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
1. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-13, drawn to a method of manufacturing a corrugated liner for a
food container including the steps of feeding each planar blank of corrugated materials between die and anvil cylinders; and ejecting each die-cut product sheet from a rotary die machine.
Claim 14, drawn to a die element including two of perforating blades
defining an outer periphery of each polygonal area.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
2. Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process that does not include the steps of feeding each planar blank of corrugated materials between die and anvil cylinders; and ejecting each die-cut product sheet from a rotary die machine.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
3. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
In this case, the search required for each individual invention may overlap, but the searches do not coincide completely. Therefore, the search performed for the elected invention may not be sufficient to cover the non-elected inventions. Each individual invention requires a different field of search. In addition, the text and subclass searches needed to locate particular features of one invention would not necessarily identify the different features present in the other inventions due to their divergent subject matter. In other words, each invention that includes at least one distinct feature occupies a different area of the prior art and therefore requires a separate field of search.
There is a search and/or examination burden for groups I-III due to the divergent searches involved, and the resultant divergent examination processes.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election from amongst groups I-II, even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143). An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election and/or species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
4. During a telephone conversation with Liane L. Churney (Reg. No. 40,694) on 05/20/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
6. 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:
“a die element” recited in claims 2 and 8.
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 § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chapman (2009/0301922 A1. Regarding claim 1, Chapman teaches a method of manufacturing a corrugated liner for a food container using a die cutting machine 84 having rotating and opposed die and anvil cylinders (85, 86; Fig. 4), the method comprising: providing a plurality of planar blanks of corrugated material 50 (Fig. 4); feeding each planar blank of corrugated material between the opposed die and anvil cylinders of the rotary die cutting machine ([0048], corrugated sheet 50 passes between upper drum 85 and lower drum 86); cutting each planar blank of corrugated material with the die cylinder ([0042], [0050], straight blades 126 forming shearing cuts); perforating each planar blank of corrugated material with the die cylinder
([0042], [0050]-[0052], nicked blades 124 forming perforating cuts); forming a plurality of die-cut products each in sheet form and including a plurality of planar polygonal liners arranged in side-by-side relation with one another on each die-cut product sheet ([0033]-[0039], [0043], [0052], multi-pad strips including octagon-shaped pads arranged side-by-side), with immediately adjacent ones of the planar polygonal liners on each die-cut product sheet being connected to one another along immediately adjacent and mating straight peripheral portions thereof by respective perforated connection areas ([0033]-[0035], [0052], perforated line segments 411-414 interconnecting adjacent pads). Furthermore, Chapman also teaches the step of ejecting each die-cut product sheet from the rotary die cutting machine, the perforated connection areas of each die-cut product sheet maintaining the plurality of planar polygonal liners thereof in a connected state with one another (paragraphs [0048]-[0049], first multi-pad strip 97 exits from rotary die cutter 84 and second multi-pad strip 98 exits next; inherently, the formed die-cut sheets necessarily must be expelled/ejected from the nip region of the opposed rotating cylinders after cutting and perforating in order to continue downstream processing including shingling, stacking, and breaking operations disclosed in [0043]-[0045], while the perforated line segments maintain the pads in a connected state as expressly disclosed in [0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 2, Chapman teaches providing the die cylinder with a die element mounting thereon cutting blades and perforating blades ([0050], cutter 108 including straight blades 126 and nicked blades 124); the cutting blades being arranged on the die element so as to define portions of each a plurality of polygonal areas oriented in side-by-side relation with one another ([0033]-[0039], octagon-shaped pads arranged adjacent one another); the cutting blades being further arranged on the die element such that each polygonal area is located immediately adjacent at least two other polygonal areas ([0033]-[0036], four-pad unit arrangement); the cutting blade corresponding to each polygonal area including a plurality of substantially straight portions defining a majority of an outer periphery of the corresponding polygonal area except at at least two regions spaced-apart from one another along the outer periphery ([0039], octagon-shaped perimeter having straight sides); each perforating blade being substantially straight and arranged on the die element at one of the spaced-apart regions of each outer periphery of each polygonal area such that part of the outer periphery of each polygonal area is defined by at least two of the perforating blades ([0052], perforated line segments 411-414 positioned along peripheral portions of adjacent pads).
Regarding claim 3, Chapman teaches the step of cutting each planar blank of corrugated material using the die element ([0048]-[0050], cutter 108 mounted on upper drum 85), and the cutting blades and perforating blades are used to form outer peripheries of the respective planar polygonal liners and perforated connection areas ([0042], [0050]-[0052], straight blades forming shearing cuts and nicked blades forming perforated line segments).
Regarding claim 4, Chapman teaches forming each die-cut product sheet so that some perforated connection areas are oriented relative to one another to form at least one first linear bend line and remaining perforated connection areas are oriented relative to one another to form at least one second linear bend line oriented perpendicularly to the first linear bend line ([0034]-[0035], longitudinal reference line 18 and transverse reference line 20, Fig. 5, arranged perpendicular to one another; [0038], four-pad unit broken along longitudinal and transverse reference lines).
Regarding claim 5, Chapman teaches stacking a plurality of die-cut product sheets to form a stack such that the first and second linear bend lines are aligned with one another ([0044], [0045], multi-pad strip stack 72 and four-pad unit stack 12; Fig. 4); and bending the stack of die-cut product sheets along the aligned bend lines to separate at least some of the planar polygonal liners from one another ([0038], four-pad unit broken along longitudinal reference line 18 and transverse reference line 20 to form separate pads; [0045], breaking multi-pad strip stack 72 along break lines).
Regarding claim 6, Chapman teaches stacking a plurality of die-cut product sheets to form a stack with aligned bend lines ([0044]-[0045]) and bending the stack along both aligned first and second bend lines ([0038], four-pad unit broken along both longitudinal reference line 18 and transverse reference line 20; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Chapman teaches bending the stack of die-cut product sheets along aligned first and second bend lines and forming at least two stacks of planar polygonal liners, such that each layer includes a single liner or interconnected liners ([0038], separating four-pad units into two-pad units and individual pads; [0045], formation of multiple four-pad unit stacks 116, 118; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Chapman teaches a method of manufacturing a corrugated liner for a food container using a die cutting machine having rotating and opposed die and anvil cylinders ([0048], rotary die cutter 84 including upper drum 85 and lower drum 86), comprising providing the die cylinder with a die element, the die element mounting thereon cutting blades and at least one perforating blade ([0050], cutter 108 including straight blades 126 and nicked blades 124), the cutting blades being arranged on the die element so as to define portions of each a plurality of substantially identical polygonal areas oriented in side-by-side relation with one another ([0033]-[0039], octagon-shaped pads arranged adjacent one another), the cutting blades being further arranged on the die element such that each polygonal area is located immediately adjacent at least one other polygonal area ([0033]-[0036], four-pad unit arrangement), the cutting blade corresponding to each polygonal area including a plurality of substantially straight portions defining a majority of an outer periphery of the corresponding polygonal area except at at least one region on the die element ([0039], octagon-shaped pads including multiple straight sides), the at least one perforating blade being substantially straight and arranged on the die element at the at least one region of each outer periphery of each polygonal area such that part of the outer periphery of each polygonal area is defined by the at least one perforating blade ([0052], perforated line segments 411-414, Fig. 7, positioned along portions of the pad peripheries); providing a plurality of planar blanks of corrugated material ([0040]-[0041], corrugated sheets 50); feeding each planar blank of corrugated material between the opposed die and anvil cylinders of the rotary die cutting machine ([0048], corrugated sheet 50 passing between upper drum 85 and lower drum 86); cutting each planar blank of corrugated material with the cutting blades of the die element ([0042], [0050], straight blades 126 forming shearing cuts); perforating each planar blank of corrugated material with the at least one perforating blade of the die element ([0042], [0050]-[0052], nicked blades 124 forming perforating cuts); and wherein the cutting and perforating steps form a plurality of die-cut products each in sheet form and including a plurality of planar polygonal liners arranged in side-by-side relation with one another with immediately adjacent ones of the planar polygonal liners being interconnected to one another along at least one straight perforated area formed by the at least one perforating blade during the perforating step ([0043], [0052], multi-pad strips including interconnected polygonal pads joined by perforated line segments).
Regarding claim 9, Chapman teaches providing a die element with a plurality of perforating blades such that the outer periphery of each polygonal area is defined by at least two perforating blades spaced apart from one another along the outer periphery of each polygonal area ([0052], perforated line segments 411-414, Fig. 7, located at spaced-apart peripheral portions of adjacent pads), and the cutting and perforating steps form a plurality of die-cut products each in sheet form and including a plurality of planar polygonal liners arranged in side-by-side relation with one another with immediately adjacent ones of the planar polygonal liners being interconnected to one another along at least two straight perforated areas formed by the plurality of perforating blades during the perforating step ([0033]-[0035], [0052], multiple perforated line segments interconnecting adjacent pads).
Regarding claim 10, Chapman teaches everything noted above including that after the steps of cutting and perforating, the method further includes ejecting each die-cut product sheet from the rotary die cutting machine, the at least one straight perforated area of each die-cut product sheet maintaining the plurality of polygonal liners thereof in a connected state with one another. Chapman teaches the step of ejecting each die-cut product sheet from the rotary die cutting machine, the perforated connection areas of each die-cut product sheet maintaining the plurality of planar polygonal liners thereof in a connected state with one another ([0048]-[0049], first multi-pad strip 97 exits from rotary die cutter 84 and second multi-pad strip 98 exits next; inherently, the formed die-cut sheets necessarily must be expelled/ejected from the nip region of the opposed rotating cylinders after cutting and perforating in order to continue downstream processing including shingling, stacking, and breaking operations disclosed in [0043]-[0045], while the perforated line segments maintain the pads in a connected state as expressly disclosed in [0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 11, Chapman teaches perforating each planar blank of corrugated material so that some of the straight perforated areas on each die-cut product sheet are oriented relative to one another to form at least one first linear bend line and remaining ones of the straight perforated areas on each die-cut product sheet are oriented relative to one another to form at least one second linear bend line oriented perpendicularly to the at least one first linear bend line ([0034]-[0035], longitudinal reference line 18 and transverse reference line 20 arranged perpendicular to one another; [0038], four-pad unit broken along longitudinal and transverse reference lines).
Regarding claim 12, Chapman teaches stacking a plurality of the die-cut product sheets to form a stack such that the at least one first linear bend lines of the die-cut product sheets are aligned with one another in the stack and such that the at least one second linear bend lines of the die-cut product sheets are aligned with one another in the stack ([0044]-[0045], accumulation of multi-pad strip stack 72 and formation of four-pad unit stack 12); and bending the stack of die-cut product sheets along the aligned at least one first linear bend lines, or along the aligned at least one second linear bend lines, or along the aligned at least one first bend lines and the aligned at least one second linear bend lines to separate some or all of the planar polygonal liners on each die-cut product sheet from one another ([0038], four-pad unit broken along longitudinal reference line 18 and transverse reference line 20 to form separate pads; [0045], breaking multi-pad strip stack 72 along break lines).
Regarding claim 13, Chapman teaches the step of bending including forming at least two stacks of planar polygonal liners, such that each layer of each of the two stacks includes a single planar polygonal liner or a plurality of planar polygonal liners connected to one another by perforated connection areas ([0038], separation of four-pad units into two-pad units and individual pads; [0045], formation of multiple four-pad unit stacks 116 and 118; Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.64
To the degree that it could be argued Chapman does not explicitly disclose the step of ejecting (i.e., by an ejector) each die-cut product sheet from the rotary die cutting machine by an ejector, the rejection below is applied.
10. Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman (2009/0301922 A1) in view of Saunders et al. (2018/0001503 A1), hereinafter Saunders. Regarding claim 1, Chapman teaches a method of manufacturing a corrugated liner for a food container using a die cutting machine having rotating and opposed die and anvil cylinders ([0048], rotary die cutter 84 including upper drum 85 and lower drum 86), the method comprising: providing a plurality of planar blanks of corrugated material ([0040]-[0041], corrugated sheets 50); feeding each planar blank of corrugated material between the opposed die and anvil cylinders of the rotary die cutting machine ([0048], corrugated sheet 50 passes between upper drum 85 and lower drum 86); cutting each planar blank of corrugated material with the die cylinder ([0042], [0050], straight blades 126 forming shearing cuts); perforating each planar blank of corrugated material with the die cylinder
([0042], [0050]-[0052], nicked blades 124 forming perforating cuts); forming a plurality of die-cut products each in sheet form and including a plurality of planar polygonal liners arranged in side-by-side relation with one another on each die-cut product sheet ([0033]-[0039], [0043], [0052], multi-pad strips including octagon-shaped pads arranged side-by-side), with immediately adjacent ones of the planar polygonal liners on each die-cut product sheet being connected to one another along immediately adjacent and mating straight peripheral portions thereof by respective perforated connection areas ([0033]-[0035], [0052], perforated line segments 411-414 interconnecting adjacent pads).
Chapman, however, does not explicitly teach the step of ejecting (via an ejector) each die-cut product sheet from the rotary die cutting machine while maintaining the liners in a connected state. Saunders teaches ejecting die-cut products from a rotary die cutting machine using product ejectors 64 (Fig. 2), wherein the product ejectors engage the die cut product and separate the die cut product from the cutting die as the product exits the nip (Saunders, [0018], product ejectors 64 expand to engage the die cut product and efficiently strip the die cut product from various blades on the die board). Saunders further teaches that sheets of corrugated board pass through the nip defined between the die board and anvil cylinder and emerge as die cut products (Saunders, [0030]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the rotary die cutting process of Chapman to include the ejecting mechanism of Saunders in order to reliably strip and eject the die-cut multi-pad sheets from the die cutting blades and improve manufacturing efficiency and product handling, as expressly suggested by Saunders ([0018], [0028]). The combination would have predictably resulted in ejecting each die-cut product sheet from the rotary die cutting machine while the perforated connection areas maintain the plurality of planar polygonal liners in a connected state with one another.
Regarding claim 2, Chapman teaches providing the die cylinder with a die element mounting thereon cutting blades and perforating blades ([0050], cutter 108 including straight blades 126 and nicked blades 124); the cutting blades being arranged on the die element so as to define portions of each a plurality of polygonal areas oriented in side-by-side relation with one another ([0033]-[0039], octagon-shaped pads arranged adjacent one another); the cutting blades being further arranged on the die element such that each polygonal area is located immediately adjacent at least two other polygonal areas ([0033]-[0036], four-pad unit arrangement); the cutting blade corresponding to each polygonal area including a plurality of substantially straight portions defining a majority of an outer periphery of the corresponding polygonal area except at at least two regions spaced-apart from one another along the outer periphery ([0039], octagon-shaped perimeter having straight sides); each perforating blade being substantially straight and arranged on the die element at one of the spaced-apart regions of each outer periphery of each polygonal area such that part of the outer periphery of each polygonal area is defined by at least two of the perforating blades ([0052], perforated line segments 411-414 positioned along peripheral portions of adjacent pads).
Regarding claim 3, Chapman teaches the step of cutting each planar blank of corrugated material using the die element ([0048]-[0050], cutter 108 mounted on upper drum 85), and the cutting blades and perforating blades are used to form outer peripheries of the respective planar polygonal liners and perforated connection areas ([0042], [0050]-[0052], straight blades forming shearing cuts and nicked blades forming perforated line segments).
Regarding claim 4, Chapman teaches forming each die-cut product sheet so that some perforated connection areas are oriented relative to one another to form at least one first linear bend line and remaining perforated connection areas are oriented relative to one another to form at least one second linear bend line oriented perpendicularly to the first linear bend line ([0034]-[0035], longitudinal reference line 18 and transverse reference line 20, Fig. 5, arranged perpendicular to one another; [0038], four-pad unit broken along longitudinal and transverse reference lines).
Regarding claim 5, Chapman teaches stacking a plurality of die-cut product sheets to form a stack such that the first and second linear bend lines are aligned with one another ([0044], [0045], multi-pad strip stack 72 and four-pad unit stack 12; Fig. 4); and bending the stack of die-cut product sheets along the aligned bend lines to separate at least some of the planar polygonal liners from one another ([0038], four-pad unit broken along longitudinal reference line 18 and transverse reference line 20 to form separate pads; [0045], breaking multi-pad strip stack 72 along break lines).
Regarding claim 6, Chapman teaches stacking a plurality of die-cut product sheets to form a stack with aligned bend lines ([0044]-[0045]) and bending the stack along both aligned first and second bend lines ([0038], four-pad unit broken along both longitudinal reference line 18 and transverse reference line 20; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Chapman teaches bending the stack of die-cut product sheets along aligned first and second bend lines and forming at least two stacks of planar polygonal liners, such that each layer includes a single liner or interconnected liners ([0038], separating four-pad units into two-pad units and individual pads; [0045], formation of multiple four-pad unit stacks 116, 118; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Chapman in view of Saunders, teaches everything noted above including that after the steps of cutting and perforating, the method further includes ejecting each die-cut product sheet from the rotary die cutting machine, the at least one straight perforated area of each die-cut product sheet maintaining the plurality of polygonal liners thereof in a connected state with one another.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Smithwick (2016/0121507 A1), Abrahams (2015/0135925 A1), and Simpson et al. (5,429,577) teach a method of manufacturing a corrugated liner.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) . 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights