment where only one of the aforesaid plies is scored or perforated to form the weakened line (134), of which would have necessarily resulted in a depression/cut having a depth (depth (D1)) which is less than the thickness of the expanded wall (36) (thickness (D2) of the panels), given that it would not have extended through the entire thickness of said expanded wall but rather only one ply thereof. The aforesaid embodiment of the weakened line (134) reads on the stock defined by claim 6.
Additionally/alternatively to the aforesaid embodiment, one of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes, and it stands to reason in light of the aforecited disclosure of Wetsch, that scoring of the expanded wall (36) creates a groove, i.e. depression therein which does not extend through the entirety of the expanded wall (36), i.e. in contrast to a perforation which does extend through the entirety of the wall. Therefore, the scored weakened line (134) also would have necessarily exhibited a depth which would have been smaller than the thickness of the expanded wall (36) given that said score does not puncture the wall. The aforesaid embodiment of the weakened line (134) reads on the stock defined by claim 6, in addition or alternatively to the embodiment set forth in ¶29 above.
Regarding claims 8 and 10-11, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on each stock defined by claims 8 and 10-11, respectively. That is, the expanded walls (36) exhibit the layer configuration first ply/expanded material/second ply (32/48/34) (wherein the panels are formed by a layered structure), wherein the first ply (claim 8, second 2D layer) and second ply (claims 10-11, third 2D layer) are formed from paper or cardboard material (claim 11, wherein at least one of the second and third layers comprises a paper or cardboard material), and the expanded material includes foamed starch or foamed cellulose (claim 8, first layer comprising a 3D foamed polysaccharide, attached to second 2D layer; claim 10, the first layer being arranged between the second and third layers).
Regarding claim 9, in view of the rejection of claim 8 above, Wetsch discloses that the expanded material (48) (3D foamed polysaccharide material) can be disposed on either or both of the first (32) and second (34) plies, and can be disposed in a pattern or predetermined distribution and/or concentration, such as a pattern of individual (discrete) droplets of expanded material (48), wherein said pattern can be one or more of lines, arcs, circles, ellipses, squares, rectangles, and polygons, and the droplets can be dots, squares, circles, large and/or small shapes or polygons [Figs. 8, 10A, 12; 0077] (discrete material patches in a side by side arrangement). The thickness of the expanded material (48) may be constant/uniform, or variable [0077]. The individual droplets of expanded material (48), in the patterns disclosed and/or depicted (as cited) by Wetsch, anticipate the stock defined by claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, in view of the rejection of claims 8 and 10 above, the rejection of claim 6 above (¶28-30) is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) and reads on the stock defined by claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, in view of the rejection of claim 1 and corresponding notes at ¶22 above, Wetsch discloses the specific embodiment of the plurality of interconnected, separable packaging containers (93) depicted in [Figs. 10A-10C; 0029-0031, 0088-0091], wherein adjacent, lower-positioned expanded walls (36) – (i.e. “second wall portion (190)” [0090], disposed opposite the longitudinal seam seal (174) – of respectively adjacent packaging containers (93) connected to one another along weakened line (134) read on the claimed second panel and third panel, respectively, and weakened line (134) reads on the claimed second hinge portion connecting said second panel and third panel.
Further, the “first wall portion (188)” [Figs. 10B-10C; 0090] (first panel) of the first adjacent/connected packaging container (93) (second panel), which wall portion (188) is connected to said lower-positioned expanded wall (36) (second panel) at hinge portion (180) (first hinge portion) along the longitudinal edge of the web and folded over said lower-positioned expanded wall (36) via the fold line created at hinge portion (180) to thereby define half of the upper-positioned expanded wall (36) – (other half of upper-positioned expanded wall (36) defined by “third wall portion (194)” which is sealed to first wall portion (188) along longitudinal seam seal (174) [Figs. 10B-10C; 0086-0090]) – defines an arrangement between the weakened line (134) (second hinge portion) and hinge portion (180) (first hinge portion) wherein said (134) and (180) constitute adjacent side edges of the second panel (wherein the first and second hinge portions are arranged at adjacent side edges of the second panel).
The embodiment of the web of packaging containers of Wetsch set forth/cited above reads on the stock defined by each and every limitation of claim 13 as dependent upon claim 1. To illustrate/support the foregoing rejection, see annotated Fig. 10B of Wetsch below, captioned as Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Wetsch Fig. 10B, annotated by the Examiner
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wetsch as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definitions for “Corrugate” and “Corrugation” (accessed 03 April 2026; hereinafter “Merriam-Webster”) (copies provided herewith) are relied upon as evidentiary references in support of the rejection of claims 3-4.
Regarding claims 3-4, in view of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above (¶22-26), the rejections (disclosure and corresponding citations of Wetsch) of claims 8 and 9 above (¶31-32) are incorporated herein by reference (not repeated). Wetsch discloses that the foamed starch or foamed cellulose expanded material (48) can be disposed between the first (32) and second (34) plies in the form of a plurality of individual (discrete) droplets, or large and/or small shapes/polygons, having uniform or variable thicknesses [0077]. Wetsch depicts the foregoing in an exemplary (non-limiting) manner, e.g. [Figs. 10A-10C], wherein individual circular droplets of expanded material (48) having a thickness are disposed between the first (32) and second (34) plies in main padding areas (182) [Fig. 10A-10B; 0077, 0088] and are arranged in repeating rows in said areas, wherein said rows are parallel relative to longitudinal edge (108) (claim 4, side edge of the panel) of the web [Figs. 10A-10B]. The aforesaid embodiment depicted in Fig. 10A of Wetsch is reproduced hereinbelow, captioned as Figure 2 to aid in clarifying the basis of the rejection.
PNG
media_image2.png
766
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Wetsch Fig. 10A (forms interconnected containers of Fig. 10B), main padding areas designated (182)
In accordance with the foregoing and supported by Figure 2 above, it is clear that the rows of individual circular droplets of expanded material (48) in main padding areas (182) are arranged in parallel relative to one another, and are arranged parallel relative to the longitudinal edge (represented by designation (108) in [Fig. 10A]) (side edge of the panel).
One of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes – given that the droplets have a thickness, i.e. height extending from the first ply (32) to the second ply (34) – that the space present between adjacent droplet rows in the main padding areas (182), as well as the space present between the main padding areas (182) referred to as longitudinal hinge areas (178) (which become/form hinge portions (180) [Fig. 10C]), necessarily define grooves (i.e. troughs, valleys, or recessions, i.e. recessed height areas) relative to the ridges (i.e. crests, peaks, or protrusions, i.e. protruding/increased height areas) defined by the height(s) of the rows of droplets, that is, the droplet thickness which may be constant.
In view of the totality of the foregoing, and in light of the plain meaning and literal definitions of “corrugate”/”corrugated” - to form or shape into alternating ridges and grooves [Merriam-Webster, Corrugate, p.1], and “corrugation” - the act of corrugating, or, a ridge or groove of a surface that has been corrugated [Merriam-Webster, Corrugation, p. 1], the repeating parallel rows of individual droplets of expanded material (48), arranged parallel to the longitudinal edges (108) (side edge of the panel): (i) define troughs/grooves between respective droplet rows, and in hinge areas (178) between the padding areas (182); and in conjunction therewith, (ii) define alternating, respectively parallel, and longitudinally extending ridges/protrusions relative to said troughs/grooves, where said ridges/protrusions have a height(s) corresponding to the droplet thickness.
The foregoing reads on, and thereby anticipates under 102(a)(2), the stock defined by claim 3 (wherein the panels comprise a plurality of corrugations), and by claim 4 (wherein the plurality of corrugations is parallel to a side edge of the panel) as dependent upon claim 3.
Alternatively, in view of the totality of the foregoing as supported by the aforecited disclosure of Wetsch, as evidenced by Merriam-Webster and supported illustratively by Figure 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the limitations directed to the plurality of corrugations and parallel arrangement thereof relative to a side edge of the panel of the stock defined by claims 3 and 4 prima facie obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and/or it would have been prima facie obvious to have formed the repeating rows of expanded material (48) in the exact manner depicted in Figs. 10A-10C of Wetsch, in a manner substantially similar thereto, or in a manner deviating therefrom in accordance with [0077] and thereby resulting in the plurality of corrugations arranged parallel to a side edge (e.g. longitudinal edge of the web) of the panel, as claimed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetsch as applied to claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, in view of Fredlund et al. (WO 00/76759; “Fredlund”) (copy provided herewith) and/or Vincent et al. (US 10,357,936; “Vincent”).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above (¶28-30), of which is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated), Wetsch is silent regarding sequential weakened lines (134) (hinge portion) of the web of separably interconnected packaging containers (92) – which are scored/grooved in accordance with the rejection of claim 6 and thereby define a depression(s) along each line (134) having a depth (D1) which is smaller than the thickness (D2) of the expanded wall(s) (36) – having their respective depressions oriented in opposite directions, as required by the stock defined by claim 7. See spec, [Fig. 6].
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that (i) the depressions of the sequential weakened lines (134) separating/delineating three sequential packaging containers (92) of the web -– i.e. first container (92)/first line (134)/second container (92)/second line (134)/third container (92) – can only be oriented relative to one another in a finite number of positions. Specifically, the depression(s) of the first line (134) and the depression(s) of the second line (134) can be formed on the same surface of the web and thereby oriented/extending in the same thickness direction, or can be formed on opposing surfaces of the web and thereby oriented/extending in opposite thickness directions.
Further, one of ordinary skill would have readily recognized that (ii) in order to form the fanfolded stack (85) [Figs. 7A, 13] of separably interconnected containers (92), the first line (134) and second line (134) extending transversely to the longitudinal edge of the web and delineating each packaging container (92) from adjacent containers (92) must necessarily be folded in/facilitate folding in opposite directions, as explicitly disclosed by Wetsch [0048, 0094] and represented as opposing folds (86) [Figs. 7A, 13]. That is, said first container must be folded over said second container along first line (134), and said third container must be folded under said second container along second line (134), in order to achieve the fanfold or “accordion fold” supply configuration.
In view of said (i) and (ii), Fredlund teaches forming a crease (groove) in a packaging laminate (first ply/bulk layer/second ply) which extends through only a portion of the overall thickness of the laminate, which reduces or eliminates bulge formation and delamination of the layers during folding of the laminate, wherein the laminate is intended for folding (the sections thereof delineated by the crease) toward the crease to achieve high fold angles [Abstract; Figs. 3-5; p. 4 ln. 19-30; p. 5 ln. 13–p. 8 ln. 6; p. 9 ln. 5-17].
Furthermore, Vincent teaches that creased packaging laminates, comprising paper surface plies sandwiching a foamed layer therebetween, are folded along the crease(s) (18) toward the surface upon which the crease (groove) is formed, wherein the resultant fold angle achieved is dependent upon the depth and angle of the crease [Abstract; Figs. 1B-1C; col. 2 ln. 49-51; col. 3 ln. 15-22; col. 7 ln. 37–col. 8 ln. 29].
Wetsch, Fredlund, and Vincent each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention.
In view of the aforesaid (i) (finite amount of depression orientations) and (ii) (fanfolded supply configuration) and the teachings of Fredlund and/or Vincent, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the web of separably interconnected packaging containers of Wetsch by having formed the depression of the first weakened line (134) to be oriented in the opposite direction of the depression of the second weakened line (134), i.e. having formed the depressions of the respective first and second weakened lines on (and extending into) opposing surfaces of the web, as the aforesaid relative orientation would have been one of two finite orientations and thereby obvious to try; and/or in order to have facilitated folding of the interconnected adjacent containers (92) into the fanfolded, low-density supply configuration stack (85), thereby resulting predictably in reduced or eliminated container defects/damage caused by delamination/bulge at the first and second weakened lines (134) during folding in the repetitive over/under manner.
In accordance with the foregoing modification, the aforesaid depression(s) of the first weakened line (134) and the second weakened line (134) of the web of Wetsch would have been oriented in opposite directions, i.e. formed on opposing surfaces of the web and extending into the thickness thereof in respectively opposite directions (see spec, [Fig. 6]).
The web of Wetsch, as modified above (hereinafter “modified Wetsch”), reads on the stock defined by each and every limitation of claim 7 as directly dependent upon claim 6 and ultimately dependent upon claim 1. For clarity, the layer sequence: first container (92)/first line (134)/second container (92)/second line (134)/third container (92), wherein depressions of the first line (134) and second line (134) are oriented in opposite directions, reads on the claimed: first panel/first hinge portion comprising first depression/second panel/second hinge portion comprising second depression/third panel, wherein the first depression is oriented in an opposite direction than the second depression.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
US 2012/0138275 to Biggin et al. – discloses a foam composition comprising cellulose foam matrix and expandable particles [Abstract]
US 2003/0009988 to Deis – discloses a cushioning product comprising an elongated sheet of paper stock having a plurality of transverse fold lines and folded in an alternating manner at said transverse lines to define a fan-folded configuration [Abstract; Figs. 1-2, 6; 0005-0006, 0021-0023]
US 2020/0223613 to Deis – discloses a cushioning material for packaging [Abstract; Figs. 1-6, 9-10; 0017, 0033-0034, 0048]
US 2014/0117071 to Kannankeril et al. – discloses a cushioning assembly including a first sheet, second sheet, and plurality of foam elements interposed therebetween [Abstract; Figs. 1-3A, 7-13; 0031-0072]
US 2010/0092758 to Slovencik – discloses a foam protective packaging product comprising first and second film plies and foam interposed between said first/second film plies [Abstract; Figs. 2-4]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Michael C. Romanowski whose telephone number is (571)270-1387. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F, 09:30-17:30.
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. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights