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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claim 16 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: As per [0061], “The aspect ratio of the stack 12 can have other values in alternative embodiments. For example, in some embodiments, the aspect ratio can be about 3:2 or less. In other embodiments, the aspect ratio can be about 1:1. In other embodiments, aspect ratio can be about 1:2. In other embodiments, the aspect ratio can be between about 1:2 and about 3:2.”, the different aspect ratios represent different embodiments. Furthermore, once amended, claim 17 would become a 112D, as it cannot exist at the same time as claim 16.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Simply put, the alterations to Jiang are explained by the combination to Pearson.
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.
Claims 1-6, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, (US 2024/0092049) in view of Pearson, (US 2,932,389).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses: A palletized unit of fan-folded stock material, comprising:
a pallet (Fig. 1, pallet 100) that includes a deck configured to support the fan-folded stock material, the deck having a deck length (Fig. 8, deck X) and a deck width (Fig. 9, deck Y); and
a first stack of the stock material (Fig. 1, chain sheet material 1) supportively positioned on the deck, which stock material includes an elongated web of sheet material configuration defined by folds in the web about fold lines that extend in a transverse direction of the web that segment the web into a plurality of sheet sections, with adjacent sheet sections folded onto one another ([0023] “Please refer to FIG. 1, which illustrates an embodiment of a first bundle or row of chain sheet material 1 is positioned on a pallet 100 according to the present invention. It is appreciated by the skilled person in the art that a row may be formed of a number of N bundles of chain sheet material, N≥2. FIG. 2 illustrates the similar concept of the embodiment shown in FIG. 1 while the chain sheet material is pre-configured or pre-folded chain sheet material 2. The width of the chain sheet material 1 or the pre-configured or pre-folded chain sheet material 2 is about half of the width of the pallet 100. For example, the width of the chain sheet material 1 or the pre-configured or pre-folded chain sheet material 2 is about 15 inches and that of the pallet 100 is 30 inches.”), the first stack having:
a transverse stack width measured in a transverse direction coinciding with the transverse direction of the stack ([0023], “width”),
a stack length measured in a lengthwise direction coinciding with a longitudinal spacing between sequential folds (The X direction of the material is the length), and
a stack depth coinciding with a direction in which the sheet sections are stacked on one another (The Z direction of the material is the length).
Jiang does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first stack is positioned on the deck with the stack length and stack width generally aligned with the deck length and the deck width, respectively, and the stack length is about equal to or greater than 70% of the deck length.
Pearson teaches: wherein the first stack is positioned on the deck with the stack length and stack width generally aligned with the deck length and the deck width, respectively, and the stack length is about equal to or greater than 70% of the deck length (Pearson, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize the stack length to deck ratio as taught by Pearson in combination with the device of Jiang, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is that it allows for a larger sheet of paper to be used, as well as utilizing more of the deck space. The Examiner notes that in common use, maximum space on a pallet is used if possible.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Jiang further discloses: the stack length is greater than 70% of the deck length and less than 110% of the deck length (Pearson, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Jiang further discloses: the stack length is about equal to or greater than 100% of the deck length (Pearson, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Jiang further discloses: the first stack has an aspect ratio of the stack width to the stack length, which aspect ratio is less than about 3:2 (Jiang - See Figs. 1-15F – (Examiner’s note – [0003] describes the use of a common European pallet (see below Examiner’s Illustration 1) with a width of 80CM. As such, since the figures show a 4x2 box configuration, the stack length can be closely estimated to be about 30cm, or 12 inches. Since [0023] describes a width of 15 inches, the aspect ratio would be 15/12, which is less than 3/2 ) (Pearson, see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Illustration 1
Regarding claim 6 and 18 (note that claim 18 is dependent upon claim 16. While claim 16 is not given a 103 rejection, the same base features exist in both claims), the modified Jiang further discloses: stock material is paper (Pearson, Title, “Package For Transporting Paper Sheets”).
Regarding claim 12, Jiang further discloses: one or more ties wrapped around the first stack and secured to the pallet ([0030] “FIG. 8 shows the prepared bottom sheet(s) 12 of the first bundle 9 positioned on top to be ready to connect to the second row 13 of bundles when positioned aside as shown on FIG. 9. The additional bundles and layers have been positioned according to the methods described in FIG. 7 after the first bundle 9 of the first layer along the first row 8 as mentioned in FIG. 5 had been positioned. The prepared bottom sheet(s) 12 of the first bundle 9 includes a tail part 304 and a middle part 302 connected between the tail part 304 and the first folded part 301. It is clearly that the middle part 302 of the first bundle 9 should have a length sufficient to put the tail part 304 on top of the first bundle of the first row 8 at the L-th layer, namely, the top layer.”), ;
a cover positioned over the first stack ([0030]); and/or a tray positioned between the deck and the first stack ([0030]).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Jiang further discloses: a protective medium positioned around the first stack ([0030]).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Jiang further discloses: the first stack of the stock material is free of splices within the first stack of the stock material ([0003], “a continuous chain of sheet material”).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Jiang further discloses: a second stack of the stock material supportively positioned on the deck in a side-by-side relationship with the first stack so that the stack length and stack width of the second stack are generally aligned with the stack length and stack width of the first stack, wherein the web of the second stack is connected to the web of the first stack by a splice between the webs of the first and second stacks ([0033] “Some practices are applicable to connect or splice the chain sheet material so as to form an endless sheet of the material. FIGS. 11-13 illustrate some exemplary embodiments of connection of the sheet material composed from four layers, and each embodiment includes two rows of four bundles positioned side by side on the pallet.”).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, (US 2024/0092049) in view of Pearson, (US 2,932,389), further in view of Cheich, (US 20220002106).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Jiang discloses the device of claim 1.
The modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose: a dunnage conversion machine configured to deform the stock material from a first configuration to a lower-density second configuration.
Cheich teaches: a dunnage conversion machine (Fig. 1, dunnage conversion machine 26) configured to deform the stock material from a first configuration to a lower-density second configuration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize a dunnage conversion machine as taught by Cheich in combination with the device of Jiang, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The Examiner notes that this purpose is the purpose of the Jiang reference. However, the Jiang reference is silent regarding the fact. The benefit of the combination is that it utilizes the sheet material of Jiang for its intended purpose.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Jiang anticipates the device of claims 1-19. Therefore, under MPEP 2112.02, Process Claims [R-07.2015], the method of claim 20 is also anticipated, and therefore rejected. “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”.
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 DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
