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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/25/2026 has been entered.
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 2/25/2026 and 2/17/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 16-17, 19 and 21-28 are pending in the application. Claims 3, 8, 10, 13-15, 18 and 20 are cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
PNG
media_image1.png
597
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 21-22, 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Juliano US 7,789,239 B2.
With regards to claim 1, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses an impact absorber 20 for cushioning impact to an object, the impact absorber comprising a three-dimensional structure (shown above), the three-dimensional structure including: a closed top surface (shown above) having a continuous outline defining an outer perimeter of the closed top surface; an open bottom; a hollow inside; and a recess 70 completely contained within the outline of the closed top surface, wherein the recess is disposed below the closed top surface and above the open bottom, wherein the recess comprises a side surface and a bottom surface 72, and wherein the closed top surface, the side surface, and the bottom surface have a continuous outline, wherein the closed top surface is configured to contact some object, and wherein the recess is configured such that no surface of the recess is in contact with the object.
The closed top surface of Juliano is capable of being configured to contact an object and the recess is capable of being configured such that no surface of the recess is in contact with the object, depending on the object to be held. Since such a limitation is considered intended use, because an object is not positively claimed.
With regards to claim 2, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses another recess 74 completely contained within the outline of the closed top surface, wherein said another recess is disposed below the closed top surface and above the open bottom, and wherein said another recess is configured to not contact the object.
With regards to claim 4, Juliano (Fig. 6) discloses the recess 70 has, in top view, a polygonal shape, a circular shape, or an outer shape in which curved lines or straight lines are connected with each other in a wave shape.
With regards to claim 7, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses the impact absorber 16 is a prismatic outer shape.
With regards to claim 21, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses the open bottom has a continuous bottom outline defining an outer perimeter of the open bottom.
With regards to claim 22, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses the continuous bottom outline lies within a single plane.
With regards to claim 25, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses the continuous outline of the closed top lies within a single plane.
With regards to claim 27, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses a plurality of side walls coupled to form a prismatic shape of the impact absorber 16, wherein a bottom edge of each of the plurality of side walls defines the continuous bottom outline of the open bottom, and wherein a top edge of each of the plurality of side walls defines the continuous outline of the closed top surface.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Juliano US 7,789,239 B2.
With regards to claim 9, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses a packaging material for cushioning impact to an object, the packaging material comprising: a space configured to accommodate an object; and at least one impact absorber 16 comprising a three-dimensional structure (shown above), the three-dimensional structure including: a closed top surface (shown above) having a continuous outline defining an outer perimeter of the closed top surface; a closed side surface continuously connected to the continuous outline of the closed top surface (shown above); an open bottom (shown in Fig. 1); a hollow inside; and a recess 70 completely contained within an outline of the closed top surface, wherein the recess is disposed below the closed top surface and above the open bottom, wherein the recess comprises a side surface and a bottom surface 72, wherein the closed top surface, the side surface, and the bottom surface have a continuous outline, wherein the closed top surface is configured to contact an object, and wherein the recess is configured such that no surface of the recess is in contact with an object, wherein the three-dimensional structure is a protruding portion that protrudes into the space.
The closed top surface of Juliano is capable of being configured to contact an object and the recess is capable of being configured such that no surface of the recess is in contact with the object, depending on the object to be held. Since such a limitation is considered intended use, because an object is not positively claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juliano US 7,789,239 B2.
With regards to claim 5, although the drawings are not to scale, it is readily apparent that Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses a depth of the recess 70 is equal to or greater than twice a thickness of the impact absorber and equal to or smaller than half of a height of the impact absorber. The drawings are to be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2125
However, to the extent it may be argued to not be so, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have a depth of the recess equal to or greater than twice a thickness of the impact absorber and equal to or smaller than half of a height of the impact absorber in order to allow the impact absorber to accommodate a larger article(s), or those of differing shapes.
With regards to claim 6, although the drawings are not to scale, it is more than apparent that Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses a distance between the outline of the closed top surface and the recess is greater than twice a thickness of the impact absorber and equal to or less than half of a length of the outline of the closed top surface along a same direction as the distance. The drawings are to be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2125
However, to the extent it may be argued to not be so, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have a distance between the outline of the closed top surface and the recess to be greater than twice a thickness of the impact absorber and equal to or less than half of a length of the outline of the closed top surface along a same direction as the distance in order to allow the impact absorber to accommodate a larger article(s), or those of differing shapes.
PNG
media_image2.png
376
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11-12, 16-17, 23-24, 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juliano US 7,789,239 B2.
With regards to claim 11, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses an impact absorber for cushioning impact to an object, the impact absorber comprising a three-dimensional structure (shown above), the three-dimensional structure including: a closed top surface (shown above) having a continuous outline defining an outer perimeter of the closed top surface; a closed side surface continuously connected to the continuous outline of the closed top surface; an open bottom (shown in Fig. 1); a hollow inside; and a groove crossing (shown above) the closed top surface, wherein the groove comprises a side surface and a bottom surface, wherein the closed top surface is configured to contact an object, and wherein the groove is configured such that no surface of the groove is in contact with an object, wherein the three-dimensional structure is a protruding portion that protrudes into a space configured to accommodate an object.
The closed top surface of Juliano is capable of being configured to contact an object and the groove is capable of being configured such that no surface of the groove is in contact with the object, depending on the size and type of object to be held. Such a limitation is considered an intended use.
Although the drawings are not to scale, it is readily apparent that Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses a depth of the groove that is equal to or greater than twice a thickness of the impact absorber and equal to or smaller than half of a height of the impact absorber. The drawings are to be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2125
However, to the extent it may be argued to not be so, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the groove have a depth equal to or greater than twice a thickness of the impact absorber and equal to or smaller than one fifth of a structural height of the impact absorber in order to allow the impact absorber to accommodate a larger article(s), or those of differing shapes. Since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art, the claimed device would not be patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04-IV
With regards to claim 12, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses another groove (shown above) crossing the closed top surface and completely contained within the outline of the closed top surface, wherein said another groove is configured to not contact the object.
The groove of Juliano is capable of being configured to not contact the object, depending on the size and type of object to be held. Such a limitation is considered an intended use.
See claim 11, for the groove depth reasoning.
With regards to claim 16, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses a groove but it does not specifically disclose the groove has, in top view, an I-shape or a cross-shape including a continuous line connecting straight lines, a continuous line connecting curved lines, or a continuous line connecting a straight line and a curved line.
To modify the groove with an I-shape or a cross-shape including a continuous line connecting straight lines, a continuous line connecting curved lines, or a continuous line connecting a straight line and a curved line as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of the groove and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
With regards to claim 17, although the drawings are not to scale, it is more than apparent that Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses a width of the groove (shown above) is equal to or more than twice a thickness of the impact absorber and less than one third of a width of the closed top surface of the impact absorber. The drawings are to be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2125
However, to the extent it may be argued to not be so, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have a width of the groove is equal to or more than twice a thickness of the impact absorber and less than one third of a width of the closed top surface of the impact absorber in order to allow the impact absorber to accommodate a larger article(s), or those of differing shapes. Since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art, the claimed device would not be patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04-IV
With regards to claim 23, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses the open bottom has a continuous bottom outline defining an outer perimeter of the open bottom.
With regards to claim 24, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses the continuous bottom outline lies within a single plane.
With regards to claim 26, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses the continuous outline of the closed top lies within a single plane.
With regards to claim 28, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses a plurality of side walls coupled to form a prismatic shape of the impact absorber 16, wherein a bottom edge of each of the plurality of side walls defines the continuous bottom outline of the open bottom, and wherein a top edge of each of the plurality of side walls defines the continuous outline of the closed top surface.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Juliano US 7,789,239 B2.
With regards to claim 19, Juliano (Fig. 5 and 6) discloses a packaging material for cushioning impact to an object, the packaging material comprising: a space configured to accommodate an object; and at least one impact absorber comprising: a three-dimensional structure (shown above), the three-dimensional structure including: a closed top surface (shown above) having a continuous outline defining an outer perimeter of the closed top surface; a closed side surface continuously connected to the continuous outline of the closed top surface (shown above); an open bottom; a hollow inside; and a groove (shown above) crossing the closed top surface, wherein the groove comprises a side surface and a bottom surface, wherein the closed top surface is configured to contact an object, and wherein the groove is configured such that no surface of the groove is in contact with an object, wherein the three-dimensional structure is a protruding portion that protrudes into the space.
The closed top surface of Juliano is capable of being configured to contact an object and the groove is capable of being configured such that no surface of the groove is in contact with the object, depending on the size and type of object to be held. Such a limitation is considered an intended use.
See claim 11, for the groove depth reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 16-17, 19 and 21-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights