DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed February 20th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, and 9 have been amended. Claims 2 and 8 have been cancelled.
The Section 112, 2nd paragraph rejections made in the Office actions mailed November 20th, 2026 have been partially withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Section 103 rejections made in the Office actions mailed November 20th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s arguments being persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, regarding certain Section 112, 2nd paragraph rejections, filed February 20th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Please see below regarding the Examiner’s response to amended claim 9.
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed February 20th, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, the issues regarding claim 9 are not fixed by Applicant’s amendment as it is still fundamentally unclear what is being compared (i.e. what is the definition of “packing density”), what the scope of a “comparable packaging article” might be, and whether or not the article actually comprises at least 12 cavities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7, & 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaji et al. (JP 2014-080022 A) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaji teaches a foamed body usable as a transport container such as agricultural product boxes and insulated containers and packaging material for parts [0118], the foamed body comprises an in-mold foam molding foamed by filling a plurality of thermoplastic resin foamed/foamable particles (beads), wherein the thermoplastic resin is preferably an aromatic polyester resin or a polylactic acid resin [0013-0016, 0052], into a cavity of any shape having excellent smooth surface layer (inherently a skin-formed portion) having no (or only a few bubble cross-sections) [0050-0053] due to a number of smooth skin-forming factors in the composition, foaming, and molding process (without post-molding subtractive machining) [0011, 0032-0033, 0039-0041, 0050-0055, 0060-0073, 0076, 0079], which may be preferably a complex shape [0005], wherein the smooth surface layer comprises an arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) of 25 µm, with 15 µm or less being particularly preferred, with (polyester-based) examples being within the claimed range [0089-0090, Table 1], wherein the roughness allows for a vacuum-formed surface sheet/film (second-skin formed portion) to be laminated thereon without wrinkles [0089, 0097-0098, 0123].
However, the complex shape is not stated to comprise a first plurality of cavities separated by a plurality of walls.
AAPA teaches known product cushioning packaging for parts such as container-like bead-foam expanded polystyrene (EPS) (Fig. 1B) example and expanded polypropylene (EPP) examples (Figs. 1C-1D), wherein the EPS example comprises pluralities of cavities separated by a plurality of walls, wherein the cavities may comprise different shapes and depths for differently shaped articles (Fig. 1A) and/or cavities comprising holes at the bottom thereof (Fig. 1B), and ridged walls having vents formed therethrough also having concave grip U-shaped cavities at the peripheral walls formed therein at a depth perpendicular to the holed cavities (Figs. 1B & 1C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention forming a transport container for agricultural products or parts in general to form at least a first plurality of cavities separated by a plurality of walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to well-known examples of transport containers for produce or parts for well-known molded packaging container shapes.
Regarding claim 9, while a packing density is not taught, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Yamaji teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaji in view of AAPA, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tegrant (Expanded Polypropylene Design Guide) (hereinafter “Tegrant”).
Regarding claims 3-6, while Yamaji/AAPA teaches a PLA particle-foam molded article forming a packaging container having a plurality of cavities separated by walls comprising skin-formed portions having a surface roughness within the claimed range is taught, the walls comprising a wall thickness relative to inches or beads and a taper relative to the depth axis of each cavity is not taught.
Tegrant teaches an expanded polypropylene bead foam design guide, wherein while a minimum wall thickness should be 8 mm, smaller wall thicknesses of 3-4 mm are achievable, dependent on bead size, wall height to width ratio, and manufacturing parameters (pg. 6), wherein a height to width ratio of 3:1 for a wall should result in a wall that is 2 beads thick minimum and a ratio of 7:1 resulting in a wall that is 3 beads thick minimum and a wall separation distance of two times the wall width (pg. 7) for an estimated possible depth to hydraulic diameter ratio range of 0.5 to 3.5 given adjacent sidewalls/ribs with the same height and width, and draft angle (taper) of 0.5° minimum and typical 1° draft angle unless the part has a low aspect ratio (width to height) wherein it may be higher (pg. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide similar values/ranges for a foam bead molding and/or optimized values/ranges for a foam bead molding that allows for thinner walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to follow a design guide for molding a bead-foam product and/or used the guide as a starting point for formulating similar/same overlapping ranges via routine experimentation/optimization.
Claims 3, 6-7, 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaji in view of AAPA, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Schlaadt Plastics GMBH (DE 202004020031 U1) (hereinafter “Schlaadt”) AND/OR Schmidt (BR 102019014456 A2) (hereinafter “Schmidt”), wherein claim 11 is also or alternatively further in view of Lee (KR 2014-0004121 U) (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 3, 6-7, and 10-16, in the event that the features as recited above are not made obvious and Yamaji in view of the AAPA does not teach or make obvious the features as claimed:
Schlaadt teaches a protective/cushioning packaging insert formed of expanded (bead) polystyrene, polypropylene, polyethylene, or other special foams [0011] formed in one piece comprising through holes or blind holes having protrusions therein for centering bottles [0012] with sidewalls defined between adjacent holes, wherein the holes are sized to receive entire bottles [0021], which often have aspect ratios of height/depth to hydraulic diameter larger than two, wherein the inserts can be customized to hold between 5 and 15 bottles [0016], wherein additional recesses formed in a depth direction perpendicular to the first recesses allow for easy stacking [0022], wherein additional perpendicular recesses, some of which function as grips and others of which have through holes and/or function as vents/keyholes [0024-0025].
AND/OR
Schmidt teaches a protective/cushioning tray for packaging and transporting fruit manufactured from expanded polystyrene or another material having equivalent characteristics [0001, 00017] comprising upper and lower cribs providing multiple cavities surrounded by structural ribs/walls and the cavities comprising for purposes of ventilation multiple holes through the bottom (All Figs. [28]) and sidewalls (All Figs. [27]), the latter also functioning as additional cavities having a depth perpendicular to the other cavities, wherein the trays function by attaching to multiple other molded trays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for examples of protective/cushioning sidewall containing molded container-type shapes formed from a similar foam-bead material having multiple desired features. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form grips, ventilation features, and appropriately dimensioned cavities [Schlaadt] AND/OR been motivated to provide better mechanical resistance, ventilation features, that allows produce therein to extend shelf life of produce contained therein [Schmidt].
Alternatively or further regarding claim 11, Lee teaches a Styrofoam fruit box having multiple types of recesses/cavities having different shapes and depths for receiving different types of fruit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for examples of protective/cushioning sidewall containing molded container-type shapes formed from a similar foam-bead material having multiple desired features. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to for packaging for receiving different types of items, such as fruits.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, & 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba et al. (JP 2016-222807 A) (hereinafter “Chiba”) in view of Sakakibara et al. (JP 2014-193950 A) (hereinafter “Sakakibara”) and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, and 8, Chiba teaches an expanded polylactic acid bead foam molding improved over conventional resins made from petroleum resources due to it being plant-derived, specifically polystyrene foam bead moldings and polyolefin foamed bead moldings [0002] having lightweight, cushioning, and insulating properties for forming plate-like, column-like, block-like shapes, container-like or box-like, as well as more complex three-dimensional shapes by filling a mold cavity with a plurality of foam particles [0006, 0029, 0086, 0098], wherein the thin-walled portions and/or fitting portions have a high strength to density ratio [0009, 0061] while also comprising compositional properties that enables a smooth surface having no voids/gaps between the expanded beads (skin-formed portion over the entire outer surface) [0007, 0009, 0029, 0106, 0113] and also having no wrinkles or shrinkage [0036, 0042, 0110] and substantially closed cell such that it would inherently form a skin over the surface [0051-0052], wherein thin wall portions are preferably 10 mm (~⅖ inch), and more preferably 5 mm or less (~⅕ inch), and the plurality of expanded beads defining a surface comprising a number of beads in a plan view of 10 or more per square centimeter, preferably 12 or more, more preferably 15 or more, the upper limit being approximately 100, preferably 50 [0026, 0063], giving a calculated a numerical linear density comprising an upper limit of about 1 per mm, wherein as applied to the thin wall thickness range as recited above would be less than 10 beads per wall thickness, and a preferred range of less than 3.5 beads per wall thickness.
However, while a smooth, non-wrinkled surface is disclosed, but an explicit surface roughness measurement is not taught.
Sakakibara teaches a foam-bead molded body in which noise is suppressed used as a cushioning and parts packaging material, such as automotive gear parts [0001-0002, 0005-0006, 0033], wherein the foam-beads are polystyrene particles that are filled into a mold cavity and fused together [0019, 0021], wherein the roughness (Ra) should ideally be 0 µm but considering manufacturing conditions and an acceptable level of noise, a range of 5.0 to 10.0 µm is workable and a range of 5.6 to 9.9 µm is preferable [0013, 0036-0037]. Furthermore, it is taught that a small amount (2 to 18 parts per 100 parts mass of polystyrene) of particles of polyacrylate alkyl ester, such as butyl acrylate, are added to the polystyrene particles as a rubbery component, in order to further lower noise ratings, to improve impact resistance, and may affect smoothness [0007-0009, 0012, 0017-0018, 0023-0026, Table].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to measure and/or provide a roughness value within the claimed range for bead-foam articles comprising part packaging by optimizing skin surface conditions of Chiba and/or including a rubber-like particle component, such as a polyacrylate alkyl ester. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a reduction in noise to prevent a likelihood of abnormal noises while taking manufacturing considerations and acceptable noise level into account [0013].
However, the parts packaging bead-foam molded article having a smooth skin-formed surface is not stated to comprise a first plurality of cavities separated by a plurality of walls.
AAPA teaches known product cushioning packaging for parts such as container-like bead-foam expanded polystyrene (EPS) (Fig. 1B) example and expanded polypropylene (EPP) examples (Figs. 1C-1D), wherein the EPS example comprises pluralities of cavities separated by a plurality of walls, wherein the cavities may comprise different shapes and depths for differently shaped articles (Fig. 1A) and/or cavities comprising holes at the bottom thereof (Fig. 1B), and ridged walls having vents formed therethrough also having concave grip U-shaped cavities at the peripheral walls formed therein at a depth perpendicular to the holed cavities (Figs. 1B & 1C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention forming a transport container for agricultural products or parts in general to form at least a first plurality of cavities separated by a plurality of walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to well-known examples of transport containers for produce or parts for well-known molded packaging container shapes.
Regarding claim 9, while a packing density is not taught, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Chiba teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba in view of Sakakibara, AND AAPA, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tegrant (Expanded Polypropylene Design Guide) (hereinafter “Tegrant”).
Regarding claims 3-6, while Chiba/Sakakibara/AAPA teach a PLA particle-foam molded article forming a parts packaging container having a plurality of cavities separated by walls comprising skin-formed portions having a surface roughness within the claimed range is taught as recited above, the walls comprising a wall thickness relative to inches or beads and a taper relative to the depth axis of each cavity is not taught.
Tegrant teaches an expanded polypropylene bead foam design guide, wherein while a minimum wall thickness should be 8 mm, smaller wall thicknesses of 3-4 mm are achievable, dependent on bead size, wall height to width ratio, and manufacturing parameters (pg. 6), wherein a height to width ratio of 3:1 for a wall should result in a wall that is 2 beads thick minimum and a ratio of 7:1 resulting in a wall that is 3 beads thick minimum and a wall separation distance of two times the wall width (pg. 7) for an estimated possible depth to hydraulic diameter ratio range of 0.5 to 3.5 given adjacent sidewalls/ribs with the same height and width, and draft angle (taper) of 0.5° minimum and typical 1° draft angle unless the part has a low aspect ratio (width to height) wherein it may be higher (pg. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide similar values/ranges for a foam bead molding and/or optimized values/ranges for a foam bead molding that allows for thinner walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to follow a design guide for molding a bead-foam product and/or used the guide as a starting point for formulating similar/same overlapping ranges via routine experimentation/optimization.
Claims 1, 3-7, & 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba et al. (JP 2016-222807 A) (hereinafter “Chiba”) in view of Sakakibara et al. (JP 2014-193950 A) (hereinafter “Sakakibara”), and optionally Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”), further in view of Quiminet (Expanded polystyrene packaging – EPS: Parts I-III), and Schlaadt Plastics GMBH (DE 202004020031 U1) (hereinafter “Schlaadt”) AND/OR Schmidt (BR 102019014456 A2) (hereinafter “Schmidt”), wherein claim 11 is also or alternatively further in view of Lee (KR 2014-0004121 U) (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, and 10-16, while Chiba/Sakakibara teach a PLA particle-foam molded article forming a parts packaging container having one or more thin wall portions and/or fitting portions, wherein the claimed cavities separated by a plurality of walls are not taught OR wherein Chiba/Sakakibara in view of APAA fails to teach one or more claimed features as recited above:
Quiminet teaches a bead-foam expanded polystyrene packaging, wherein expanded polystyrene can be used for cushioning and/or packaging (Part I), specifically in food packaging such as fruits and vegetables (Part II) or wine bottles or automotive parts (Part III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the noise-reducing automotive parts packaging of Chiba/Sakakibara for packaging any number of additional products such as wine bottles or fruits and vegetables. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the types of packaging opportunities for biodegradable bead-foam articles replacing expanded polystyrene.
Schlaadt teaches a protective/cushioning packaging insert formed of expanded (bead) polystyrene, polypropylene, polyethylene, or other special foams [0011] formed in one piece comprising through holes or blind holes having protrusions therein for centering bottles [0012] with sidewalls defined between adjacent holes, wherein the holes are sized to receive entire bottles [0021], which often have aspect ratios of height/depth to hydraulic diameter larger than two, wherein the inserts can be customized to hold between 5 and 15 bottles [0016], wherein additional recesses formed in a depth direction perpendicular to the first recesses allow for easy stacking [0022], wherein additional perpendicular recesses, some of which function as grips and others of which have through holes and/or function as vents/keyholes [0024-0025].
AND/OR
Schmidt teaches a protective/cushioning tray for packaging and transporting fruit manufactured from expanded polystyrene or another material having equivalent characteristics [0001, 00017] comprising upper and lower cribs providing multiple cavities surrounded by structural ribs/walls and the cavities comprising for purposes of ventilation multiple holes through the bottom (All Figs. [28]) and sidewalls (All Figs. [27]), the latter also functioning as additional cavities having a depth perpendicular to the other cavities, wherein the trays function by attaching to multiple other molded trays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for examples of protective/cushioning sidewall containing molded container-type shapes formed from a similar foam-bead material having multiple desired features. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form grips, ventilation features, and appropriately dimensioned cavities [Schlaadt] AND/OR been motivated to provide better mechanical resistance, ventilation features, that allows produce therein to extend shelf life of produce contained therein [Schmidt].
Alternatively or further regarding claim 11, Lee teaches a Styrofoam fruit box having multiple types of recesses/cavities having different shapes and depths for receiving different types of fruit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for examples of protective/cushioning sidewall containing molded container-type shapes formed from a similar foam-bead material having multiple desired features. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to for packaging for receiving different types of items, such as fruits.
Regarding claim 9, while a packing density is not taught, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Chiba teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (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 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 June 29th, 2026
Prosecution Insights