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
In view of the appeal brief filed on 11/20/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. The rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/NATHAN J JENNESS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733
27 December 2025
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-16, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection. Note discussion of US Publication 2011/0005647 by Campfield, below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion regarding the claim objection (Page 8), the examiner disagrees and points out that the sentence is a run-on sentence.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-16 have been fully considered and persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Lato does not teach that the anti-marring cover protects a single appliance (Page 8-10), the examiner disagrees and point out that Lato discloses an anti-marring cover that can cover a shipping container that holds an appliance. The examiner agrees that Lato does not specifically state an appliance is in the containers and therefore teaches US Publication 2011/0005647 by Campfield.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Claim 11 line 4) “other wherein ” may be “other, wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by US Patent 9333978 issued to Lato (Here forth “Lato”) in view of US Publication 2011/0005647 by Campfield (Here forth “Campfield”).
Regarding claim 1, Lato discloses an appliance anti-marring system for protecting an outer surface of a single [Not taught: appliance] from damage during an installation process (Abstract, Fig 2 and 6, the anti-marring system 100 is used to transport shipping containers that contain items such as appliances; The system is capable of retaining various heights of articles, such crates containing appliances), the system including:
[Not taught: the single appliance having an outer vertical surface including a front face, a pair of lateral faces, and a rear face, the front face and the rear face each having a width dimension and the lateral faces each having a length dimension];
a protective panel having a first side, a second side (Fig 1, protective panel has a first side that comes in contact with the crate holding an appliance and second side that opposite and exposed to the sides), an upper edge (Fig B), a lower edge (Fig B), a first lateral edge (Fig B), and a second lateral edge (Fig B), the protective panel being comprised of a flexible material and having a rectangular shape (Fig A-B, the panel is flexible so that it is able to wrap around the appliance), the protective panel having a height from the upper edge to the lower edge being at least equal to a height of the single [Not taught: appliance] (Fig 6, the panel has a height that is equal to the height of the shipping container that contains an appliance; Column 3 lines 52-65, Additionally the height of the panel can be changed according to the shipping container within);
the protective panel being positioned on the outer vertical surface such that the first side abuts the outer vertical surface and at least covers the front face and the pair of lateral faces (Fig A, cover the faces covered by the appliance crate) with the upper edge of the protective panel being a free edge wherein a top of the single [Not taught: appliance] remains exposed when the protective panel is positioned on the single appliance (Fig A-B, protective panel allows the top of the appliance shipping container with the appliance inside to remain exposed); and
a securing member being attached to the protective panel, the securing member being engaged to releasably retain the protective panel on the single [Not taught: appliance] (Fig B, the panel cover the crate 128 hat holds the shipping container containing an appliance within).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig A- Examiner Annotated Fig 3 of Lato
PNG
media_image2.png
403
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig B- Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Lato
Limitation A: shipping container that protective panel wraps around containers an appliance
Campfield discloses a similar appliance container that teaches Limitation A, appliances instead of shipping containers are wrapped by the protective panel (Figs 1,8 of Campfield, the appliance 12a,12d is an appliance e.g. refrigerator and is secured directly by the protective panel, para 57); the single appliance having an outer vertical surface including a front face, a pair of lateral faces, and a rear face, the front face and the rear face each having a width dimension and the lateral faces each having a length dimension (Fig 1A and 1B of Campfield).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lato and Campfield before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the appliance protective cover of Lato to wrap around an appliance instead of shipping container, as taught by Campfield, to advantageously protect and transport an appliance to designated destination without damage by wrapping around every curve.
Regarding claim 2, Lato as modified includes all of the limitations including discloses wherein the single appliance is selected from a group consisting of installed home appliances for cleaning clothes, washing dishes, preparing food, and refrigerating food (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Campfield teaches a variety of appliances including a refrigerator).
Regarding claim 3, Lato further discloses wherein the flexible material is a cloth material (Column 3, lines 35-40, the material can be a cotton sheet which would be a cloth material).
Regarding claim 4, Lato as modified further discloses wherein the height of the protective panel being no greater than 20% more than the height of the single appliance (Fig 5 of Lato, the height of the protective panel can be no greater than 20% more than the height of the appliance of the modified Lato that is within the shipping container).
Regarding claim 5, Lato as modified further discloses wherein the protective panel has a width from the first lateral edge to the second lateral edge being greater than a summation of the length and width dimensions of the front face of the single appliance and the pair of lateral faces of the single appliance (Column 3 lines 52-65 of Lato, the dimensions of the cover can be adjusted and is therefore capable of having the width of the first later edge to the second lateral edge being greater than a summation of the length and width dimension of the front face of the appliance of the modified Lato and the pair of lateral faces of the appliance).
Regarding claim 6, Lato further discloses wherein the width of the protective panel being less than a summation of length and width dimensions of the front face, the pair of lateral faces, and the rear face (Column 3 lines 52-65 of Lato, the width of the panel is capable of being less than the summation of the length and width dimensions of the front face, the pair of lateral faces, and the rear face of the modified Lato appliance).
Regarding claim 11, Lato further discloses wherein the securing member includes a plurality of straps extending between and biasing the first and second lateral edges of the protective panel toward each other wherein the straps extend across the rear face of the single appliance when the protective panel is positioned on the single appliance (Fig B of Lato, the securing member includes straps that attach together at the end and first and second lateral edges of the protective panel are biased toward each other).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lato and Campfield and International Publication GB2530729 by Ikpa (Here forth “Ikpa”).
Regarding claim 7, Lato does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation B: cushioning material
Ikpa discloses a similar appliance protective panel that teaches Limitation B, further including a cushioning material being positioned within the protective panel and being positioned between the first and second sides of the protective pane (Fig 2-4, cushioning material 22 is between first and second sides 19 and 21 of the protective panel on the one side 23), the cushioning material being spaced from the first and second lateral edges and having a size such that the front face is covered by the cushioning material when the protective panel is positioned on the single appliance (the cushioning material 22 is specifically added to the side 23 of the total protective panel used to transport the appliance rack; the cushioning material extends laterally within the protective panel a distance no more than 12.0 inches greater than the width dimension of the front face; the cushioning material has a rectangular shape; the cushioning material comprises a resiliently compressible material as foam is compressible).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lato as modified and Ikpa before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the appliance protective cover of Lato as modified to the concept of one of the sides having cushioning material added to the protective panel, as taught by Ikpa, to advantageously provide more protection to the appliances within the appliance rack being transported.
Regarding claim 8, Lato as modified includes all of the limitations including, wherein the cushioning material extends laterally within the protective panel a distance no more than 12.0 inches greater than the width dimension of the front face (See the detailed description of claim 7; Fig 2-4 of Ikpa, cushioning 22 only spans one side 23 and Lato as modified applied this to the front portion).
Regarding claim 9, Lato as modified includes all of the limitations including, wherein the cushioning material has a rectangular shape (See the detailed description of claim 7; Fig 2-4 of Ikpa, cushioning 22 only spans one side 23 which is rectangular shaped; Front side of Lato to which the cushioning material is taught is also rectangular).
Regarding claim 10, Lato as modified includes all of the limitations including, wherein the cushioning material comprises a resiliently compressible material (See the detailed description of claim 7; Fig 3 of Ikpa, cushioning 22 is foam).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lato, Campfield and US Publication 2014/0113044 by McIntire (Here forth “McIntire”).
Regarding claim 12, Lato does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation C: magnets
McIntire discloses a similar appliance panel that teaches Limitation C, further including a plurality of magnets being attached to the protective panel for magnetically attaching the protective panel to the single appliance (Para 22 of McIntire, the magnets are embedded within the protective panel to attach the panel to the appliance; as the magnets are embedded within the silicon polymer cover, they are between the first and second faces; Fig 2A, magnets 202 are positioned adjacent to one of the first or second lateral edges and are vertically spaced from each other).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lato as modified and McIntire before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the appliance protective cover of Lato as modified to the concept of magnets within the protective panel, as taught by McIntire, to advantageously secure the cover to the appliance to keep it positioned properly.
Regarding claim 13, Lato as modified includes all of the Limitations including, wherein each magnet of the plurality of magnets are positioned between the first and second faces (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 12; Para 22 of McIntire, the magnets are within the silicon cover first and second faces as they are embedded within).
Regarding claim 14, Lato as modified includes all of the Limitations including, wherein each magnet of the magnets is positioned adjacent to one of the first or second lateral edges and are vertically spaced from each other (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 12; Fig 2A of McIntire, magnets 202 are located spaced vertically from each other at the free ends that can be considered the lateral ends).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lato in view of Campfield, Ikpa and McIntire.
Regarding claim 15, Lato disclose an appliance anti-marring system for protecting an outer surface of a single appliance from damage during an installation process (Abstract, Fig 2 and 6, the anti-marring system 100 is used to transport shipping containers with an appliance), the system including:
[Not taught: the single appliance having an outer vertical surface including a front face, a pair of lateral faces, and a rear face, the single appliance being selected from the group including appliances for cleaning clothes, preparing food, washing dishes, and refrigerating food, the front face and the rear face each having a width dimension and the lateral faces each having a length dimension] (Fig A, the protective panel is capable of covering an appliance within the shipping container for cleaning clothes, preparing food, a dishwasher, stove or refrigerator depending on the size and shape of the appliance);
a protective panel having a first side, a second side (Fig A, protective panel has a first side that comes in contact with the shipping container containing an appliance and second side that opposite and exposed to the sides), an upper edge (Fig B), a lower edge (Fig B), a first lateral edge (Fig B), and a second lateral edge (Fig B), the protective panel being comprised of a flexible material, the flexible material being a cloth material, the protective panel having a rectangular shape (Column 3, lines 35-40, the material can be a cotton sheet which would be a cloth material having a rectangular shape), the protective panel having a height from the upper edge to the lower edge, the height of the protective panel being no greater than 20% more than the height of the single [Not taught: appliance] (Fig 5, the height of the protective panel can be no greater than 20% more than the height of the appliance within the shipping container);
the protective panel being positioned on the outer vertical surface such that the first side abuts the outer vertical surface and at least covers the front face and the pair of lateral faces (Fig A) with the upper edge of the protective panel being a free edge wherein a top of the single [Not taught: appliance] remains exposed when the protective panel is positioned on the single [Not taught: appliance] (Fig A-B, the top of the shipping container containing the appliance remains exposed when the panel is positioned over the appliance and appliance shipping container);
a securing member being attached to the protective panel, the securing member being engaged to releasably retain the protective panel on the single [Not taught: appliance] (Fig B, the securing member engages over the shipping container containing the appliance);
the protective panel having a width from the first lateral edge to the second lateral edge being greater than a summation of the length and width dimensions of the front face of the single [No taught: appliance] and the pair of lateral faces of the single [Not taught: appliance] (Column 3 lines 52-65, the dimensions of the cover can be adjusted and is therefore capable of having the width of the first later edge to the second lateral edge being greater than a summation of the length and width dimension of the front face of the appliance and the pair of lateral faces of the appliance within the shipping container), the width of the protective panel being less than a summation of length and width dimensions of the front face of the single [Not taught: appliance], the pair of lateral faces of the single [Not taught: appliance], and the rear face of the single [Not taught: appliance] (Column 3 lines 52-65, the width of the panel is capable of being less than the summation of the length and width dimensions of the front face, the pair of lateral faces, and the rear face of the appliance that is within the shipping container);
[Not taught: a cushioning material being positioned within the protective panel and being positioned between the first and second sides of the protective panel, the cushioning material being spaced from the first and second lateral edges and having a size such that the front face is covered by the cushioning material when the protective panel is positioned on the single appliance, the cushioning material extending laterally within the protective panel a distance no more than 12.0 inches greater than the width dimension of the front face, the cushioning material having a rectangular shape, the cushioning material comprising a resiliently compressible material];
the securing member including a plurality of straps extending between and biasing together the first and second lateral edges of the protective panel wherein the straps extend across the rear face of the single [Not taught: appliance] when the protective panel is positioned on the single [Not taught: appliance] (Fig B, securing members contain straps that go around the shipping container containing an appliance); and
[Not taught: a plurality of magnets being attached to the protective panel for magnetically attaching the protective panel to the single appliance].
Lato does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation D: shipping container that protective panel wraps around containers an appliance
Limitation E: cushioning material
Limitation F: magnets
Campfield discloses a similar appliance container that teaches Limitation D, appliances not shipping containers are secured by the protective panel (Figs 1,8 of Campfield, the appliance 12a, 12d is an appliance e.g. refrigerator and is secured directly by the protective panel, para 57); the single appliance having an outer vertical surface including a front face, a pair of lateral faces, and a rear face, the single appliance being selected from the group including appliances for cleaning clothes, preparing food, washing dishes, and refrigerating food, the front face and the rear face each having a width dimension and the lateral faces each having a length dimension (Para10,57, Fig 1 of Campfield, the appliance 12d is a refrigerator).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lato and Campfield before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the appliance protective cover of Lato to wrap around an appliance instead of shipping container, as taught by Campfield, to advantageously protect and transport an appliance to designated destination without damage by wrapping around every curve.
Ikpa discloses a similar appliance protective panel that teaches Limitation E, further including a cushioning material being positioned within the protective panel and being positioned between the first and second sides of the protective panel (Fig 2-4, cushioning material 22 is between first and second sides 19 and 21 of the protective panel on the one side 23), the cushioning material being spaced from the first and second lateral edges and having a size such that the front face is covered by the cushioning material when the protective panel is positioned on the single appliance (Fig 2-4, the cushioning material 22 is specifically added to the side 23 of the total protective panel used to transport the appliance rack), the cushioning material extending laterally within the protective panel a distance no more than 12.0 inches greater than the width dimension of the front face, the cushioning material having a rectangular shape, the cushioning material comprising a resiliently compressible material (Fig 2-4, the cushioning material 22 is the cushioning material extends laterally within the protective panel does not extend past the distance of that face; the cushioning material has a rectangular shape; the cushioning material comprises a resiliently compressible material as foam is compressible)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lato and Ikpa before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the appliance protective cover of Lato to the concept of one of the sides having cushioning material added to the protective panel, as taught by Ikpa, to advantageously provide more protection to the appliances within the appliance rack being transported.
McIntire discloses a similar appliance panel that teaches Limitation F, further including a plurality of magnets being attached to the protective panel for magnetically attaching the protective panel to the single appliance (Para 22, the magnets are embedded within the protective panel to attach the panel to the appliance to attach the protective panel to the appliance).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lato and McIntire before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the appliance protective cover of Lato to include the concept of magnets within the protective panel, as taught by McIntire, to advantageously secure the cover to the appliance to keep it positioned properly.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lato and Campfield.
Regarding claim 16, Lato further discloses a method of protecting a single appliance during installation thereof, the method including the steps of:
selecting a protective panel having a size such that its height is no greater than 20% of the height of the single [Not taught: appliance] it is to be positioned on (Fig 5, the height of the protective panel can be no greater than 20% more than the height of the appliance within the shipping container); positioning a protective panel on an exposed outer surface of the single [not taught: appliance] such that a front face and a pair of lateral faces are completely covered with the protective panel and a rear face of the single [Not taught: appliance] is only partially covered with the protective panel (Fig A, the lateral and front faces of the protective panel completely cover the appliance, the rear panel of the protective cover only partially can be seen covering the shipping container with an appliance within) with an upper edge of the protective panel being a free edge wherein a top of the single [Not taught: appliance] remains exposed when the protective panel is positioned on the single appliance (Fig A-B, the upper edge of the panel being a free edge where the top of the shipping container containing the appliance remains exposed);
releasably retaining in place the protective panel with one or more straps attached to the protective panel and extending the one or more straps across the rear face of the single [Not taught: appliance] such that the one or more straps bias a first lateral edge of the protective panel toward a second lateral edge of the protective panel (Fig B, the straps that are part of the securing mechanism can be releasably retained and extend across the rear face of the shipping container with the appliance within);
moving the single appliance to or adjacent to an installation position (Fig A); and
removing the protective panel from the single appliance (A-B, the panel is capable of being removed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the protective panel Lato for a shipping container capable of holding items within to also use the protective panel to protect an appliance.
Lato does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation G: shipping container that protective panel wraps around containers an appliance
Campfield discloses a similar appliance container that teaches Limitation G, appliances are secured within the crates/containers that are secured by the protective panel (Figs 1,8 of Campfield, the appliance 12a, 12d is an appliance e.g. refrigerator and is secured directly by the protective panel, para 57); the single appliance having an outer vertical surface including a front face, a pair of lateral faces, and a rear face, the single appliance being selected from the group including appliances for cleaning clothes, preparing food, washing dishes, and refrigerating food, the front face and the rear face each having a width dimension and the lateral faces each having a length dimension (Para 10, 57 and Fig 1,8 of Campfield, the appliance 12a is a refrigerator).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lato and Campfield before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the appliance protective cover of Lato to wrap around a shipping container that contains an appliance, as taught by Campfield, to advantageously transport an appliance to designated destination without damage by wrapping around every curve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 27 December 2025