DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Response to Restriction filed 01/07/2026.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 have been withdrawn;
Claims 11-15 are pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/07/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (Claims 11-15) in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on 07/09/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (US 20190292729; Tan).
Regarding Claim 11 Tan discloses a method of forming a supply of crepe paper the method comprising the steps of:
providing a paper; (207)
creping the paper to form a creped paper;
applying an adhesive to the creped paper;
drying the adhesive to form a dried adhesive on the creped paper; and
forming a roll of the creped paper comprising the dried adhesive. (par 86, 88)
Tan discloses all of the method steps except the use of the crepe paper for unitizing one or more packages into a shipping unit.
The recitation that “for unitizing one or more packages into a shipping unit” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. MPEP 2111.02(II)
Regarding Claim 12 Tan discloses the method as described above. Tan further discloses the adhesive is applied by spraying the adhesive on to the creped paper. (par 82, 86)
Regarding Claim 13 Tan discloses the method as described above. Tan further discloses the adhesive is dried by fan-driven air. (par 29)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 14 the Prior Art does not teach adhesive is applied to both sides of the creped paper, the adhesive is dried on both sides of the creped paper, and the dried adhesive is formed on both sides of the creped paper in addition to the limitations included in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 15 the Prior Art does not teach the crepe paper comprises a fire retardant in addition to the limitations included in Claims 14 and 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm Monday - Friday.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights