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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-13, 16, 34-35, 38, 41-43, 48, 49, and 53 are pending.
Claims 14-15, 17-33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 44-47 are canceled.
Claims 11, 12, 48, and 49 are withdrawn.
Claim 53 is newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13, 16, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanner (US 20110024324).
Regarding claim 1, Tanner discloses, A product container comprising: a container body that defines an internal volume (See annotated fig. below); a first dunnage panel (See annotated fig. below) located in the internal volume of the container body and comprising a plurality of discontinuous lines of weakness (See annotated fig. below); and a second dunnage panel (See annotated fig. below) located in the internal volume of the container body, wherein the first dunnage panel and the second dunnage panel are substantially aligned (Fig. 5) and laterally spaced apart to secure an article (44) therebetween.
PNG
media_image1.png
599
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Tanner discloses the first dunnage panel is coupled to the container body; and the second dunnage panel is coupled to the container body (both first and second dunnage panel are coupled/joined to container body when assembled).
Regarding claim 3, Tanner discloses, a gap (gap where article 44 is placed) formed between the first dunnage panel and the second dunnage panel, wherein the gap has a width dimension that is less than or equal to a thickness dimension of the article (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Tanner discloses, the plurality of discontinuous lines of weakness is configured to locally deform a portion of the first dunnage panel to a contour of a portion of the article (Fig. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 5, Tanner discloses, the second dunnage panel comprises a plurality of second discontinuous lines of weakness.
PNG
media_image2.png
515
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Tanner discloses, the plurality of second discontinuous lines of weakness is configured to locally deform a portion of the second dunnage panel to a contour of a second portion of the article (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Tanner discloses, the container body comprises a plurality of sidewalls (See annotated fig. below; upper and lower sidewall) ; the first dunnage panel (See annotated fig. below) extends between an opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls; and the second dunnage panel (See annotated fig. below) extends between the opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image3.png
364
563
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Tanner discloses, the first dunnage panel is coupled to one of the opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls (first dunnage panel sidewall is coupled/joined to the lower sidewall) ; and the second dunnage panel is coupled to one of the opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls(second dunnage panel sidewall is coupled/joined to the upper sidewall).
Regarding claim 9, Tanner discloses, a first brace panel (See annotated fig. below)coupled to the first dunnage pane, wherein the first brace panel inhibits movement of the first dunnage panel relative to the opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls .
PNG
media_image4.png
599
586
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Tanner discloses, a second brace panel (See annotated fig. of claim 9) coupled to the second dunnage panel, wherein the second brace panel inhibits movement of the second dunnage panel relative to the opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls (Fig. 4,5).
Regarding claim 13, Tanner discloses, the plurality of discontinuous lines of weakness comprises one of perforations and cuts (20; Para 18) .
Regarding claim 16, Tanner discloses, the plurality of discontinuous lines of weakness defines a repeating pattern (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 34, Tanner discloses, A packaging system comprising: a product container comprising a container body that defines an internal volume (See annotated fig. below) of the product container; a first dunnage panel (See annotated fig. below) located in the internal volume of the product container and comprising a plurality of discontinuous lines of weakness (See annotated fig. below);a second dunnage panel (See annotated fig. below) located in the internal volume of the product container, wherein the first dunnage panel and the second dunnage panel are substantially aligned and laterally spaced apart (Fig. 5); and an article (44) located in the internal volume of the product container and secured between the first dunnage panel and the second dunnage panel.
PNG
media_image5.png
599
892
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 35, Tanner discloses, the product container further comprises a gap (gap where article 44 is placed) formed between the first dunnage panel and the second dunnage panel; the article has a thickness dimension; and the gap has a width dimension that is less than or equal to the thickness dimension of the article (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 38, Taner discloses, the second dunnage panel comprises a plurality of second discontinuous lines of weakness (See annotated fig. of claim 34)
Regarding claim 41, Taner discloses, wherein the plurality of discontinuous lines of weakness and the plurality of second discontinuous lines of weakness comprise at least one of perforations and cuts (20; para 18).
Regarding claim 42, Tanner discloses, the container body comprises a plurality of sidewalls (See annotated fig. below; upper and lower sidewall) ; the first dunnage panel (See annotated fig. below) extends between an opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls; and the second dunnage panel (See annotated fig. below) extends between the opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image3.png
364
563
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 43, Tanner discloses, a first brace panel (See annotated fig. below) coupled to the first dunnage panel, wherein the first brace panel inhibits movement of the first dunnage panel relative to the opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls(Fig. 4,5) ; and a second brace panel (See annotated fig. below) coupled to the second dunnage panel, wherein the second brace panel inhibits movement of the second dunnage panel relative to the opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls(Fig. 4,5; the brace panels are sandwiched between the ).
PNG
media_image4.png
599
586
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
478
708
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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) 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner as applied to claim 1 in view of Andres (DE 10065719 A1).
Regarding claim 53, Tanner does not appear to disclose, the container body, the first dunnage panel, and the second dunnage panel are formed from a one-piece blank.
Andres discloses a container body, a first and second dunnage panel that are from a one-piece blank (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanner to have the container body, the first dunnage panel, and the second dunnage panel are formed from a one-piece blank as taught by Andres as it allows for cheaper production and also prevents lose of any parts since the blank is one piece.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Tanner fails to disclose, the first dunnage panel and the second dunnage panel are […] laterally spaced apart to secure an article therebetween. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Tanner is shown below that shows that the first and second dunnage panel are laterally spaced apart to secure an article therebetween.
PNG
media_image7.png
414
375
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights