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 .
Response to Amendment
The submission entered May 18, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed January 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-19, 21-25 are pending. Claim(s) 20 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 1-3,7,8,14,16-19 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 21-25 is/are newly presented.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 3, 4, 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
The limitations added to claims 1 and 18 have resulted in a new grounds of rejection in view of Armington et al. and Baker.
The indicated allowability of the subject matter of previous claim 20 is withdrawn in view of art to Lieb.
As the new rejection of claim 19 is not necessitated by applicant’s amendment, this action is non-final.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “protective packaging machine that converts paper-based stock material in a high-density configuration into paper dunnage pads in a low-density configuration” in claim 1. The specification discloses a blade.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 16, 23 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(s) 16, the language “pads at the packaging article inlet that have been cut and separated by the protective packaging machine” renders the claim indefinite because the claim has not previously set forth that the packaging machine cuts and separates the pads. The packaging machine of claim 1 only “converts” as a function.
Regarding Claim(s) 23, the language “by an internal duct airflow” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the language is attempting to set forth an “internal duct”.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cahill et al. (USPN 4915547).
Regarding Claim(s) 21, Cahill et al. (USPN 4915547) teaches a packaging material conveyance system for conveying protective packaging articles (cards 12) from a protective packaging machine (hopper 14) to a receptacle (receptacle 36), the packaging material conveyance system comprising: a main duct (22) having a packaging article inlet (aperture 20) configured to receive formed packaging articles (corrugated cards 12 from hopper 14), and having a first outlet (Figure 3 shows an article 12 exiting the duct, also hopper 36 receive articles from duct 22) configured to allow the packaging articles to exit therefrom, the main duct being elongated and configured to transport the articles in a longitudinal direction within the main duct from the packaging article inlet to the first outlet (the duct is elongated and would be configured to transport articles); and a blower assembly [Col. 3:38, “fan or compressor”] operably connected to the main duct to generate airflow that enters the main duct from at least two non-adjacent sides of the main duct to propel the articles through the main duct (Figure 6 shows the airflow entering from opposite sides of the duct, hence non-adjacent), wherein the main duct comprises first and second duct sections, the first and second duct sections each defining a substantially straight path (Figure 12 show a duct (122) with straight sections separated by curved sections); wherein the first duct section defines a change in elevation (the duct in Figure 12 is shown to change elevation before receiving station 139).
Regarding Claim(s) 23, Cahill et al. teaches a receptacle (36) arranged at the first outlet, the receptacle configured to receive articles conveyed by an internal duct airflow through the duct (22) from the packaging article inlet to the first outlet.
Regarding Claim(s) 24, Cahill et al. teaches a blower duct section (Figure 6, at arrows 48) fluidly connecting the blower assembly and the main duct to introduce the airflow at an angle relative to the longitudinal direction of the main duct.
Regarding Claim(s) 25, the blower duct section comprises first and second blower duct sections (sections on each side of the duct), and the airflow comprises first and second air streams (as seen in Figure 6) configured to enter the main duct via the first and second blower duct sections at first and second angles, respectively.
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) 1-8, 12, 13, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. (USPN 4915547) in view of Armington et al. (USPN 5123889) and Baker (USPN 6453644).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Cahill et al. (USPN 4915547) teaches a packaging material conveyance system comprising: a protective packaging machine (hopper 14 having corrugated cards 12; the cards being considered as pads); a main duct (22) having a packaging article inlet (20) configured to receive pads from the protective packaging machine (the articles are received from a hopper 14), the main duct having a first outlet (Figure 3 shows an card 12 exiting the duct, also hopper 36 receive articles from duct 22) configured to allow the pads to exit therefrom, and being elongated and configured to transport the pads in a longitudinal direction within the main duct from the packaging article inlet to the first outlet (the duct is elongated and would be configured to transport articles); and a blower assembly [Col. 3:38, “fan or compressor”] operably connected to the main duct to generate airflow that enters the main duct from at least two non-adjacent sides of the main duct to propel the pads through the main duct (Figure 6 shows the airflow entering from opposite sides of the duct, hence non-adjacent). Cahill et al. discloses the articles may be corrugated cards for cigarette packing; the cards are considered to be pads having a low-density configuration as the cards would provide cushioning. Cahill et al. fails to teach the protective packaging machine converts paper-based stock material in a high-density configuration into paper dunnage pads in a low-density configuration. Armington et al. (USPN 5123889) teaches a protective packaging machine (20) that converts paper-based stock material in a high-density configuration into paper dunnage pads in a low-density configuration, the machine having a cutting assembly (56) having a blade (160,162). Baker teaches a packaging machine (14) that forms air filled pillows (12) and feeds the pillows to the inlet (20) of ductwork (22) for conveying the pillows. The pads of Cahill et al. in the hopper are already formed. Baker discloses feeding packaging material directly from the machine that forms the packaging material to the inlet of the ductwork. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a protective packaging machine that converts paper-based stock material in a high-density configuration into paper dunnage pads in a low-density configuration as taught by Armington et al. since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results. The packaging machine of Armington et al. would produce the paper dunnage pads for use in packaging.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Cahill et al. teaches the packaging article inlet is connected to an outlet of the packaging machine (as seen in Figure 1, the inlet 20 is connected to the outlet of the hopper 14).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Cahill et al. teaches a receptacle (36) arranged at the first outlet, the receptacle configured to receive articles conveyed by airflow through the duct (22) from the article inlet to the first outlet.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Cahill et al. teaches a blower duct section (Figure 6, at arrows 48) fluidly connecting the blower assembly and the main duct to introduce the airflow at an angle relative to the longitudinal direction of the main duct.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, the blower duct section comprises first and second blower duct sections (sections on each side of the duct), and the airflow comprises first and second air streams (as seen in Figure 6) configured to enter the main duct via the first and second blower duct sections at first and second angles, respectively.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, the angles are not greater than about 90 degrees (Figure 6 shows an angle less than 90 degrees).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Cahill et al. teaches the first and second air streams are configured to energize boundary layers on top and bottom sides of the pads, respectively, so as to accelerate the pads from the packaging article inlet of the main duct. The air streams would inherently energize boundary layers on the sides of the pad, as fluid flowing over a surface creates a boundary layer. The air stream would accelerate the pads.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Cahill et al. teaches the first and second air streams are configured to engage opposite sides of the pads (since the air streams enter the duct from different sides).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Cahill et al. shows duct sections each defining a substantially straight path. Figure 12 show a duct (122) with straight sections separated by curved sections.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, the duct of Cahill et al. appears rectangular.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Cahill et al. teaches duct sections defining a change in elevation (see Figure 12 which shows a duct having changes in horizontal and vertical directions).
Regarding Claim(s) 16, the main duct is configured to receive pads at the inlet (20). Cahill et al. fails to teach the pads have been cut and separated. Armington et al. teaches the packaging machine cuts (by blades 160, 162) and separates the pads [Col. 5:53-62, “a coined strip which is cut into sections”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to cut and separate the pads to produce pads of a desired length.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Armington et al. and Baker as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Szatkowski (USPN 3129978).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Cahill et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the blower comprises a first blower for generating the first air stream and a second blower for generating the second air stream. Szatkowski (USPN 3129978) teaches first and second blowers (blower units 29) for generating first and second air streams to propel an article. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide first and second blowers to generate first and second air streams as taught by Szatkowski to propel articles since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Cahill et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the first blower and the second blower are arranged on the at least two non-adjacent sides of the main duct. However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the first and second blower on non-adjacent sides of the main duct as engineering expedient. One of ordinary skill would place the blowers in a location taking into consideration such parameters as available space.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Cahill et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the first and second blowers are arranged proximate the packaging article inlet of the main duct. However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the first and second blowers proximate the inlet as engineering expedient. One of ordinary skill would place the blowers in a location taking into consideration such parameters as available space.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Armington et al. and Baker as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Meins (USPN 6454495).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Cahill et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach an elbow of the main duct arranged between the first and second duct sections, the elbow being wider than the first and second duct sections. Meins (USPN 6454495) teaches an elbow (2) being wider than a duct (14) to ensure the article can change orientation without deformation [Col 5:11-14]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an elbow of the main duct arranged between the first and second duct sections, the elbow being wider than the first and second duct sections in order to allow movement of the article without deformation of the article.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Armington et al. and Baker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bartlett et al. (USPN 6910610).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Cahill et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a blower duct section connecting the blower assembly to the main duct, the blower duct section having an opening that decreases in size between an outlet of the blower assembly and an inlet of the main duct so as to increase velocity of the airflow that enters the main duct. Bartlett et al. teaches a blower assembly (pump 14) and a blower duct section (nozzle 32) connecting the blower assembly to a main duct (16), the blower duct section having an opening that decreases in size between an outlet of the blower assembly and an inlet (entrance duct 23) of the main duct so as to increase velocity of the airflow that enters the main duct [Col. 4:4-7, “nozzle 32 for increasing the velocity of the air stream”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a blower duct section connecting the blower assembly to the main duct, the blower duct section having an opening that decreases in size between an outlet of the blower assembly and an inlet of the main duct so as to increase velocity of the airflow that enters the main duct as taught by Bartlett et al. The increased velocity would create an area of lower pressure to draw pillows into the entrance duct.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Armington et al., Baker and Szatkowski.
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Cahill et al. teaches a packaging material conveyance system comprising: protective packaging machine (hopper 14 having corrugated cards 12; the cards being considered as pads); a main duct (22) extending a predetermined length from a packaging article inlet (see Figure 1, entry aperture 20) to at least a first outlet (Figure 3 shows an article 12 exiting the duct, also hopper 36 receives articles from the duct), the main duct configured to receive the pads output by the protective packaging machine (the duct receives articles from hopper 14) and transport the pads to a first outlet corresponding to a receptacle (hopper 36), the main duct defining a longitudinal direction corresponding to a direction of travel of the pads in the main duct (the duct would have a longitudinal direction); a first blower [Col. 3:38, “fan or compressor”] operably connected to a first blower duct section for generating a first airflow that enters the main duct at a first predetermined angle relative to the longitudinal direction. Cahill et al. teaches a first and second airflow entering the main duct at predetermined angles (see Figure 6, airflow entering duct through apertures 48), and the airflow through the apertures propels the pads through the main duct. Cahill et al. fails to teach the protective packaging machine converts paper-based stock material in a high-density configuration into paper dunnage pads in a low-density configuration; a second blower operably connected to a second blower duct section for generating a second airflow that enters the main duct at a second predetermined angle relative to the longitudinal direction, wherein the first and second air streams are configured to propel the articles through the main duct. Armington et al. (USPN 5123889) teaches a protective packaging machine (20) that converts paper-based stock material in a high-density configuration into paper dunnage pads in a low-density configuration, the machine having a cutting assembly (56) having a blade (160,162). Baker teaches a packaging machine (14) that forms air filled pillows (12) and feeds the pillows to the inlet (20) of ductwork (22) for conveying the pillows. The pads of Cahill et al. in the hopper are already formed. Baker discloses feeding packaging material directly from the machine that forms the packaging material to the inlet of the ductwork. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a protective packaging machine that converts paper-based stock material in a high-density configuration into paper dunnage pads in a low-density configuration as taught by Armington et al. since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results. The packaging machine of Armington et al. would produce the paper dunnage pads for use in packaging. Szatkowski (USPN 3129978) teaches first and second blowers (blower units 29) for generating first and second air streams to propel an article. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide first and second blowers to generate first and second airflows as taught by Szatkowski to propel articles since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Fuss (USPN 3762772) and Lieb (USPN 398836).
Regarding Claim(s) 19, Cahill et al. teaches a packaging material conveyance system for conveying protective packaging articles from a protective packaging machine to a receptacle, the packaging material conveyance system comprising: a main duct (22) extending a predetermined length from a packaging article inlet to a receptacle (hopper 36), the main duct configured to receive articles (corrugated cards 12) output by a protective packaging machine (hopper 14), the main duct defining a longitudinal direction (the duct would have a longitudinal direction) corresponding to a direction of travel of the articles in the main duct; a blower [Col. 3:38, “fan or compressor”] operably connected to the main duct (through injectors 46), the blower oriented at an angle (injector 46 is at an angle) to the longitudinal direction of the main duct so as to generate airflow to propel the articles through the main duct. Cahill et al. fails to teach a diverter, a notch formed in a surface of a side wall of the diverter, the main duct configured to transport the articles to the diverter corresponding to the receptacle; the diverter being configured to act as an outlet in an open position and as part of the main duct in a closed position, wherein in the open position the packaging articles are diverted into the receptacle and when in the closed position the packaging articles are configured to continue to an additional receptacle that follows the receptacle, and wherein a portion of the diverter is configured to rest within the notch when in the open position; and the receptacle configured to receive the articles conveyed by the internal duct airflow from the inlet to the diverter. Fuss (USPN 3762772) teaches a main duct (26) feeding articles to a receptacle (10) through a diverter (40), the diverter being configured to act as an outlet in an open position (Figure 3) and as part of the main duct in a closed position (Figure 2), wherein in the open position the packaging articles are diverted into the receptacle and when in the closed position the packaging articles are configured to continue to an additional receptacle that follows the receptacle. Lieb (USPN 398836) teaches a diverter (Figure 1); a notch (recess F’) formed in a surface of a sidewall of the diverter that extends longitudinally from a main duct (tube A), wherein a portion of the diverter is configured to rest within the notch when in the open position (as seen in Figure 1). The notch allows the switch (C) of the diverter to provide a smooth transition to the branch tube as the leading edge of the switch is out of the path of a carrier. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a diverter, the main duct configured to receive the articles output by the protective packaging machine and transport the articles to the diverter corresponding to the receptacle; the diverter being configured to act as an outlet in an open position and as part of the main duct in a closed position, wherein in the open position the packaging articles are diverted into the receptacle and when in the closed position the packaging articles are configured to continue to an additional receptacle that follows the receptacle; and the receptacle associated configured to receive the articles conveyed by the internal duct airflow from the inlet to the diverter. The diverter would allow sorting of the articles. Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a notch in a surface of a sidewall of the diverter that extends longitudinally from the main duct, and wherein a portion of the diverter is configured to rest within the notch when in the open position in order to provide a smooth transition The language “for conveying protective packaging articles from a protective packaging machine to a receptacle” is considered a recitation of the intended use of the system and does not structurally limit the system.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Armington et al. and Baker.
Regarding Claim(s) 22, Cahill et al. teaches the limitations described above, and teaches the packaging article inlet is connected to an outlet of the protective packaging machine (as seen in Figure 1), yet fails to teach the protective packaging machine converts paper-based stock material in a high-density configuration into paper dunnage pads in a low-density configuration. Armington et al. (USPN 5123889) teaches a protective packaging machine (20) that converts paper-based stock material in a high-density configuration into paper dunnage pads in a low-density configuration, the machine having a cutting assembly (56) having a blade (160,162). Baker teaches a packaging machine (14) that forms air filled pillows (12) and feeds the pillows to the inlet (20) of ductwork (22) for conveying the pillows. The pads of Cahill et al. in the hopper are already formed. Baker discloses feeding packaging material directly from the machine that forms the packaging material to the inlet of the ductwork. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a protective packaging machine that converts paper-based stock material in a high-density configuration into paper dunnage pads in a low-density configuration as taught by Armington et al. since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results. The packaging machine of Armington et al. would produce the paper dunnage pads for use in packaging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights