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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to claims filed on January 17, 2025.
Claims 4, 5, and 7-10 were previously amended.
Claims 11-18 are new.
Claims 1-18 are being examined in this office action.
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 5-7, 11, 13, 14, and 16 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.
Claims 5, 7, 11, and 13 recite the limitation "a or each band of protective material.” Claim 1, from which claims 5, 7, 11, and 13 depend, recites “a plurality of bands of protective material” in line 2. Therefore, the recitation “a or each band of protective material” renders the claim unclear because it is not clear when using the recitation “a band of protective material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "only one band" in lines 1-2, and “a plurality of bands” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6, 14, and 16 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends (Claim 1). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van De Sande (US 2006/0196150 A1, herein Van De Sande).
Regarding claim 1, Van De Sande discloses a method for packing an object, comprising the step of applying around the object (P) (Fig. 1) a plurality of bands of protective material (B1, B2) (Fig. 1) at a different vertical height of the object, wherein the bands are applied so that they are spaced apart and distributed along the height of the object.
Regarding claim 2, Van De Sande discloses [0025] wherein the bands (B1, B2) (Fig. 1) are applied to the object sequentially, one after the other, at consecutive stations or points of a packaging line.
Regarding claim 3, Van De Sande discloses (Fig. 1) wherein in each of said points or stations the plurality of bands (B1, B2) are applied at different heights of the object (P).
Regarding claim 4, Van De Sande discloses wherein the bands (B1, B2) (Fig. 1) are applied to the object so that they are spaced apart and uniformly distributed along the height of the object.
Regarding claims 5 and 11-13, Van De Sande discloses [0032] wherein the
position of a or each band to be applied to the object is calculated by measuring a physical dimensional variable of the object (i.e. height).
Regarding claim 7, Van De Sande discloses [0026-0027] wherein each band of protective material (B1, B2) (Fig. 1) is closed at its ends to form a ring around the object.
Regarding claims 6 and 14-16, Van De Sande discloses [0032] wherein the distance between two adjacent applied bands is a function of the total height of the object.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jensen (US 4,876,841, herein Jensen).
Regarding claim 1, Jensen discloses a method for packing an object, comprising the step of applying around the object (boxes or container, 16; stack 18) a plurality of bands of protective material (sheet member 20, straps 30 and 34) (Fig. 1) at a different vertical height of the object, wherein the bands are applied so that they are spaced apart and distributed along the height of the object.
Regarding claim 4, Jensen discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the bands (straps 30 and 34) (Fig. 1) are applied to the object so that they are spaced apart and uniformly distributed along the height of the object.
Regarding claim 7, Jensen discloses (Col. 3 lines 10-12, 20-24) wherein each band of protective material (straps 30 and 34) (Fig. 1) is closed at its ends to form a ring around the object.
Regarding claim 9, Jensen discloses wherein the object is a set of distinct pieces superimposed and stacked vertically one on top of the other (boxes or container, 16; stack 18).
Regarding claim 10, Jensen discloses wherein the object is placed on a pallet (10) (Fig. 1) while receiving the bands (straps 30 and 34).
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Odenthal (US 5,551,212, herein Odenthal).
Regarding claim 1, Odenthal discloses a method for packing an object, comprising the step of applying around the object (bundle 4 of articles) (Fig. 1) a plurality of bands of protective material (Col.4, lines 45-47) (3) (Fig. 2) at a different vertical height of the object, wherein the bands are applied so that they are spaced apart and distributed along the height of the object.
Regarding claim 4, Odenthal discloses (Col.4, lines 45-47) wherein the bands (3) (Fig. 2) are applied to the object so that they are spaced apart and uniformly distributed along the height of the object.
Regarding claim 7, Odenthal discloses (Col. 4, lines 9-11) (Fig. 2) wherein each band of protective material (3) is closed at its ends to form a ring around the object (4).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Éclair-Heath (US 2004/0040879 A1, herein Éclair-Heath).
Regarding claim 8, Jensen discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention, as stated above.
However, Jensen does not expressly disclose wherein just before
or just after the application of all the bands, a plastic film or a sheet of cardboard is applied to the top of the object to cover the upper part thereof.
Éclair-Heath teaches a top sheet (16)(Fig. 1) of stiff material applied to the top of the object (8,12) to cover the upper part thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant' s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Jensen such that a sheet of cardboard is applied to the top of the object such that further protection is provided to the object being packaged.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odenthal.
Regarding claim 17, Odenthal discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention, as stated above.
However, Odenthal does not expressly disclose wherein the object is a furniture item.
Odenthal does however disclose (Col. 3, lines 32-41) that various packages of various shapes can be fabricated and the packaging accommodated to bundles of various shapes with ease. The method of the invention is not limited to the packaging of materials with precisely straight edges, for example, but can be used for packaging cylindrical products…as well as packagable products with flexible ill defined edges.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant' s claimed invention, to have modified the Odenthal such that the object being packaged was a furniture item. Doing so would provide a protective method of packaging furniture items.
Regarding claim 18, Odenthal discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention, as stated above.
However, Odenthal does not expressly disclose wherein the object is a set of furniture items or furniture components stacked or superimposed vertically.
Odenthal does however disclose (Col. 3, lines 32-41) that various packages of various shapes can be fabricated and the packaging accommodated to bundles of various shapes with ease. The method of the invention is not limited to the packaging of materials with precisely straight edges, for example, but can be used for packaging cylindrical products…as well as packagable products with flexible ill defined edges.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant' s claimed invention, to have modified the Odenthal such that the object being packaged was a furniture item, and furthermore, stacking the furniture items vertically. Doing so would provide a protective method of packaging furniture items, and a space saving tactic for packaging by stacking the items vertically. (See: Odenthal 5,735,104, and Jensen ‘841, for example)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De Vlaam (US 6,085,487) discloses (Fig. 6) (Col. 6, lines 12-16) adjustment of the height of the home position, such that the cycle time for stacks with small heights can be reduced. Lems et al. (US 4,919,265) discloses thin sheets of material interposed between layers of items to provide vertical stability. Odenthal (5,735,104) discloses tray-forming ad head-encircling strips passed vertically across a path of a group of vertically stacked articles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRAACHI M. PATHAK whose telephone number is (571)272-8005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday & Tuesday 8:30 am-5:30 pm ET.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/Praachi M Pathak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
February 24, 2026