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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 12/24/2024
Claims 1-2 and 8 have been amended
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination
This action is Final
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pincus (US 10,906,719) filed Ono (JP 2013079087).
Claim 1. Pincus discloses a packaging assembly 20 for packaging cookware for an oven that includes a cooking chamber, the packaging assembly comprising:
a first packaging material 100/500 including a first accommodation space (fig. 3); and
a second packaging material 100/500 including a second accommodation space, the second packaging material being in contact with the first packaging material while the first packaging material is coupled to the second packaging material (fig. 7), the first accommodation space being open toward the second packaging material and the second accommodation space being open toward the first packaging material (col. 7, ll. 51-67),
wherein the packaging assembly comprises an external figure corresponding to the cooking chamber to be accommodated in the cooking chamber (fig. 7), and
Pincus discloses a symmetrical packaging assembly but fails to disclose varied packaging sizes. Ono teaches a length of the first packaging material along a direction of the first packaging material from a surface of the first packaging material that contacts the second packaging material is greater than a length of the second packaging material along the direction (fig. 3b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the packaging materials of Pincus to vary in size as taught in Ono to accommodate bottom heavy or irregularly shaped products.
Pincus teaches the storage of product 800 being accommodated in the packaging assembly. The assembly has the ability to hold products that vary in size and shape. A modification of the length of the packaging assembly for accommodating a specifically sized product would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art since such a modification would yield a predictable result.
To modify an inner surface length of first packaging material into the claimed greater length would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 2. Pincus-Ono discloses the packaging assembly of claim 1, wherein the first packaging material comprises at least one first separation rib @522,
at least a portion of the at least one first separation rib protrudes toward a center of the first accommodation space from the inner surface of the first packaging material (Pincus; fig. 5),
the second packaging material comprises at least one second separation rib (Pincus; fig. 7), and
at least a portion of the at least one second separation rib protrudes toward a center of the second accommodation space from the inner surface of the second packaging material (Pincus; fig. 7).
Claim 3. Pincus-Ono disclose the packaging assembly of claim 2, wherein a degree of protrusion of the at least one first separation rib @21b is same as a degree of protrusion of the at least one second separation rib 16b in a portion in which the at least one first separation rib is in contact with the at least one second separation rib (Pincus Ono; fig. 4a).
Claim 4. Pincus-Ono discloses the packaging assembly of claim 3, wherein the at least one first separation rib @522 is among a plurality of first separation ribs and the plurality of first separation ribs are arranged adjacent to each other at intervals (Ono; fig. 3a), and
the at least one second separation rib is among a plurality of second separation ribs and the plurality of second separation ribs are arranged adjacent to each other at intervals (Ono; fig. 3a).
Claims 5-6. Pincus-Ono disclose the packaging assembly of claim 4, where Pincus discloses protruding separation ribs on each of the first and second packaging materials. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have varying protruding distances to assist in accommodating and protecting products at varied heights.
Claim 7. Pincus-Ono discloses the packaging assembly of claim 4, wherein at least a portion of at least one of the plurality of second separation ribs 125 does not protrude in the direction (Pincus; fig. 3).
Claim 8. Pincus-Ono discloses the packaging assembly of claim 4, wherein a thickness of a protruding portion in the direction of the at least one second separation rib among the plurality of second separation ribs is less than or equal to a thickness of a protruding portion in the direction that is opposite to the direction of a portion of the plurality of first separation ribs connected to the at least one second separation rib among the plurality of second separation ribs (Ono; fig. 3a).
Claim 9. Pincus-Ono discloses the packaging assembly of claim 1, wherein a length along the direction of the first packaging material is 1.4 times or twice a length along the direction of the second packaging material (Ono; fig. 3b).
Claim 10. Pincus-Ono discloses the packaging assembly of claim 1, wherein the first packaging material comprises a first additional accommodation space spaced apart from the first accommodation space, and
the second packaging material comprises a second additional accommodation space spaced apart from the second accommodation space (space adjacent to 700) (Pincus; fig. 5).
Claim 11. Pincus-Onohe packaging assembly of claim 10, wherein, when the first packaging material is in contact with the second packaging material, the first accommodation space is connected to the second accommodation space and the first additional accommodation space is connected to the second accommodation space (Pincus; fig. 7).
Claims 12-13. Pincus-Ono discloses the packaging assembly of claim 4, wherein the external figure is circular. Pincus-Ono fails to disclose a hexagonal shape. It is noted that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the circular outer shape into a hexagonal shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) MPEP 214.04 IV B
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pincus (US 10,906,719) filed Ono (JP 2013079087) in view of Koike (US 7,117,993).
Claims 14-15. Pincus-Ono discloses the packaging assembly of claim 11, but fails to disclose storage in the second accommodation spaces. Koike teaches wherein at least one wire-type cookware P and at least one tray-type cookware P are accommodated in the first accommodation space and the second accommodation space, and
a steam pipe P1 is accommodated in the first additional accommodation space and the second additional accommodation space (col. 2, ll. 39-53; fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the packaging spaces of Pincus-Ono to include the secondary spaces and stored items of Koike to assist in making the components easily accessible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but in view of the amendment the search has been updated and a new rejection has been applied. It is the Examiner’s position that varied lengths would be strictly based on the stored product. To have the inside dimensions correspond to the stored product would be a change in the size of the accommodation spaces and would not affect the overall functionality of the assembly which is to protect the stored items. The applied rejections are respectfully maintained.
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 RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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 STASHICK can be reached at 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 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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights