Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/466,021

CUSHIONING SHEET AND PACKAGED PRODUCT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 13, 2023
Examiner
FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D
Art Unit
1781
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Seiko Epson Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
769 granted / 984 resolved
+13.2% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1010
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
49.1%
+9.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 984 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Response to Election 1. Applicant’s election of claims 1-6, without traverse, in the reply filed on November 20, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Information Disclosure Statement 2. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 13, 2023, February 13, 2024, February 20, 2024, February 28, 2025, March 7, 2025, and September 25, 2025, have been considered and initialed by the Examiner. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 3. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. 4. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farinelli (EP 1902964). Farinelli discloses a protective packaging insert comprising at least one sheet of corrugated cardboard defined between a first side and a second internal region is a portion of the sheet of cardboard opposite side, the sheet including a peripheral board two different regions (areas) where a thickness of the sheet is deformed through compression (abstract). Figure 3 of Farinelli shows a first potion in a first area (22) and a second portion in a second area (21) on the same plane. As can be seen in Figure 3, of Farinelli, as shown below: PNG media_image1.png 441 847 media_image1.png Greyscale the internal region 21 (second portion in a second area) is more compressed than the peripheral region 22 (first portion in a first area), since it is subjected to compression which is such as to deform the ridges of the sheet of corrugated cardboard 20 (paragraphs 25-26). Because the compressed internal portion supports the weight of an object placed in the packaging (paragraph 26), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the internal portion to have a strength stronger than the peripheral portion, as in claim 1. Concerning claim 2, Farinelli shows, in Figure 3, the first portion includes a first flat plate portion extending in a first plane and having a flat plate shape, and a first support portion attached to the first flat plate portion, the second portion includes a second flat plate portion extending in the first plane and having a flat plate shape, and a second support portion attached to the second flat plate portion, the first support portion is formed of a first member, and the second support portion is formed of a second member different from the first member. Concerning claims 3-5, Farinelli shows, in Figure 3, the first portion includes a first flat plate portion extending in a first plane and having a flat plate shape, and a first support portion attached to the first flat plate portion, the second portion includes a second flat plate portion extending in the first plane and having a flat plate shape, and a second support portion attached to the second flat plate portion, the first support portion is formed of a sheet folded into a corrugated shape, and the second support portion is formed of a sheet folded into a corrugated shape. Farinelli does not appear to explicitly teach the density of the cushioning sheet portions; however density modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04. Concerning claim 6, Farinelli shows, in Figure 3, the second area is closer to an end portion of the cushioning sheet than the first area. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 5. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukino (JP 2017071400 A). Kukino discloses a packaging cushioning material (abstract) where Figure 22 shows a fist portion provided in a fist area (54b) and a second portion provided in a second area (54a) on the same plane as the first area, as shown below: PNG media_image2.png 217 436 media_image2.png Greyscale . Kukino discloses the cushioning body is formed stacking two or more corrugated cardboard sheets (claim 4 of Kukino). Kukino does not appear to explicitly teach the strength of the cushioning sheet; however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the cushioning sheet is carried out using material (cardboard) and process conditions (adhere) which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the cushioning material discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed strength of the first and second portion, as in claim 1. Concerning claim 2, Kukino shows, in Figure 22, the first portion includes a first flat plate portion extending in a first plane and having a flat plate shape, and a first support portion attached to the first flat plate portion, the second portion includes a second flat plate portion extending in the first plane and having a flat plate shape, and a second support portion attached to the second flat plate portion, the first support portion is formed of a first member, and the second support portion is formed of a second member different from the first member. Concerning claims 3-5, Kukino shows, in Figure 22, the first portion includes a first flat plate portion extending in a first plane and having a flat plate shape, and a first support portion attached to the first flat plate portion, the second portion includes a second flat plate portion extending in the first plane and having a flat plate shape, and a second support portion attached to the second flat plate portion, the first support portion is formed of a sheet folded into a corrugated shape, and the second support portion is formed of a sheet folded into a corrugated shape. Kukino does not appear to explicitly teach the density of the cushioning sheet portions; however density modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04. Concerning claim 6, Kukino shows, in Figure 22, the second area is closer to an end portion of the cushioning sheet than the first area. Conclusion 6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 13, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 18, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595547
TRANSPARENT CONDUCTIVE FILM AND USE OF SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598696
Component Carrier and Method of Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595546
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SILICON-COATED COPPER, SILICON-COATED ANTI-OXIDATION COPPER USING SAME, AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583203
METHOD OF MAKING FLAT FOAM SHEET COMPRISING RECYCLED PET AND THE PRODUCT RESULTING THEREFROM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570078
Waterproof-breathable multilayer structure
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 984 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month