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
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 12/22/2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 4-7, 9-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmers et al. (US 20060128545 A1) in view of Shearon et al. (US 3891158 A).
Regarding claim 1, Timmers discloses a splicing unit (Fig. 18) for a dunnage conversion machine (600, 606) configured to convert a supply of stock material into a dunnage product (Abstract), the splicing unit comprising:
a support surface (616) configured to provide backing for a first strip (“nearly spent supply of stock material”)of stock material ([0059]; “The tray 616 also provides a relatively flat surface between the tension-adjusting assembly 604 and the forming assembly 608 that facilitates splicing one or more plies of a new supply of sheet stock material to respective plies of the almost spent supply of stock material”…see also [0065]);
a sensor (652) operatively connected to the dunnage conversion machine (600, 606), the sensor being associated with the support surface (616) and configured to detect a presence of the first strip of sheet material and upon determining that the first strip of stock material has passed the sensor (652), stopping operation of the dunnage conversion machine ([0067]; The sensor 652 is associated with the support surface 616, and detects when the trailing end of the first strip has passed (“absence of the sheet stock material”), triggering the controller to stop the feed assembly and conversion machine), and
Timmers teaches stopping the machine upon end-of-web detection specifically to enable splicing on the support surface (616) but does not expressly recite a separate mechanical brake adjacent to the support surface that stops the first strip from moving upon machine stop.
Shearon in a related invention a separate mechanical brake adjacent to the support surface that stops the first strip from moving upon machine stop (Shearon teaches an apparatus for splicing a standby web after disengaging from the unwind (Abstract), having a web tail sensing means that detects passage of the end of the running (First) web after it disengages from the unwind, and a brake (web clamp, 149, 161)) activated after the tail passes the sensor to grasp and stop the running web and splicing is performed while both webs are stationary…See at least Abstract, Col 2 lines 45-67 to Col 3 lines 1-30).
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 the Splicing Unit of Timmers with known support surface and controller/web sensor which already stops the feed to enable splicing on the support surface by incorporating a brake/clamp adjacent to the support surface as taught by Shearon in order to ensure the first strip remains securely positioned on the support surface for clean, ergonomic splicing yielding predictable result with no unexpected difficulties. The combination is a simple application of known web-control techniques to improve the reliability of the splicing operation already contemplated in Timmers.
Timmers in view of Shearon further teaches:
Regarding claim 2, wherein the brake (149, 161 of Shearon) contacts the first strip of stock material on the support surface (616 of Timmers) when operation of the dunnage conversion machine is stopped ([0067] of Timmers and Abstract of Shearon).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the brake (149, 161 of Shearon) includes a surface that is configured to grip the stock material without tearing the stock material (resilient pad 161 (e.g., polyurethane rubber).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the support surface (616 of Timmers) is configured to receive a second strip of sheet material to splice to the first strip of sheet material (Abstract, Col 2 lines 45-67 to Col 3 lines 1-30 of Timmers and Figs. 10-18).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the second strip of sheet material is received through a series of splicing rollers (rollers of 604, Fig.17 of Timmers).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the splicing rollers (rollers of 604, Fig.17 of Timmers) are positioned upstream of the support surface (616 of Timmers) and a series of dunnage rollers (rollers of 608/610 of Timmers) are positioned downstream of the support surface (616 of Timmers).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the support surface (616 of Timmers) is positioned at a height adjacent to a work surface that receives dunnage from the dunnage conversion machine (606; Fig. 18 of Timmers).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the stock material is fan-folded ([0068] of Timmers).
Regarding claim 12, Timmers discloses a system (Figs. 10-11, and 17-18) for converting dunnage from stock material into a dunnage product ([0005]-[0010] and [0059]), the system comprising: a dunnage conversion machine configured to convert a sheet of the stock material into the dunnage product (([0005]-[0010] and [0059]), and the splicing unit of claim 1 (Unit of 616, 608 of Timmers as modified; See Claim 1 rejection above) positioned upstream of the dunnage conversion machine (600, 606; Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the sheet of stock material is routed through a series of dunnage rollers (Feed assembly 610, roller assembly 644, 646 of Timmers) with that direct the stock material into the dunnage conversion machine (Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 14, Timmers discloses the invention according to claim 14, including stopping the machine upon end-of-web detection specifically to enable splicing on the support surface (616), wherein the brake (clamp 149 of Shearon) holds the first strip of stock material at a location upstream of the dunnage rollers and the first strip of stock material remains routed through the dunnage rollers (Fig. 18 of Timmers as modified).
Regarding claim 15, Timmers as modified wherein the splicing unit includes a series of splicing rollers (rollers of 604, Fig.17 of Timmers) for routing a second strip of stock material and onto the support surface (616 of Timmers) for splicing to the first strip of stock material when the first strip of stock material is positioned at the stop (via 149 of Shearon as modified).
Regarding claim 16, Timmers discloses a method of supplying stock material into a dunnage conversion machine configured to convert the stock material into a dunnage product ([0005]-[0010] and [0059]), the method comprising:
receiving a strip of stock material on a support surface of a splicing unit (Unit of 616, 648), the splicing unit located upstream of the dunnage conversion machine (606);
detecting, by a sensor (652) at the splicing unit (Fig. 17), that a supply of stock material is depleted ([0067]); and upon detecting that the supply of stock material is depleted, stopping the dunnage conversion machine from converting the stock material ([0067]), and holding a trailing end of the strip of stock material, on the support surface (616), to allow splicing of the trailing end of the strip of stock material to a new strip of stock material ([0067]).
Timmers teaches stopping the machine upon end-of-web detection specifically to enable splicing on the support surface (616) but does not expressly recite a separate mechanical brake for holding a trailing end of the strip of stock material.
Shearon in a related invention a separate mechanical brake adjacent to the support surface that stops the first strip from moving upon machine stop (Shearon teaches an apparatus for splicing a standby web after disengaging from the unwind (Abstract), having a web tail sensing means that detects passage of the end of the running (First) web after it disengages from the unwind, and a brake (web clamp, 149, 161)) activated after the tail passes the sensor to grasp and stop the running web and splicing is performed while both webs are stationary…See at least Abstract, Col 2 lines 45-67 to Col 3 lines 1-30).
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 the Splicing Unit of Timmers with known support surface and controller/web sensor which already stops the feed to enable splicing on the support surface by incorporating a brake/clamp adjacent to the support surface as taught by Shearon in order to ensure the first strip remains securely positioned on the support surface for clean, ergonomic splicing yielding predictable result with no unexpected difficulties. The combination is a simple application of known web-control techniques to improve the reliability of the splicing operation already contemplated in Timmers.
Regarding claim 17, wherein the trailing end of the strip of stock material is held at the support surface by the brake (149 of Shearon).
Regarding claim 19, further comprising a step of splicing a leading end of the new strip of stock material to the trailing end of the strip of stock material at the support surface ([0065]-[0067] of Timmers as modified).
Regarding claim 20, wherein the supply of stock material remains routed through dunnage rollers when the trailing end of the supply of stock material is held at the support surface (Timmers stock path routes material through the roller 644/646, then through feed/forming rollers when the brake of Shearon hold the trailing end on tray 616, the upstream portion remains threaded through the downstream dunnage rollers).
Claim(s) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmers et al. (US 20060128545 A1) in view of Shearon et al. (US 3891158 A), and in further view of Bock et al. (US 20110034311 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Timmers as modified discloses all the limitations according to claims 1, including the brake (149, 161 of Shearon) as explained above. Shearon teaches a brake that contacts the stock material via resilient pads, but Timmers as modified does not disclose he brake comprises a brush including a plurality of bristles configured to contact the stock material.
While Shearon uses pads rather than bristles, the use of a brush with brsitles as a non-damaging contacting frictional brake for paper webs was well-known in the art as evidenced by Bock friction contacting brushes (70, 72) having bristles ([0025])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the brake with resilient pads, as disclosed by Timmers as modified, to substitute or incorporate a brake having a brush with bristles, as a matter of obvious design choice and as evidenced by Bock. Bristle brushes are a routine, predictable alternative for frictionally holding delicate paper webs stationary to avoid damages like tears or marks while providing sufficient friction.
Regarding claim 18, Timmers as modified discloses all the limitations according to claim 17, including the brake (149, 161 of Shearon) as explained above. Shearon teaches a brake that contacts the stock material via resilient pads, but Timmers as modified does not disclose he brake comprises a brush configured to stop the stock material without tearing the stock material.
While Shearon uses pads rather than brush, the use of a brush as a non-damaging contacting frictional brake for paper webs was well-known in the art as evidenced by Bock friction contacting brushes (70, 72) having bristles ([0025])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the brake with resilient pads, as disclosed by Timmers as modified, to substitute or incorporate a brake having a brush with bristles, as a matter of obvious design choice and as evidenced by Bock. Bristle brushes are a routine, predictable alternative for frictionally holding delicate paper webs stationary to avoid damages like tears or marks while providing sufficient friction.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmers et al. (US 20060128545 A1) in view of Shearon et al. (US 3891158 A), and in further view of Meessen (US 20040192531 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Timmers as modified discloses the support surface (616 of Timmers) but is silent with regards to it being positioned at a height which is located above the first strip of stock material.
Meessen in a related invention a splicing unit (Fig. 2) for a dunnage conversion machine (10) support surface (16) being positioned at a height which is located above the first strip of stock material (the splicing surface 16 is located at a height above the feed path of the stock material coming through spindles and support 60, 62 Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the support surface of Timmers as modified by positioning it at a height above the first strip of material coming from the stock material feed supply as taught by Meessen which allows easy access of the trailing ends by operator. Additionally, It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the support surface positioning it at a height above the first strip of material coming from the stock material feed supply, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Having the splicing surface at an elevated height relative to the stock path allows easy access by the operator and reduces awkward bending or slipping away of the stock material.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmers et al. (US 20060128545 A1) in view of Shearon et al. (US 3891158 A), and in further view of Coppus et al. (US 20040142806 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Timmers as modified discloses wherein the stock material comprises a plurality of stacks of fan-folded stock material ([0043] and [0068]) but is silent regarding wherein stock material are spliced in series.
Meessen in a related invention teaches stock material are spliced in series ([0006]-[0007], [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the fan-folded stock supply of Timmers as modified by incorporating using a plurality of stacks that are spliced in series as taught by Coppus. Applying this know multi-stack series splicing to Timmers is predictable improvement to create longer continuous feed and reduce downtime.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS IGBOKWE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights