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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/04/2024. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Nola (US 20070034548 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, De Nola teaches packing structure (1) comprising: a base structure (10) comprising a first folded section (22a) comprising a first plurality of grooves (26a) and a second folded section (22b) comprising a second plurality of grooves (26b); and a plurality of cross structures (30), wherein each of the plurality of cross structures (30) comprises a folded section (31a, 31b) comprising a pair of grooves (36a, 36d), and wherein the plurality of cross structures (30) are inserted into the base structure (10) wherein the grooves (26a, 26b) in the pair of grooves (36a, 36d) in each of the plurality of cross structures (30) are inserted into one of the first plurality of grooves (26a) and one of the second plurality of grooves (26b), thereby forming one or more enclosed cells (2) and a plurality of crush zones (wherein the space between the walls of 22b and 12d provides a crush zone, along with 22a and 12a), wherein each of the one or more enclosed cells (2) is adjacent to at least two of the plurality of crush zones (wherein there are crush zones on either side of the container formed by 22b and 12d, along with 22a and 12a). (Figs. 1-11; [0039], [0045], [0052])
Regarding Claim 2, De Nola further teaches wherein the one or more enclosed cells (2) consists of one enclosed cell (wherein there would be a singular cell without inserting the insert as seen in Figure 1). (Figure 1; [0039])
Regarding Claim 3, De Nola Further teaches wherein the one or more enclosed cells (2) consists of two enclosed cells (when a singular insert 30 is inserted as seen in Figure 1). (Figure 10; [0039])
Regarding Claim 4, De Nola Further teaches wherein the one or more enclosed cells (2) consists of more than two enclosed cells (as seen in Figure 10 with multiple inserts 30). (Figure 10; [0064])
Regarding Claim 5, De Nola further teaches wherein the base structure (10) further comprises a bottom section (formed by bottom wall forming flaps 14a-14d) and the first folded section (22a) is perpendicular to the bottom section (as seen in Figure 1) and the second folded section (22b) is perpendicular to the bottom section (as seen in Figure 1). (Figs. 1-2; [0039], [0041])
Regarding Claim 6, De Nola further teaches wherein the base structure (10) is formed of a single piece of cardboard (wherein De Nola teaches “Such as corrugated paperboard, heavy-weight paper or the like”). (Figs. 1-11; [ 0041])
Regarding Claim 7, De Nola further teaches wherein each of the plurality of cross structures (30) is formed of a single piece of cardboard (wherein De Nola teaches “Such as corrugated paperboard, heavy-weight paper or the like”). (Figs. 1-11; [ 0041])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 8, Meyer (US 786827 A), in view of Roberts (US 1963677 A) is considered the most relevant prior art of record. Wherein the prior art of record teaches:
A packing structure comprising: a first base structure comprising a first section comprising a first plurality of grooves and a second section comprising a second plurality of grooves; and a plurality of cross structures, wherein each of the plurality of cross structures comprises A section comprising a plurality of grooves, and wherein the plurality of cross structures are inserted into the first base structure, thereby forming one or more enclosed cells and a plurality of crush zones, wherein each of the one or more enclosed cells comprises four sides each adjacent to one of the plurality of crush zones or another enclosed cell.
The prior art of record does not teach;
Wherein the first section is a folded section; a second base structure comprising a third section comprising a third plurality of grooves and a fourth section comprising a fourth plurality of grooves, wherein the third section is a folded section and the second section of the first base structure is placed adjacent to the fourth section of the second base structure; wherein each of the plurality of cross structures comprises a folded section comprising a plurality of grooves; and wherein the plurality of cross structures are inserted into the first base structure and the second base structure wherein the plurality of grooves in each cross structure are cojoined with one of the first plurality of grooves, one of the second plurality of grooves, one of the third plurality of grooves, and one of the fourth plurality of grooves.
Since the prior art of record does not teach combining a first base structure with a second base structure for receiving a plurality of grooves of cross structures, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Regarding Claim 12, Meyer (US 786827 A), in view of Roberts (US 1963677 A) is considered the most relevant prior art of record. Wherein the prior art of record teaches:
A packing structure comprising: a first base structure comprising a first section comprising a first plurality of grooves; and a plurality of cross structures, wherein each of the plurality of cross structures comprises a folded section comprising a plurality of grooves, and wherein the plurality of cross structures are inserted into the first base structure, thereby forming one or more enclosed cells and a plurality of crush zones, wherein each of the one or more enclosed cells comprises four sides each adjacent to one of the plurality of crush zones or another enclosed cell.
The prior art of record does not teach;
And a second section comprising a second plurality of grooves, wherein the first section is a folded section; a second base structure comprising a third section comprising a third plurality of grooves and a fourth section comprising a fourth plurality of grooves, wherein the third section is a folded section; one or more expansion base structures placed between the first base structure and the second base structure, each of the one or more expansion base structures comprising a plurality of grooves; the second base structure, and the one or more expansion base structures wherein the plurality of grooves in each cross structure are cojoined with one of the first plurality of grooves, one of the second plurality of grooves, one of the third plurality of grooves, and one of the fourth plurality of grooves and two grooves in each of the one or more expansion base structures.
Since the prior art of record does not teach combining a first base structure with a second base structure for receiving a plurality of grooves of cross structures, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Regarding Claim 16, Meyer (US 786827 A), in view of Roberts (US 1963677 A) is considered the most relevant prior art of record. The prior art of record does not teach:
A method of assembling a packing structure comprising: forming a base structure by: folding a first section along a first axis to abut a second section to form a first folded section; folding a third section along a second axis to abut a fourth section to form a second folded section; folding the first folded section to be perpendicular to a bottom section; and folding the second folded section to be perpendicular to the bottom section; forming a plurality of cross structures by: for each of the plurality of cross structures, folding a section along an axis to abut another section; and inserting the plurality of cross structures into the base structure to form one or more enclosed cells and a plurality of crush zones, where each of the one or more enclosed cells comprises four sides each adjacent to one of the plurality of crush zones or another enclosed cell.
Since the prior art of record does not teach combining a first base structure with a second base structure for receiving a plurality of grooves of cross structures, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Regarding Claim 24, Meyer (US 786827 A), in view of Roberts (US 1963677 A) is considered the most relevant prior art of record. The prior art of record does not teach:
A method of assembling a packing structure comprising: forming a first base structure by: folding a first section along a first axis to abut a second section to form a first folded section; folding the first folded section along a second axis so that the first folded section is perpendicular to a first bottom section; and folding a third section along a third axis so that the third section is perpendicular to the first bottom section; forming a second base structure by: folding a fourth section along a fourth axis to abut a fifth section to form a second folded section; folding the second folded section along a fifth axis so that the second folded section is perpendicular to a second bottom section; and folding a sixth section along a sixth axis so that the sixth section is perpendicular to the second bottom section; forming one or more expansion base structures by, for each of the one or more expansion base structures: folding a seventh section along a seventh axis so that the seventh section is perpendicular to a third bottom section; and folding an eighth section along an eighth axis so that the eighth section is perpendicular to the third bottom section; forming a plurality of cross structures by: for each of the plurality of cross structures, folding a section along an axis to abut another section; and inserting the plurality of cross structures into the first base structure, the second base structure, and the one or more expansion base structures to form one or more enclosed cells and a plurality of crush zones, wherein each of the one or more enclosed cells comprises four sides each adjacent to one of the plurality of crush zones or another enclosed cell.
Since the prior art of record does not teach combining a first base structure with a second base structure for receiving a plurality of grooves of cross structures, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Gepfer (US 5332149 A), teaches a partition for a visible container.
Johnson (US 4945689 A), teaches collapsible gridwork for forming structures.
Johnske (US 4934588 A), teaches a slotted partition apparatus.
Collins et al. (US 4591090 A), teaches a carton divider with a partition interlock.
Palmer (US 4544092 A), teaches a cross partition interlock.
Butters (US 2920782 A), teaches carton dividers.
Bohn (US 654508 A), teaches a filler frame for a case.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R CAUDILL whose telephone number is (303)297-4349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 MT.
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, NATHAN JENNESS can be reached on (571) 270-5055. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN CAUDILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733 /NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 20 April 2026