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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
The subject matter of claims 7-11, including the interleaved multi-ply paper and its specific features;
The subject matter of Claim 4 AND Claim 5 – simply put, the applicant can argue that either of these claims, but not both; are shown in the drawings.;
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “comprising” is followed by a semi-colon instead of the appropriate colon.. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang, (US 2024/0092049).
Regarding claim 16, 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]),
the first stack having:
a stack width coinciding with the transverse direction of the stack ([0023], “width”),
a stack length coinciding with a longitudinal spacing between sequential folds (The X direction of the material is the length),
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), and
an aspect ratio of the stack width to the stack length;
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 (See Figs. 1-15F), respectively, and
wherein the aspect ratio of the stack width to the stack length is less than about 3:2 (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 ).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Illustration 1
Regarding claim 17, Jiang further discloses: the aspect ratio of the stack width to the stack length is between about 1:2 and about 3:2 (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 ).
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, 18 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 5, the modified Jiang discloses the device of claim 1.
The modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose: the deck width and the deck length are within about five percent of each other.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize a pallet deck length with an appropriate ratio, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The Examiner notes that in the current application, this limitation is not actually required for the invention, but rather one of many options available – ([0064] “The width and length 17, 18 of the upper deck 28 can be, for example, about 40 inches and about 48 incudes, respectively, so that the ratio of the deck width 17 to the deck length 18 is about 1.0:1.2. Alternative embodiments of the pallet 10 can have a deck width 17 greater, or less than about 40 inches, and a deck length 18 greater, or less than about 48 inches. Also, the ratio of the deck width 17 to the deck length 18 can be less than, or greater than 1.0:1.2 in alternative embodiments”).
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 7-11 are 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 Heath, (US 6,168,848).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Jiang discloses the device of claim 1.
The modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose: the elongated web of sheet material includes a first ply and a second ply of the stock material superimposed on each other so that each of the folds in the first ply corresponds to a respective fold in the second ply.
Heath teaches: the elongated web of sheet material includes a first ply (Fig. 2, sheets 21) and a second ply (Fig. 2, sheets 22) of the stock material superimposed on each other so that each of the folds in the first ply corresponds to a respective fold in the second ply (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize a 2 ply sheet system as taught by Heath in combination with the device of Jiang, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. This alteration represents a simple substitution of one type of paper for another, which has no effect on the primary invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Jiang further discloses the device of claim 7.
The modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose: a basis weight of the first ply is different than a basis weight of the second ply.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize differing ply weights for the different ply’s, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. The benefit of this choice is that it allows the user to select different materials for different purposes. The Examiner notes that the specification does not provide any criticality for the inclusion of this feature, merely an assertion that it exists.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Jiang further discloses the device of claim 7.
The modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose: the first ply has slits formed therein.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize paper with slits in it, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. The slit pattern would likely be selected based upon the use of the material and the specific type of dunnage machine chosen. The Examiner notes that the specification does not provide any criticality for the inclusion of this feature, merely an assertion that it exists.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Jiang further discloses the device of claim 9.
The modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose: the second ply has slits formed therein; and a size, an orientation, and/or a pattern of the slits in the first ply are different than a size, an orientation, and/or a pattern of the slits in the second ply.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize paper with slits in it, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. The slit pattern would likely be selected based upon the use of the material and the specific type of dunnage machine chosen. The Examiner notes that the specification does not provide any criticality for the inclusion of this feature, merely an assertion that it exists.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Jiang further discloses: each of the plurality of sheet sections includes a portion of the first ply and a portion of the second ply in an interleaved arrangement (see Fig. 1).
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
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