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 .
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 6/16/2026. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
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 § 103
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cataldo US 8,919,082 B1, previously cited, in view of EDMONDS 3,251,460.
With regards to claim 1, Cataldo discloses a protective package assembly, comprising: a middle package 20 comprising a plurality of side buffer boards 22/24/26/28, the side buffer boards being connected in a ring shape to form an accommodating space communicated with an upper opening and a lower opening, wherein the middle package is a unitary structure (connected by thin-walled portion 40/45); an upper package 60/65 comprising: an upper buffer board configured to cover the upper opening; and an upper buffer member (shown above) protruding from a surface of the upper buffer board, the upper buffer members being disposed toward an interior of the accommodating space wherein the upper package is a unitary structure made of a foamed material (Abstract and Col 2:56-58); and a lower package 60/65 comprising: a lower buffer board configured to cover the lower opening; and a lower buffer member (shown above) protruding from a surface of the lower buffer board, the lower buffer members being disposed toward the interior of the accommodating space, wherein the lower package is a unitary structure made of a foamed material (Abstract and Col 2:56-58).
Cataldo discloses a lower and upper buffer member, but it does not specifically disclose a plurality of upper buffer members (shown above) distributed at intervals.
However, EDMONDS teaches that it was known in the art to have protective foam packaging that has a foam lower 14 and foam upper 12 buffer board have a plurality of buffer members 32/34/40 distributed at intervals. (Para. 0021-0022)
The packages of Cataldo and EDMONDS are both formed of expanded polystyrene foam, EDMONDS recites the buffers 40 may be arranged to provide protection to the articles stored in the package. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lower and upper buffer board in Cataldo by providing a plurality of lower buffer members and upper buffer members distributed at intervals as taught by EDMONDS for the purposes of conforming to the article and protect it from damage during transport.
With regards to claim 2, The combination of Cataldo in view of EDMONDS discloses the accommodating space of the middle package (20; Cataldo) has an annular inner surface, the upper buffer members (32/34/40; EDMONDS) comprise a first upper buffer member and a second upper buffer member, a height of the first upper buffer member is greater than a height of the second upper buffer member, and a shortest distance from the second upper buffer member to the annular inner surface is greater than a shortest distance from the first upper buffer member to the annular inner surface. (Col 3:38-70 and Fig. 4)
With regards to claim 3, The combination of Cataldo in view of EDMONDS discloses the upper buffer members (32/34/40; EDMONDS) comprise a plurality of first upper buffer members and a second upper buffer member, a height of the first upper buffer members is greater than a height of the second upper buffer member, and the first upper buffer members are arranged around a periphery of the second upper buffer member. (Col 3:38-70 and Fig. 4)
With regards to claim 4, EDMONDS further teaches top surfaces of the lower buffer members are coplanar (at 30).
With regards to claim 5, EDMONDS further teaches the upper buffer members are a combination of different areas and arranged at intervals. (Col 3:38-70 and Fig. 4)
With regards to claim 6, EDMONDS further teaches the lower buffer members are a combination of an identical area. (Col 3:38-70 and Fig. 4)
With regards to claim 7, Cataldo is capable of having the protective package assembly accommodate an object weighing less than ten kilograms and is subjected to a drop test from a height greater than ten centimeters, a total cushioning force of the protective package assembly is greater than cushioning forces of a corner, an edge, and a surface of the protective package assembly, and the cushioning forces of the corner and the edge is greater than the cushioning force of the surface, depending on the test to be performed.
The USPTO is not equipped to perform specialized tests upon prior art devices in order to determine an inherent property of a prior art device. Once a reference teaching the product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2112(V). “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted].” The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)).
With regards to claim 8, Cataldo discloses the protective package assembly is a combined structure of the middle package 20, the upper package 60/65, and the lower package 60/65.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cataldo US 8,919,082 B1, previously cited, in view of EDMONDS 3,251,460 and further in view of ROSKOSS US 2013/0140317 A1, previously cited.
With regards to claim 9, Cataldo discloses the material of the middle package, the upper package, and the lower package is formed of a foam material (polystyrene), but it does not specifically disclose the material is foamed polyethylene.
ROSKOSS teaches that it was known in the art to have a protective package with a material of the middle package, the upper package, and the lower package be foamed polyethylene. (Para. 0015-0016)
Cataldo recites in Col 3:16-22 that modifications and substitutions can be made to the package without departing from the invention. ROSKOSS teaches that foamed polystyrene and foamed polyethylene are interchangeable materials, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material in Cataldo by providing a foamed polyethylene material as taught by ROSKOSS for the purposes of providing an alternative material to form the package and provide thermal insulation to the package.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cataldo US 8,919,082 B1, in view of EDMONDS 3,251,460 and further in view of Bhargava et al. US 2021/0237953 A1.
With regards to claim 10, Cataldo discloses the side buffer boards have a thickness, but it does not specifically disclose at least one of the side buffer boards has a thickness smaller than the thickness of other side buffer boards.
However, Bhargava teaches that it was known in the art to have a protective package have at least one of the side buffer boards has a thickness smaller than the thickness of other side buffer boards. (Para. 0075 and 0118)
Cataldo recites in Col 3:16-22 that modifications and substitutions can be made to the package without departing from the invention. Bhargava teaches that each side buffer board (panel) can have a different thickness to improve on structural integrity of the package. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side buffer boards in Cataldo by providing at least one of the side buffer boards with a thickness smaller than a thickness of other side buffer boards as taught by Bhargava for the purposes of increasing structural integrity and/or thermal energy retention of the package.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the combination of Cataldo in view of EDMONDS is improper because modifying Cataldo with EDMONDS would destroy the primary intended purpose and functional integrity of Cataldo because “Introducing the intervals (gaps) between the crush ribs taught by EDMONDS into the top and bottom panels of Cataldo would inherently reduce the thickness and volume of the foam material in those regions, thereby creating thermal channels that allow external heat to easily penetrate… Such a modification would critically degrade the thermal insulation capability of Cataldo, rendering it completely unsuitable for its primary intended purpose of maintaining low temperatures for perishables.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Cataldo with EDMONDS provides Cataldo with an additional structure not a replacement. Cataldo presently has an upper and lower buffer board that includes a buffer member, but it does not disclose buffer members distributed in intervals. EDMONDS is cited to be added to the structure of Cataldo, not to replace it. Therefore, it would not destroy the function of the primary reference.
The Applicant also argues “...the structural behaviors of the components in Cataldo and EDMONDS are functionally incompatible. EDMONDS explicitly states that its crush ribs are designed to be "progressively crushable under shock or high impact" (see EDMONDS, Cot. 2, lines 11-13), and that they "by reason of their relatively small surface area, tend to be progressively crushed under shock loads" (see EDMONDS, Cot. 3, lines 40-43). Implementing such intentionally destructible ribs into Cataldo (which is intended to bear the weight of heavy perishables like seafood and meat) would fail to provide a stable supporting surface for the goods. The progressive crushing of the internal support structure upon impact would ruin the internal arrangement and structural integrity required for Cataldo's cooler.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the structures may be intended for crushing, it does not have to be.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights