DETAILED 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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment / Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection filed on March 16, 2026 wherein: claim(s) 1, 11 were amended, and claim(s) 6, 9-10 canceled. Examiner notes amendments in claim(s) are directed to overcome rejections under 35 USC § 112 / 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 11-20 are pending and will be examined.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8, 11 is/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-Al A 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7, recites --7. (Original) The nesting gift wrap roll system according to claim 6, wherein the wrap material comprises a shrink wrap material that constricts upon heat being applied to the shrink wrap material.-- wherein claim 6 is vague and indefinite since standing claims per Amendment / Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection (Receipt Date: 03/16/2026) cancel claim 6. For purposes of examination claim 7 will be dependent of claim 1.
Claim 8 rejected by dependency of claim 7.
Claim 11, recites --11. (Currently Amended) The nesting gift wrap roll system according to claim 9, wherein the securement strips have an adhesive that has a strength that, when each of the securement strips [[is]] are applied to either end of the outer roll over the wrap material, the securement strips hold the inner roll within the outer roll.-- wherein claim 9 is vague and indefinite since standing claims per Amendment / Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection (Receipt Date: 03/16/2026) cancel claim 9. For purposes of examination claim 11 will be dependent of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansborough et al. (U. S. Patent US7832559B1) hereinafter HANSBOROUGH, in view of Hill (U. S. Patent US5866181A) hereinafter HILL.
Regarding claim 1, HANSBOROUGH teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 below) a nesting gift wrap roll system 1 comprising:
an outer roll R1-1 having an outer roll diameter D1 and an inner roll R2-1 with an inner roll diameter D2;
the outer roll R1-1 comprising an outer roll core 11 having a first core inner diameter H3-01 and a first core outer diameter H3-02 and a first gift wrap paper H2-01 wrapped around the first core outer diameter H3-02;
the inner roll R2-1 comprising an inner roll core 12 having a second core inner diameter H3-03 and a second core outer diameter H3-04, and a second gift wrap paper H2-02 wrapped around the second core outer diameter H3-04; and
the inner roll diameter D2 of the inner roll R2-1 being a smaller diameter (Fig. 3) than the first core inner diameter H3-01 of the outer roll core 11, such that the inner roll R2-1 is insertable (Fig. 3) into the outer roll core 11 of the outer roll R1-1;
a wrap material (W) tightly covering (Fig. 1) the outer roll R1-1 once the inner roll R2-1 is inserted into the first core inner diameter H3-01 of the outer roll core 11 to facilitate holding of the inner roll R2-1 within the outer roll core 11 of the outer roll R1-1.
HANSBOROUGH further teaches cap 90 placed over the wrap material (W) at either end of the outer roll R1-1 to help secure the nested inner roll R2-1 in the first core inner diameter H3-01 of the outer roll core 11 until the wrap material (W) is removed and the outer R1-1 and inner R2-1 rolls are ready for use by a consumer.
HANSBOROUGH fails to teach cap 90 is a securement strips.
HANSBOROUGH fails to teach cap 90 having indicia thereon to provide information regarding the first gift wrap paper H2-01 and the second gift wrap paper H2-02 on both ends of the outer roll R1-1.
However, HILL teaches (see Fig. 1, Fig. 5 - Fig. 6 below) a label assembly 10 wherein a securement strip 11 is placed over the wrap material 46 for securement purposes (page 1, ABSTRACT, lines 4-11, “… detach …”).
HILL further teaches securement strip 11 having indicia 20 thereon to provide information to an user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified cap 90 in the nesting gift wrap roll system 1 of HANSBOROUGH with securement strip 11 as taught in the label assembly 10 of HILL since these are regarded as mechanical equivalent structures intended for securement purposes. MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-01.2024]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified securement strip 11 in the nesting gift wrap roll system 1 of HANSBOROUGH and HILL with securement strip 11 (having indicia 20) as taught in the label assembly 10 of HILL to provide information to an user.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
871
357
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
896
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
681
197
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
908
279
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
905
302
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
903
312
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
528
789
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
522
709
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
562
509
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, HANSBOROUGH and HILL with (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HANSBOROUGH further teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein the first gift wrap paper H2-01 is different (Fig. 2) in at least one of design, color, or pattern from the second gift wrap paper H2-02.
Regarding claim 3, HANSBOROUGH and HILL with (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HANSBOROUGH further teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein the outer roll core 11 comprises a hard core (Fig. 3) that provides a stable inner core diameter D1 of the outer roll core 11.
Regarding claim 4, HANSBOROUGH and HILL with (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HANSBOROUGH further teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein a width H9-01 of the first gift wrap paper H2-01 of the outer roll R1-1 is about equal (Fig. 9) to a width H9-01 of the outer roll core 11 of the outer roll R1-1.
Regarding claim 5, HANSBOROUGH and HILL with (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HANSBOROUGH further teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein a width H9-02 of the second gift wrap paper H2-02 of the inner roll R2-1 is about equal (Fig. 9) to a width H9-01 of the inner roll core 12 of the inner roll R2-1.
Regarding claim 7, HANSBOROUGH and HILL with (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HANSBOROUGH further teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein the wrap material (W) comprises a shrink wrap material (page 8, col. 4, lines 63-67, “... shrink-wrap...”) that constricts upon heat being applied to the shrink wrap material (page 8, col. 4, lines 63-67, “... shrink-wrap...”).
Regarding claim 8, HANSBOROUGH and HILL with (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HANSBOROUGH further teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein the shrink wrap material (page 8, col. 4, lines 63-67, “... shrink-wrap...”) comprises a sleeve in which the outer roll R1-1 is insertable (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, HANSBOROUGH and HILL with (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HANSBOROUGH (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) and HILL further teaches nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein the securement strip 11 have an adhesive that has a strength that, when each of the securement strips 11 are applied a to either end of the outer roll R1-1 over the wrap material (W), the securement strips 11 hold the inner roll R2-1 within the outer roll R1-1.
Regarding claim 12, HANSBOROUGH teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) a nesting gift wrap roll system 1 comprising:
an outer roll R1-1 having an outer roll diameter D1 and an inner roll R2-1 with an inner roll diameter D2;
the outer roll R1-1 comprising a hard outer roll core 11 having a first core inner diameter H3-01 and a first core outer diameter H3-02 and a first gift wrap paper H2-01 wrapped around the first core outer diameter H3-02;
the inner roll R2-1 comprising an inner roll core 12 having a second core inner diameter H3-03 and a second core outer diameter H3-04, and a second gift wrap paper H2-02 wrapped around the second core outer diameter H3-04;
the inner roll diameter D2 of the inner roll R2-1 being a smaller diameter (Fig. 3) than the first core inner diameter H3-01 of the hard outer roll core 11, such that the inner roll R2-1 is insertable (Fig. 3) into the hard outer roll core 11 of the outer roll R1-1;
a wrap material (W) tightly covering (Fig. 1) the outer roll R1-1 once the inner roll R2-1 is inserted into the first core inner diameter H3-01 of the hard outer roll core 11.
HANSBOROUGH further teaches cap 90 placed over the wrap material (W) at either end of the outer roll R1-1 to help secure the nested inner roll R2-1 in the first core inner diameter H3-01 of the outer roll core 11 until the wrap material (W) is removed and the outer R1-1 and inner R2-1 rolls are ready for use by a consumer.
However, HILL teaches (see Fig. 1, Fig. 5 - Fig. 6 above) a label assembly 10 wherein a securement strip 11 is placed over the wrap material 46 for securement purposes (page 1, ABSTRACT, lines 4-11, “… detach …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified cap 90 in the nesting gift wrap roll system 1 of HANSBOROUGH with securement strip 11 as taught in the label assembly 10 of HILL since these are regarded as mechanical equivalent structures intended for securement purposes. MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-01.2024]
Regarding claim 13, HANSBOROUGH and HILL (as applied to claim 12 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HANSBOROUGH further teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein first gift wrap paper H2-01 is different (Fig. 2) from the second gift wrap paper H2-02.
Regarding claim 14, HANSBOROUGH and HILL (as applied to claim 12 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HANSBOROUGH further teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein the wrap material (W) comprises a shrink wrap material (page 8, col. 4, lines 63-67, “... shrink-wrap...”) that constricts upon heat being applied to the shrink wrap material (page 8, col. 4, lines 63-67, “... shrink-wrap...”).
Regarding claim 15, HANSBOROUGH and HILL (as applied to claim 14 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HANSBOROUGH further teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein the shrink wrap material (page 8, col. 4, lines 63-67, “... shrink-wrap...”) comprises a sleeve in which the outer roll R1-1 is insertable (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, HANSBOROUGH and HILL and BROWN (as applied to claim 12 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HANSBOROUGH further teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein a width H9-01 of the first gift wrap paper H2-01 of the outer roll R1-1 is about equal (Fig. 9) to a width H9-01 of the hard outer roll core 11 of the outer roll R1-1.
Regarding claim 17, HANSBOROUGH and HILL (as applied to claim 12 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HANSBOROUGH further teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein a width H9-01 of the second gift wrap paper H2-02 of the inner roll R2-1 is about equal (Fig. 9) to a width H9-01 of the inner roll core 12 of the inner roll R2-1.
Regarding claim 18, HANSBOROUGH and HILL (as applied to claim 12 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of HANSBOROUGH (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) and HILL further teaches nesting gift wrap roll system 1, wherein the securement strip 11 have an adhesive that has a strength that, when each of the securement strips 11 is applied a respective end of the outer roll R1-1 over the wrap material (W), the securement strips 11 hold the inner roll R2-1 within the outer roll R1-1.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANSBOROUGH, in view of Brown et al. (U. S. Patent US6352170B1) hereinafter BROWN.
Regarding claim 19, HANSBOROUGH teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) a method [albeit with different phraseology] of assembling nesting gift wrap rolls 1 comprising:
providing an outer roll R1-1 having an outer roll diameter D1 with the outer roll R1-1 comprising an outer roll core 11 having a first core inner diameter H3-01 and a first core outer diameter H3-02 and a first gift wrap paper H2-01 wrapped around the first core outer diameter H3-02;
providing an inner roll R2-1 with an inner roll diameter D2 with the inner roll R2-1 comprising an inner roll core 12 having a second core inner diameter H3-03 and a second core outer diameter H3-04, and a second gift wrap paper H2-02 wrapped around the second core outer diameter H3-04 with the inner roll diameter D2 of the inner roll R2-1 being a smaller diameter (Fig. 3) than the first core inner diameter H3-01 of the outer roll core 11;
inserting the inner roll R2-1 into the outer roll core 11 of the outer roll R1-1;
covering the outer roll R1-1 with a wrap material (W) once the inner roll R2-1 is inserted into the first core inner diameter H3-01 of the outer roll core 11 to facilitate holding the inner roll R2-1 in first core inner diameter H3-01 of the outer roll core 11 of the outer roll R1-1.
HANSBOROUGH fails to teach method comprising securing securement strips over the wrap material (W) at either end of the outer roll R1-1 to help secure the nested inner roll R2-1 in the first core inner diameter H3-01 of the outer roll core 11.
However, BROWN teaches (see Fig. 1, Fig. 5 - Fig. 6 below) a method [albeit with different phraseology] of assembling a storage assembly 10, comprising securing a securement strips 64 over storage assembly 10 at an end of the container 12 to help lock the lid 24 for securement purposes (page 10, col. 3, lines 24-30, “… securement…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified method of assembling nesting gift wrap rolls 1 of HANSBOROUGH with method of assembling (i.e., comprising securing a securement strips 64) as taught in the storage assembly 10 of BROWN for securement purposes.
PNG
media_image11.png
751
891
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
788
604
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
535
781
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, HANSBOROUGH and BROWN (as applied to claim 19 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. HANSBOROUGH further teaches (see Fig.1 - Fig. 4, Fig. 7 - Fig. 9 above) method [albeit with different phraseology], wherein the wrap material (W) comprises a shrink wrap material (page 8, col. 4, lines 63-67, “... shrink-wrap...”) and further comprising applying heat to the shrink wrap material (page 8, col. 4, lines 63-67, “... shrink-wrap...”) to constrict the shrink wrap material (page 8, col. 4, lines 63-67, “... shrink-wrap...”) around the outer roll R1-1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments / arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 112 in the reply filed March 16, 2026 of claim(s) 11 have been considered and found persuasive. However, upon further examination of applicant’s amendments rejection under 35 USC § 112 of claim(s) 7-8, 11 stand.
Applicant's amendments / arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103 in aforementioned reply have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejections does not rely on exactly combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hanten (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20080272182A1): Teaches a “casing” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Stroster (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20100163451A1): Teaches a “kit” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Berbert (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20100183830A1): Teaches a “package” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Yang et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20220089396A1): Teaches a “package” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
deVolpi (U. S. Patent US4153157A): Teaches a “packaging” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Hedlund (U. K. Patent Application Publication GB2244690A): Teaches a “gift wrapping” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights