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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artois et al. (W. I. P. O. Patent Application Publication WO2003086746A1) hereinafter ARTOIS, in view of Corrigan et al. (W. I. P. O. Patent Application Publication WO2021130612A1) hereinafter CORRIGAN.
Regarding claim 1, ARTOIS teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 below) a cushioning part A1-01 for cushioning an article 58 to be packaged in an outer packaging 64, comprising:
a mat-shaped base layer 4 ; and
a hollow support body 10 protruding above a base cross section cutout 8 on an upper side A1-02 of the mat-shaped base layer 4,
wherein the hollow support body 10 is designed in form of a frustum bridge A1-03 which spans A1-04 the base cross section cutout 8 of the hollow support body 10.
ARTOIS fails to teach hollow support body 10 is designed in form of an arcuate bridge.
However, CORRIGAN teaches (see FIG. 5A - FIG. 5D below) cushioning film 500 (page 1, Abstract, “... films...”) wherein a hollow support body 524 is designed in form of an arcuate bridge C5B-01 to meet design requirements (page 6-7, para. [0020], lines 4-6, “... slit shape...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified hollow support body 10 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS with hollow support body 524 as taught in the cushioning film 500 of CORRIGAN to meet design requirements.
PNG
media_image1.png
874
1048
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
500
1064
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
814
938
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
671
1010
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
660
1137
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
742
827
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
934
492
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
479
911
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
670
1054
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
694
949
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
697
1076
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
633
1023
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
790
1074
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
750
1132
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
616
1083
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, ARTOIS teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) a cushioning part A1-01 for cushioning an article 58 to be packaged in an outer packaging 64, comprising:
a mat-shaped base layer 4 ; and
a plurality of hollow support bodies 10, each protruding above a respective base cross section cutout 8 on an upper side A1-02 of the mat-shaped base layer 4,
wherein the hollow support bodies 10 are designed in form of a frustum bridge A1-03 which spans A1-04 the respective base cross section cutout 8 of the support body 10,
wherein adjacent hollow support bodies 10 of the plurality of hollow support bodies 10 are arranged in at least one row (A) on the base layer 4, and
wherein the frustum bridges A1-03 at the support bodies 10 arranged in a row (A) are arranged parallel (FIG. 1) to one another, and passages A1-05 below the frustum bridges A1-03 are each aligned (FIG. 1) with one another.
ARTOIS fails to teach hollow support bodies 10 are designed in form of an arcuate bridge.
ARTOIS fails to teach arcuate bridges at the support bodies 10 arranged in a row (A) are arranged parallel (FIG. 1) to one another, and passages A1-05 below the arcuate bridges are each aligned (FIG. 1) with one another.
However, CORRIGAN teaches (see FIG. 5A - FIG. 5D above) cushioning film 500 (page 1, Abstract, “... films...”) wherein a hollow support bodies 524 are designed in form of an arcuate bridge C5B-01 to meet design requirements (page 6-7, para. [0020], lines 4-6, “... slit shape...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified hollow support bodes 10 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS with hollow support bodies 524 as taught in the cushioning film 500 of CORRIGAN to meet design requirements.
Regarding claim 3, ARTOIS and CORRIGAN (as applied to claim 2 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01, wherein two adjacent rows (A-B) of support bodies 10 are supported against each other by at least one web.
However, CORRIGAN teaches (see FIG. 5A - FIG. 5D above) cushioning film 500 (page 1, Abstract, “... films...”), wherein two adjacent rows (A-B) of support bodies 524 are supported against each other by at least one web C5C-01 to meet design requirements (page 6-7, para. [0020], lines 4-6, “... slit shape...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified hollow support bodes 10 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS and CORRIGAN with hollow support bodies 524 as taught in the cushioning film 500 of CORRIGAN to meet design requirements.
Regarding claim 4, ARTOIS and CORRIGAN (as applied to claim 2 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01, wherein at least two of the adjacent hollow support bodies 10 arranged in the row (A) are arranged so closely one behind another that springers of their frustum bridges A1-03 merge into one another and form a common base height.
However, CORRIGAN teaches (see FIG. 5A - FIG. 5D above) cushioning film 500 (page 1, Abstract, “... films...”), wherein at least two of the adjacent hollow support bodies 524 arranged in the row (A) are arranged so closely one behind another that springers C5C-02 of their arcuate bridge C5B-01 merge into one another and form a common base height C5B-02 to meet design requirements (page 6-7, para. [0020], lines 4-6, “... slit shape...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified hollow support bodes 10 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS and CORRIGAN with hollow support bodies 524 as taught in the cushioning film 500 of CORRIGAN to meet design requirements.
Regarding claim 9, ARTOIS and CORRIGAN (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01, wherein the cushioning part A1-01 is made of pulp, cardboard, cast fiber, or a combination thereof (page 5, lines 34-37, “... cardboard...”).
Regarding claim 20, ARTOIS and CORRIGAN (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) a sliding box A7-01, comprising:
the cushioning part A1-01 ; and
a sleeve 210 forming an outer packaging 64 in form of a rectangular tube section, wherein the cushioning part A1-01 is configured to be pushed into and out of the sleeve 210 together with the article 58 to be packaged.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 10-17, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARTOIS, in view of CORRIGAN, in further view of Emery (U. S. Patent US2863595A) hereinafter EMERY.
Regarding claim 5, ARTOIS and CORRIGAN (as applied to claim 2 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01, wherein a completely or partially closed lateral surface is formed on at least one of the plurality of hollow support bodies 10 on at least one side of the frustum bridge A1-03.
However, EMERY teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 12 below) packaging cushioning A1-01, wherein a completely or partially closed lateral surface E4-01, E4-02 is formed on at least one of the plurality of hollow support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 on at least one side of the frustum bridge E4-03 for structural purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified hollow support bodes 10 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS and CORRIGAN with hollow support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 as taught in the packaging cushioning A1-01 of EMERY for structural purposes.
PNG
media_image16.png
463
1286
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
234
1109
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
164
339
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
795
794
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
768
510
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
1050
1255
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
837
731
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
169
778
media_image23.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image24.png
178
705
media_image24.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
566
559
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, and EMERY (as applied to claim 5 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01, wherein the lateral surface in a base area A1-06 of the support body 10 is formed in a plane that runs obliquely to the base layer 4 at an acute angle that is between 30° and 90°.
However, EMERY teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 12 above) packaging cushioning A1-01, wherein the lateral surface E4-01, E4-02 in a base area of the support body 41, 43, 61, 62 is formed in a plane that runs obliquely to the base layer 30 at an acute angle E4-04 that is between 30° and 90° to meet design requirements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified lateral surface E4-01, E4-02 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, and EMERY with lateral surface E4-01, E4-02 as taught in the packaging cushioning A1-01 of EMERY to meet design requirements.
Regarding claim 10, ARTOIS and CORRIGAN (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01, further comprising a supporting layer in the form of corrugated cardboard,
wherein an underside of the base layer 4 is laminated onto the supporting layer.
However, EMERY teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 12 above) packaging cushioning A1-01, further comprising a supporting layer 230, 231, 232 in the form of pulp panel (page 12, col. 3, lines 14-16, “... pulp techniques...”),
wherein an underside of the base layer 229 is laminated (Fig. 12) onto the supporting layer 230, 231, 232 for structural purposes.
EMERY fails to teach pulp panel is corrugated cardboard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS and CORRIGAN with packaging cushioning A1-01 of EMERY for structural purposes.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected corrugated cardboard for the pulp panel (page 12, col. 3, lines 14-16, “... pulp techniques...”) in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, and EMERY to meet design requirements. 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.
Regarding claim 11, ARTOIS,CORRIGAN, and EMERY (as applied to claim 11 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01, further comprising a recess in the corrugated cardboard in an area of the base cross section cutout 8 of the hollow support body 10, the recess providing an access to a cavity of the hollow support body 10.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the corrugated cardboard in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS,CORRIGAN, and EMERY with a recess to reduce use of materials since 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. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 12, ARTOIS, and CORRIGAN (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01, wherein the base layer 4 outside the hollow support body 10 has at least one straight folding edge,
wherein the straight folding edge divides the base layer 4 into at least a first and a second section,
wherein hollow support bodies 10 are arranged and/or designed in the first and second section in such a way that the first and a second section can be folded relative to one another by 90°.
However, EMERY teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 12 above) packaging cushioning A1-01, wherein the base layer 30 outside the hollow support body 41, 43, 61, 62 has at least one straight folding edge 65,
wherein the straight folding edge 65 divides the base layer 30 into at least a first E4-05 and a second section E4-06,
wherein support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 are arranged and/or designed in the first E4-05 and second section E4-06 in such a way that the first E4-05 and a second section E4-06 can be folded relative to one another by 90° (Fig. 4) for securement purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified base area A1-06 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS and CORRIGAN with base layer 30 as taught in the packaging cushioning A1-01 of EMERY for securement purposes.
Regarding claim 13, ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, EMERY (as applied to claim 12 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01,
wherein those of the hollow support bodies 10 arranged at the folding edge in the first section are not opposed to those of the support bodies 10 that are arranged at the folding edge in the second section.
However, EMERY teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 12 above) packaging cushioning A1-01,wherein those of the hollow support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 arranged at the folding edge 65 in the first section E4-05 are not opposed to those of the hollow support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 that are arranged at the folding edge 65 in the second section E4-06 for securement purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified hollow support bodies 10 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, and EMERY with hollow support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 as taught in the packaging cushioning A1-01 of EMERY for securement purposes.
Regarding claim 14, ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, EMERY (as applied to claim 12 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01,
wherein a first support body 10 of the support bodies 10 is arranged in the first section at the folding edge and in the second section a second support body 10 of the support bodies 10 is arranged in the second section at the folding edge,
wherein the first support body 10 and the second support body 10 are arranged opposite one another,
wherein a lateral surface of the first support body 10 facing the folding edge, regardless of whether it is open, partially closed or completely closed, forms a first acute angle with the base layer 4,
wherein a lateral surface of the second support body 10 facing the folding edge, regardless of whether it is open, partially closed or completely closed, forms a second acute angle with the base layer 4, and
wherein a sum of the first acute angle and the second acute angle is smaller than 90°.
However, EMERY teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 12 above) packaging cushioning A1-01, wherein those of the hollow support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 arranged at the folding edge 65 in the first section E4-05 are not opposed to those of the hollow support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 that are arranged at the folding edge 65 in the second section E4-06 for securement purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified hollow support bodies 10 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, and EMERY with hollow support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 as taught in the packaging cushioning A1-01 of EMERY for securement purposes.
Regarding claim 15, ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, EMERY (as applied to claim 14 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01, wherein lateral surfaces of the support bodies 10 in the second and/or a third section have no openings.
However, EMERY teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 12 above) packaging cushioning A1-01, wherein lateral surfaces of the support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 in the second section E4-06 and/or a second section E4-07 have no openings for securement purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified hollow support bodies 10 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, and EMERY with hollow support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 as taught in the packaging cushioning A1-01 of EMERY for securement purposes.
Regarding claim 16, ARTOIS, and CORRIGAN (as applied to claim 12 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01,
wherein that the base layer 4 has two, three, four or more straight folding edges,
wherein the base layer 4 is accordingly divided into three, four, five or more sections, and
wherein the support bodies 10 are each arranged and/or designed in an area of the folding edges in such a way that two adjacent ones of the three, four, five or more sections can be folded by 90° relative to one another, in order to form the cushioning part A1-01 with a cross section in shape of a U or in shape of a rectangle.
However, EMERY teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 12 above) packaging cushioning A1-01,
wherein that the base layer 30 has (Fig. 9) two, three, four or more straight folding edges 65,
wherein the base layer 30 is accordingly divided into three, four, five or more second sections E4-06 / E4-07, and
wherein the support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 are each arranged and/or designed in an area of the folding edges 65 in such a way that two adjacent ones of the three, four, five or more sections E4-06 / E4-07 can be folded by 90° relative to one another, in order to form the cushioning part A1-01 with a cross section in shape of a U (Fig. 4) for securement purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified hollow support bodies 10 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, and CORRIGAN with hollow support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 as taught in the packaging cushioning A1-01 of EMERY for securement purposes.
Regarding claim 17, ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, and EMERY (as applied to claim 16 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01,
wherein two of the folding edges are formed at an angle of 90° to one another on the base layer 4 to form the cushioning part A1-01 in the form of a cube.
However, EMERY teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 12 above) packaging cushioning A1-01,
wherein two of the folding edges 65 are formed at an angle of 90° to one another on the base layer 30 to form the packaging cushioning A1-01 in the form of a cube (Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8) for securement purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified hollow support bodies 10 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, CORRIGAN and EMERY with hollow support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 as taught in the packaging cushioning A1-01 of EMERY for securement purposes.
Regarding claim 21, ARTOIS, and CORRIGAN (as applied to claim 20 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) sliding box A7-01,
wherein the cushioning part A1-01 has a U-shaped cross section with a second and third section which is folded relative to a first section as edges, and
wherein the cushioning part A1-01 including all sections is formed in one piece.
However, EMERY teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 12 above) sliding box E12-01,
wherein the cushioning part E12-01 has a U-shaped cross section with a second and third section which is folded relative to a first section as edges, and
wherein the cushioning part E12-01 including all sections is formed in one piece (Fig. 12) for securement purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, and CORRIGAN with cushioning part E12-01 of EMERY for securement purposes.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARTOIS, in view of CORRIGAN, in further view of EMERY, further view of Gale (U. S. Patent US5806683A) hereinafter GALE.
Regarding claim 18, ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, and EMERY (as applied to claim 12 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01,
wherein a fourth or a fifth section lies opposite the first section of the cushioning part A1-01 when folded, and
wherein at least one spacer is arranged to support the fourth or fifth section at a distance from the first section.
However, GALE teaches (see FIG. - 1, FIG. - 2, FIG. - 3 below) molded fiber inner structure 12,
wherein a third section 108 lies opposite the first section 107 of the molded fiber inner structure 12 when folded, and
wherein at least one spacer 132 is arranged to support the third section 108 at a distance from the first section 107 for securement purposes.
GALE fails to teach a fourth or a fifth section lies opposite the first section 107 of the molded fiber inner structure 12 when folded.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, and EMERY as taught in the molded fiber inner structure 12 (containing third section 108) of GALE for securement purposes.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the third section 108 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, EMERY, and GALE with a fourth section / fifth section for securement purposes since duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
PNG
media_image26.png
511
796
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image27.png
384
733
media_image27.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image28.png
401
866
media_image28.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, EMERY, and GALE (as applied to claim 18 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01, wherein a hollow support body 10 is formed in the spacer.
However, GALE teaches (see FIG. - 1, FIG. - 2, FIG. - 3 above) molded fiber inner structure 12, wherein a solid support body is formed by the spacer 132 for securement purposes.
GALE fails to teach a hollow support body is formed in the spacer 132.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified spacer 132 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, EMERY, and GALE with hollow support body 10 of ARTOIS for securement purposes since duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARTOIS, in view of CORRIGAN, in further view of EMERY, in further view of Buhl (E. P. O. Patent Application Publication EP3848302A1) hereinafter BUHL.
Regarding claim 6, ARTOIS and CORRIGAN (as applied to claim 4 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01,
wherein a partially closed lateral surface is formed in a base area A1-06 of at least one of the support bodies 10 between the base layer 4 and a predetermined height above the base layer 4 ; and
wherein the partially closed lateral surface has an opening above the predetermined height to form a passage below the frustum bridge A1-03.
However, EMERY teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 12 above) packaging cushioning A1-01, wherein a completely closed lateral surface E4-02 is formed in a base area 31, 32 for structural purposes.
EMERY fails to teach completely closed lateral surface E4-02 is formed in a base area 31, 32 of at least one of support bodies 41, 43, 61, 62 between the base layer 30 and a predetermined height above the base layer 30.
EMERY fails to teach completely closed lateral surface E4-02 has an opening above the predetermined height to form a passage below the frustum bridge E4-03.
However, BUHL teaches (see Fig. 5b below) a support body B5b-01 wherein support bodies 2 form a passage 7 below the conical bridge B5b-02 for structural purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified base area A1-06 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS and CORRIGAN with base area 31, 32 (containing lateral surface E4-02) as taught in the packaging cushioning A1-01 of EMERY for structural purposes.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified support bodies 10 in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, and EMERY with support bodies 2 (containing opening \ passage 7 above predetermined height B5b-05) as taught in the support body B5b-01 of BUHL for structural purposes.
PNG
media_image29.png
594
940
media_image29.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, EMERY, and BUHL (as applied to claim 6 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ARTOIS fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 11 above) cushioning part A1-01,
wherein the common base height is between ¼ and ¾ of a vertical distance A1-07 between the base layer 4 and an apex A1-08 of the frustum bridge A1-03, and
wherein the predetermined height is between ¼ and ¾ of the vertical distance A1-07 between the base layer 4 and the apex A1-08 of the frustum bridge A1-03.
However, CORRIGAN teaches (see FIG. 5A - FIG. 5D above) cushioning film 500 (page 1, Abstract, “... films...”), wherein the common base height C5B-02 is between ¼ and ¾ of a vertical distance C5B-03 between the base layer C5B-04 and an apex C5B-05 of the arcuate bridge C5B-01 to meet design requirements (page 6-7, para. [0020], lines 4-6, “... slit shape...”).
However, BUHL teaches (see Fig. 5b above) support body B5b-01 wherein the predetermined height B5b-05 is between ¼ and ¾ of the vertical distance B5b-04 between the base layer and the apex B5b-06 of the conical bridge B5b-02 for structural purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified common base height / predetermined height in the cushioning part A1-01 of ARTOIS, CORRIGAN, EMERY, and BUHL with common base height C5B-02 of CORRIGAN to meet design requirements / predetermined height B5b-05 of BUHL for structural purposes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hall (W. I. P. O. Patent Application Publication WO1998010921A2): teaches a “panel” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Norton et al. (U. S. Patent US3018015A): teaches a “packing sheet” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Robb (U. S. Patent US3227598A): teaches a “core structure” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Malloy et al. (U. K. Patent Application Publication GB2107284A): teaches a “container”” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Lin (U. S. Patent US5643656A): teaches a “packing” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Gale (W. I. P. O. Patent Application Publication WO1998026996A1): teaches a “package” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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 ttps://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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735