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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 November 2024 has been entered.
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 main buffer extending an effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the main buffer of claim 1, the auxiliary buffer extending an effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the auxiliary buffer of claim 1 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: contact surface, effective height, top point, first effective height, second effective height, top.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: packaging material which is equivalent to material for packaging in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation of claim 1 that “the main buffer extends an effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the main buffer” and that “the auxiliary buffer extends the effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the auxiliary buffer” fail to comply with the written description requirement. While “contact surface” finds no antecedent basis in the specification it is understood to be the surface of the accommodation space which is closest to the face upon which the shock-absorbing rib structure is attached. As can be seen from the original drawings and as is understood from the original specification, the main buffer and auxiliary buffer extend from the face of the base structure. There is no disclosure that the contact surface and this face exist at the same plane. In fact, from the figures the base structure has some amount of thickness which exists between the accommodation space and the face upon which the shock-absorbing rib structure is attached. As such, there is no disclosure that the main buffer and auxiliary buffer extend from the contact surface. As the main buffer and auxiliary buffer do not extend from the contact surface they cannot extend an effective height from the contact surface.
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 1-5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 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.
The limitation of claim 1 that “the main buffer extends an effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the main buffer” and that “the auxiliary buffer extends the effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the auxiliary buffer” are led to be indefinite. It is unclear if the main buffer and auxiliary buffer extend from the contact surface or if an effective height exists between the contact surface and a top point of the main buffer and the auxiliary buffer. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the claim will be interpreted as if an effective height extends from the contact surface to a top point of the main buffer and the effective height extends from the contact surface to a top point of the auxiliary buffer. Further clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim 17 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if “a first effective height” is a newly recited structure or refers back to “an effective height” of claim 1 from which claim 17 depends. In order to apply art the limitation has been interpreted as the latter.
Claim 17 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if “a top of the main buffer” is a newly recited structure or refers back to “a top point of the main buffer” of claim 1 from which claim 17 depends. In order to apply art the limitation has been interpreted as the latter.
Claim 17 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if “a second effective height” is a newly recited structure or refers back to “the effective height” of claim 1 from which claim 17 depends. In order to apply art the limitation has been interpreted as the latter.
Claim 17 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if “a top of the auxiliary buffer” is a newly recited structure or refers back to “a top point of the auxiliary buffer” of claim 1 from which claim 17 depends. In order to apply art the limitation has been interpreted as the latter.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 fails to further limit claim 1 from which it depends. Claim 1 already requires the main buffer and auxiliary buffer to extend an effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the main buffer and auxiliary buffer. As the same term, effective height, is used for both the main buffer and auxiliary buffer in claim 1 this effective height is equal between them. 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted art (AAPA) further in view of Gaulke (US 3095970).
Claim 1: AAPA discloses a shock absorber comprising: a base structure having a space to accommodate an object to be packaged; and a shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 on a face of the base structure, wherein the shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 is separated from the space of the base structure by the face of the base structure, the base structure configured to contact the object to be packaged at a contact surface of the base structure between the object to be packaged and the face of the base structure on which the shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 is disposed, the shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 including: a main buffer directly supported by the face and having a rectangular parallelepiped shape, wherein the main buffer extends an effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the main buffer (see annotated fig. 1 below).
AAPA does not disclose the shock-absorbing rib structure including an auxiliary buffer directly supported by the face at opposed ends of the auxiliary buffer and apart from the base structure between the opposed ends of the auxiliary buffer, wherein the auxiliary buffer is disposed parallel to the main buffer, wherein the auxiliary buffer extends the effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the auxiliary buffer.
Gaulke teaches a packaging strip S including a flat inner ply 10 and an outer continuous ply 11 adhered to the inner ply and which has peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) of a V shape which are provided with transversely extending slits 18, wherein the continuous ply 11 can be folded at slits 18 to form a protecting member of substantially U-shape in cross-section to define an outer edge wall 15 and inwardly extending spaced parallel side walls 16 so peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) are divided into a central outwardly extending section and laterally extending side sections when folded, wherein the strip S is placed around the marginal edge of an article A with the peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) in position to provide cushioning properties for engage opposite side walls 9 and end walls 8 of a carton C, wherein the peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) are directly supported by the flat inner ply 10 at opposed ends and are apart between the opposed ends (see fig. 1 and 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the shock absorber of AAPA with an outer continuous ply 11 around and adhered to the marginal edge of the shock absorber in a like manner to how the outer continuous ply 11 is adhered to the flat inner ply 10, as taught by Gaulke, in order to provide additional cushioning properties to each side of the shock absorber.
The combination results in the outer edge wall 15 and central outwardly extending section being located around the marginal edge of the shock absorber, one inwardly extending side wall 16 and one laterally extending side section being located on the face, and the remaining inwardly extending side wall 16 and laterally extending side section being located at the bottom face of the shock absorber and the peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) of the one inwardly extending side wall 16 and one laterally extending side section on the face are directly supported by the face at opposed ends of the peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) and apart from the base structure between the opposed ends of the peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers).
The peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) of the one inwardly extending side wall 16 and one laterally extending side section on the face extend upwardly from the face in parallel to the upward extension of the main buffer on the face.
When extending the peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) there are three identified, predictable solutions. On being a top most point of the peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) extending below the top point of the main buffer, a second being a top most point of the peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) extending above the top point of the main buffer, and the last being a top most point of the peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) extending even with the top point of the main buffer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have extended the peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) such that its top most point extended even with the top point of the main buffer, as it would have been obvious to try the last identified predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success and in order for the peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) and main buffer to be impacted at the same time.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein the shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 further includes, on the face of the base structure, a plurality of peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) including the peak 17 (auxiliary buffer), wherein all main buffers on the face of the base structure and all peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) on the face of the base structure are parallel to one another as they all extend upwardly from the face in parallel (see fig. 7-9 ‘970).
Claim 5: The combination discloses wherein the shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 further includes another peak 17 (auxiliary buffer), and wherein the main buffer is interposed between the peak 17 (auxiliary buffer) and said another peak 17 (auxiliary buffer) on the face of the base structure, wherein all main buffers on the face of the base structure and all peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) on the face of the base structure are parallel to one another as they all extend upwardly from the face in parallel (see fig. 1 ‘970 where peaks surround the perimeter). As the entire perimeter of the face has peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) the main buffer must be interposed between two).
Claim 9: The combination discloses wherein the peak 17 (auxiliary buffer) includes two intersecting supports inclined with respect to the face of the base structure (see fig. 9 ‘970).
Claim 11: The combination discloses a plurality of peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) including the peak 17 (auxiliary buffer), wherein the plurality of peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) is disposed continuously in a longitudinal direction of the plurality of peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) (see fig. 7-9 ‘970 where a plurality of peaks 17 (auxiliary buffers) are disposed continuously in a longitudinal direction and separated by slits 18).
Claim 17: The combination discloses wherein a first effective height from the contact surface to a top of the main buffer is equal to a second effective height from the contact surface to a top of the peak 17 (auxiliary buffer).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted art (AAPA) and Gaulke (US 3095970) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 20130220866).
Claim 14: The combination does not disclose the base structure and the shock-absorbing rib structure being made of foamed resin.
Nakamura teaches a cushioning material 1 made of a foamed resin (see P. 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the base structure and the shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 out of foamed resin, as taught by Nakamura, due to its light weight, compressive attributes, and 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted art (AAPA) and Gaulke (US 3095970) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuhashi (US 20110308979).
Claim 16: The combination discloses a packaging system comprising an object to be packaged; and the shock absorber according to claim 1 (see specification at page 1 lines 23-25).
The combination does not disclose a packaging material configured to pack the object with the shock absorber attached.
Mitsuhashi teaches a cardboard box 12 (packaging material) configured to pack a thin display device 100 with cushioning material 2 attached (see P. 0005 and fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have packed the object with the shock absorber attached within a cardboard box 12 (packaging material), as taught by Mitsuhashi, in order to provide additional protection to the object during shipping and transport.
The packaging material which is equivalent to material for packaging is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as cardboard box, and equivalents thereof.
Claim(s) 1, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted art (AAPA) further in view of Yang (US 5826726).
Claim 1: AAPA discloses a shock absorber comprising: a base structure having a space to accommodate an object to be packaged; and a shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 on a face of the base structure, wherein the shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 is separated from the space of the base structure by the face of the base structure, the base structure configured to contact the object to be packaged at a contact surface of the base structure between the object to be packaged and the face of the base structure on which the shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 is disposed, the shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 including: a main buffer directly supported by the face and having a rectangular parallelepiped shape, wherein the main buffer extends an effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the main buffer (see annotated fig. 1 above).
AAPA does not disclose the shock-absorbing rib structure including an auxiliary buffer directly supported by the face at opposed ends of the auxiliary buffer and apart from the base structure between the opposed ends of the auxiliary buffer, wherein the auxiliary buffer is disposed parallel to the main buffer, wherein the auxiliary buffer extends the effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the auxiliary buffer.
Yang teaches a pulp mold 60 having pulp mold units 61 (auxiliary buffers) directly supported by a face at opposed ends of the pulp mold units 61 (auxiliary buffers) and apart between the opposed ends of the pulp mold units 61 (auxiliary buffers), wherein an opening is directly below each pulp mold units 61 (auxiliary buffers) in a vertical direction (see annotated fig. 6A below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 on the face with at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer), as taught by Yang, in order to provide additional cushioning and protection to held objects.
The at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) extends upwardly from the face in parallel to the upward extension of the main buffer on the face.
When extending the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) there are three identified, predictable solutions. On being a top most point of the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) extending below the top point of the main buffer, a second being a top most point of the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) extending above the top point of the main buffer, and the last being a top most point of the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) extending even with the top point of the main buffer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have extended the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) such that its top most point extended even with the top point of the main buffer, as it would have been obvious to try the last identified predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success and in order for the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) and main buffer to be impacted at the same time.
PNG
media_image2.png
339
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 13: The combination discloses wherein the base structure has an opening directly below the pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) in a vertical direction (see annotated fig. 6A above).
Claim 17: The combination discloses wherein a first effective height from the contact surface to a top of the main buffer is equal to a second effective height from the contact surface to a top of the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted art (AAPA) and Yang (US 5826726) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watson (US 5755331).
Claim 3: The combination discloses the base structure having a plurality of faces (see fig. 1 AAPA).
The combination does not disclose a plurality of shock-absorbing rib structures, wherein each shock-absorbing rib structure of the plurality of shock absorbing rib structures is disposed on a respective face of the plurality of faces of the base structure.
Watson teaches a packaging device 2 having a panel 8 and four flanges 10, 12, wherein spacer devices 20 are located on each flange 12, 12 and the panel 8 (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified each face to have a respective shock-absorbing rib structure 1012, as taught by Watson, in order to provide protection from impacts in multiple directions.
Claim 4: The combination discloses wherein the plurality of faces comprises five faces and each shock-absorbing rib structure 1012 of the plurality of shock absorbing rib structures 1012 is disposed on a respective face of the five faces.
Claim(s) 1, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keady (US 4709817) further in view of Yang (US 5826726).
Claim 1: Keady discloses a shipping device 20 (shock absorber) comprising: a base sheet 30 (base structure) having an opening 28 (space) to accommodate an object to be packaged; and a shock-absorbing rib structure on a face of the base sheet 30 (base structure), wherein the shock-absorbing rib structure is separated from the opening 28 (space) of the base sheet 30 (base structure) by the face of the base sheet 30 (base structure), the base sheet 30 (base structure) configured to contact the object to be packaged at a contact surface of the base sheet 30 (base structure) between the object to be packaged and the face of the base sheet 30 (base structure) on which the base sheet 30 (base structure) is disposed, the shock-absorbing rib structure including: a block 26 (main buffer) directly supported by the face and having a rectangular parallelepiped shape, wherein the block 26 (main buffer) extends an effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the block 26 (main buffer) (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2 below).
Keady does not disclose the shock-absorbing rib structure including an auxiliary buffer directly supported by the face at opposed ends of the auxiliary buffer and apart from the base structure between the opposed ends of the auxiliary buffer, wherein the auxiliary buffer is disposed parallel to the main buffer, wherein the auxiliary buffer extends the effective height from the contact surface to a top point of the auxiliary buffer.
Yang teaches a pulp mold 60 having pulp mold units 61 (auxiliary buffers) directly supported by a face at opposed ends of the pulp mold units 61 (auxiliary buffers) and apart between the opposed ends of the pulp mold units 61 (auxiliary buffers), wherein an opening is directly below each pulp mold units 61 (auxiliary buffers) in a vertical direction (see annotated fig. 6A below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the shock-absorbing rib structure on the face with at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer), as taught by Yang, in order to provide additional cushioning and protection to held objects.
The at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) extends upwardly from the face in parallel to the upward extension of the block 26 (main buffer) on the face.
When extending the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) there are three identified, predictable solutions. On being a top most point of the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) extending below the top point of the block 26 (main buffer), a second being a top most point of the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) extending above the top point of the block 26 (main buffer), and the last being a top most point of the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) extending even with the top point of the block 26 (main buffer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have extended the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) such that its top most point extended even with the top point of the block 26 (main buffer), as it would have been obvious to try the last identified predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success and in order for the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) and block 26 (main buffer) to be impacted at the same time.
PNG
media_image3.png
342
445
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 13: The combination discloses wherein the base structure has an opening directly below the pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) in a vertical direction (see annotated fig. 6A above).
Claim 17: The combination discloses wherein a first effective height from the contact surface to a top of the block 26 (main buffer) is equal to a second effective height from the contact surface to a top of the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer).
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 6-9 of office action dated 14 August 2024 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 12 November 2024.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “the auxiliary buffer must be shaped such that it is “supported by the face at opposed ends of the auxiliary buffer and apart from the base structure between the opposed ends of the auxiliary buffer” – i.e., an arch-like shape”, the Examiner responds that the claimed limitation does not require the auxiliary buffer to have an arch-like shape. Cambridge dictionary defines arch as “a structure, consisting of a curved top on two supports”. There is nothing in the limitation which requires any curved shape. A flat shape can meet the claimed limitation as its opposed ends can be supported by the face while the flat shape can be apart from the base structure between those opposed ends if the face exists only at the opposed ends (e.g. see ribs 22 of annotated fig. 2 Xie US 20090050511 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
746
558
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an auxiliary buffer having an arched shape) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that the Office Action does not identify a particular paragraph or figure of Gaulke or Yang, the Examiner invites applicant to review the Final Office Action dated 14 August 2024 which clearly cites figures 1 and 7-9 of Gaulke in the rejection to claim 1 and figure 6A of Yang in the rejections of claim 1 which has additionally been provided and annotated directly in the Office Action.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, that none of the art of record, including AAPA, teach or suggest any benefit of the different type of buffers to be utilized to improve shock absorption by absorbing different type of stresses, and that none of the art of record or common sense recognizes the benefit of mixing the two types of buffers to absorb two different types of stresses, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the outer continuous ply 11 provides additional cushioning properties to each side of the shock absorber of AAPA and the at least one pulp mold unit 61 (auxiliary buffer) provides additional cushioning and protection to held objects. Additionally, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See MPEP 2144 IV.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the buffers be parallel to one another, the Examiner replies that all buffers extend upwardly from the face parallel to one another.
In response to applicant’s argument that the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest that a contact surface of the base structure be configured to contact the object to be packaged, the Examiner responds that the AAPA discloses a contact surface as seen in annotate fig. 1 above and Keady discloses a contact surface as seen in annotated fig. 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached on (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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736