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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 12, and 20 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.
Claim 2 line 6 recites, “…for a first corner post and a second corner post rotated 180°…” It is unclear whether these are meant to be the first and second corner post legs as defined in independent claim 1 or new elements. For purposes of examining the claims on the merits, Examiner considers the “first corner post” and “second corner post” of Claim 2 to be the first and second corner post legs, as set forth in independent claim 1.
Examiner notes that claims 12 and 20 present the same ambiguity.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 line 10 ends in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 9-10, 12-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP 2004099116 A) in view of Whirlpool (DE 202013105112 U1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 9-10, 12-16, and 19-20, Uchida discloses a packaging material comprising a corner post fabricated from a paperboard blank (see Fig. 4) the corner post comprising a first corner post leg (see illustration below) having a first leg inner wall and a first leg outer wall; and a second corner post leg having a second leg inner wall and a second leg outer wall;
PNG
media_image1.png
730
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first corner post leg and the second corner post leg intersect at a post corner (26), wherein the first leg outer wall comprises a plurality of recessed areas (25a) extending inward from an outer surface of the first leg outer wall, wherein the plurality of recessed areas are spaced in a longitudinal direction of the corner post to define a plurality of ribs spaced in the longitudinal direction along the first leg outer wall (see Figure 4), and wherein the plurality of recessed areas extend to a first post leg edge that is opposite the post corner (Examiner notes that the recesses are positioned away from the corner 26; and the recesses are formed on aligned inner wall panels of each corner post leg). Examiner considers the ribs to be corner post material located between, above, and below the recesses. Uchida lacks teaching of a plastic film wrapped package.
Whirlpool teaches a packaging system for household appliances comprising protective corner posts and a plastic film wrapping (L; see Par. 0015 and 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to provide a plastic shrink wrapping to the packaging system taught by Uchida in order to further protect an appliance for shipping that is being packaged, as taught by Whirlpool.
Regarding claim 4, Uchida, as modified above, discloses a corner post wherein the first corner post leg comprises a first leg interior wall disposed between the first leg inner wall and the first leg outer wall (Uchida; see Fig. 4). Examiner notes that the inner wall of each leg comprises three distinct panels.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida in view of Whirlpool as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorenson (US 4399915 A).
Regarding claim 5, Uchida, as modified above, lacks a plurality of recessed edge contours along the post corner. Sorenson teaches a machine foldable corner post comprising a plurality of recessed edge contours (44) disposed at a post corner and extending inward from an outer surface of a first leg outer wall and an outer surface of a second leg outer wall, wherein the plurality of recessed edge contours are spaced in the longitudinal direction of the corner post (see Figures 4 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Uchida’s post corner where the first and second outer legs meet to have recessed contours in order to provide stress relief along the post corner fold (Sorenson; Col 3 lines 35-55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-8, 11, and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
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 J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734