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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (the number of reinforcing elements) in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the categories make no sense in view of various embodiments of invention described in the specification and claimed invention. After careful review, Examiner agrees with Applicant because as stated in the MPEP §806.04(f), the species are not mutually exclusive with multiple claims including different species. They also overlap in scope.
The requirement is deemed improper and is therefore WITHDRAWN.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 2 character "400" is missing from the second core side and since character "300" is present, character "400" should also be present. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 18 is interpreted as each reinforcing member being positioned in a different cell, where as long as there is one reinforcing member in each cell, prior art meets the claim.
The first, second, and third reinforcement members are not differentiated between The first, second, and third reinforcement members of claims 32-34 will be viewed as having the same structure.
Based on paragraph 16 of the specification and Figures 3 and 4 of the drawings, claims 21, 23, 28, 33, and 37 are understood to be transverse to the panels, where the flute’s ‘tail’ extends in the depth direction of both the cells and the panels. The flute’s crests and troughs can be seen in a cross-sectional view of the panel and/or the core. The flute’s crests and troughs do not extend in the depth direction of the reinforced void filler.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi et al (CN-115320183-A).
Regarding claim 18, Shi et al teaches of a reinforced void filler (see e.g. honeycomb sandwich structure in paragraphs 5 and 15) comprising: a panel (see e.g. honeycomb sandwich panel in paragraphs 5 and 15); a core attached to the panel (see e.g. honeycomb core in paragraphs 5 and 15), the core comprising a first quantity of cells (see e.g. plurality of unit cells in honeycomb pattern in paragraphs 5 and 15 and Figure 1); and a second quantity of reinforcing members (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15), wherein each of the reinforcing members is positioned in a different one of the cells (see e.g. Figure 1 shows one reinforcement going through a single cell and reinforcements are not in every cell though are in columns, separated by at least one ordinary cell as in paragraph 8-9), wherein the first quantity is greater than the second quantity (see e.g. s-shaped reinforcing members are 10-50% of the total number of column units in paragraph 28).
PNG
media_image1.png
357
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Labeled Shi et al (CN-115320183-A) Published in 2022
Regarding claim 30, Shi et al teaches that the second quantity is greater than one (see e.g. s-shaped reinforcing members are 10-50% of the total number of column units in paragraph 28).
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.
Claims 19-24, 26-29, and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al (CN-115320183-A) as applied to claims 18 or 30 above, and further in view of Perry (US-2846959-A).
Regarding claim 19, Shi et al teaches of reinforcing members (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15), but does not teach of the reinforcing members being made out of corrugated materials.
Perry teaches that the reinforcing members are each formed from corrugated material (see e.g. where spiraled shock absorbers are made of corrugated fiberboard or paper board in 1:68-72).
Shi et al and Perry are analogous in the art because they are both dealing with compression and cushioning to ultimately protect surrounding structures/containers. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the materials of the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al with the corrugated material taught in Perry because corrugated material provides more shock absorption (see e.g. corrugations of the shock absorber portions arranged to provide the greatest strength in resisting the load applied in 1:70-72 and 2:1-2) and leading to cheaper shipping/transportation costs (see e.g. material is inexpensive and inexpensive manufacturing in 1:55-68 of Perry).
Regarding claim 20, Shi et al does not teach that the corrugated material comprises flutes.
Perry teaches that the corrugated material comprises flutes (see e.g. Figure 5 where cardboard and corrugated fiberboard/paperboard make up the faces and flutes respectively in 3:18-23).
PNG
media_image2.png
230
383
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5: Labeled Perry (US-2846959-A) Published 1958
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al to be made of corrugated material with flutes taught in Perry because it allows for more energy absorption through the fluted, corrugated design (see e.g. inherent quality of post’s strength is the direction of the corrugation or in other words flutes in 3:44-48 in Perry).
Regarding claim 21, Shi et al in view of Perry teaches of a reinforcing member (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15). While Shi et al teaches that the direction of the S-configuration reinforcements can be modified depending on the needs of the design, Shi does not explicitly disclose the flutes extending transverse to the panel (see e.g. direction of S-configuration reinforcement can be positive or negative directions according to design needs and changed due to peak load and failure mode of the core in paragraph 27) or that there are flutes.
Perry teaches of the reinforcing members having flutes (see e.g. Figure 5 where cardboard and corrugated fiberboard/paperboard make up the faces and flutes respectively in 3:18-23), wherein Perry discloses that it is preferable to have at least one reinforcing member that is oriented such that the flutes of that reinforcing member extend transverse to the panel (see e.g. Figures 1(p) and 5 where it is essential that corrugations extend normally or perpendicular to the inner faces of the members “24” and “26” where the usefulness depends on the direction of the corrugations, or in other words flutes, and are either thereagainst are parallel to take in the impact of the force, or mounted with corrugations perpendicular in 3:41-46 and 4:3-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
562
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (p): Perry (US-2846959-A) Published 1958
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al to be made of corrugated material with flutes taught in Perry because it allows for more energy absorption through the fluted, corrugated design (see e.g. inherent quality of post’s strength is corrugation, or in other words flutes, in 3:44-48 in Perry).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcement members taught by Shi et al to be transverse to the panels as taught in Perry because that is the strongest embodiment of corrugations (see e.g. post strength was found through extensive tests to have definite usefulness and the force of impact of the load thereagainst are parallel to the corrugations of the fiberboard material posts “46” in 3:44-53 in Perry).
Regarding claim 22, Shi et al teaches that the panel comprises a first (see e.g. honeycomb sandwich panel in paragraph 15), but despite calling the structure a sandwich does not explicitly list or show two panels (see e.g. honeycomb sandwich structure as in paragraph 15 and the panel being made out of multiple panels in paragraph 29).
Perry teaches that there is also a second panel (see e.g. preferably includes first member “24” and second member “26” in 2:43-64), wherein the core is attached to the second panel such that the core is positioned between the first and second panels (see e.g. first and second members “24” and “26” are spaced apart by plurality of posts “46” in 3:10-11 and Figure 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single panel as disclosed in Shi et al with the multiple panels/members disclosed in Perry because it would allow for more resiliency, decrease deformation to the corrugated cells, and supply added support.
Adding another panel is also obvious under the court’s findings in regard to duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04.VI). The courts found In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected product.
Regarding claim 23, Shi et al teaches of a reinforcing member (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15). While Shi et al teaches that the direction of the S-configuration reinforcements can be modified depending on the needs of the design, Shi does not explicitly disclose the flutes extending transverse to the panel (see e.g. direction of S-configuration reinforcement can be positive or negative directions according to design needs and changed due to peak load and failure mode of the core in paragraph 27). Shi et al does not teach about the reinforcing member having flutes, or a second panel
Perry teaches of the reinforcing members having flutes (see e.g. Figure 5 where cardboard and corrugated fiberboard/paperboard make up the faces and flutes respectively in 3:18-23). Perry discloses that there are two panels (see e.g. preferably includes first member “24” and second member “26” in 2:43-64). Perry discloses that it is preferable to have at least one reinforcing member that is oriented such that the flutes of that reinforcing member extend transverse to the first and second panels (see e.g. Figures 1 and 5 where it is essential that corrugations extend normally or perpendicular to the inner faces of the members “24” and “26” where the usefulness depends on the direction of the corrugations, or in other words flutes, and are either thereagainst are parallel to take in the impact of the force, or mounted with corrugations perpendicular in 3:41-46 and 4:3-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al to be made of corrugated material with flutes taught in Perry because it allows for more energy absorption through the fluted, corrugated design (see e.g. inherent quality of post’s strength is corrugation, or in other words flutes, in 3:44-48 in Perry).
Adding another panel is also obvious under the court’s findings in regard to duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04.VI). The courts found In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected product.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcement members taught by Shi et al to be transverse to the panels as taught in Perry because that is the strongest embodiment of corrugations (see e.g. post strength was found through extensive tests to have definite usefulness and the force of impact of the load thereagainst are parallel to the corrugations of the fiberboard material posts “46” in 3:44-53 in Perry).
Regarding claim 24, Shi et al teaches of reinforcing members (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15), but does not teach of the reinforcing members having facing and fluted components.
Perry teaches that each of the reinforcing members is formed from alternating layers of facing components and fluted components attached to one another (see e.g. Figure 5, where cardboard and corrugated fiberboard/paperboard make up the faces and flutes respectively in 3:18-23).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al to include flutes and faces taught in Perry because it allows for more energy absorption through the fluted, corrugated design (see e.g. inherent quality of post’s strength is the direction of the corrugation or in other words flutes in 3:44-48 in Perry).
Regarding claim 26, Shi et al teaches of reinforcing members (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15), but does not teach of the reinforcing members are made from single-wall corrugated panels attached to one another, forming fluting and facing components.
Perry teaches that each of the reinforcing members is formed multiple single-wall corrugated panels attached to one another, wherein each single-wall corrugated panel includes a pair of facing components separated by a fluting component (see e.g. Figure 5, where cardboard and corrugated fiberboard/paperboard make up the faces and flutes respectively in 3:18-23).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al to be made of single-wall corrugated panels which includes flutes and faces taught in Perry because it allows for more energy absorption through the fluted, corrugated design (see e.g. inherent quality of post’s strength is the direction of the corrugation or in other words flutes in 3:44-48 in Perry).
Regarding claim 27, Shi et al teaches of reinforcing members (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15). Additionally, Shi et al teaches that the rough volume of each cell is about 10% (see e.g. preferable measurements of unit cell are diameter of 6 mm, wall thickness of 0.06 mm and a height of 20 mm, with the S-configuration reinforcement having a thickness twice the thickness of the cell wall in paragraph 28). Simplifying the shapes to simple shapes, the hexagons volume is roughly
V
=
433
m
m
3
using the equation for a cylinder,
V
=
2
π
r
r
+
h
. Then the S-shaped reinforcement is found using the circumference of a circle
C
=
2
π
r
that equals C=18.8 mm and can then be ‘rearranged’ into an S-shape and stretched in order to use the volume of a rectangle equation
V
=
l
w
h
where the thickness is doubled from 0.06 mm to 0.12 mm to get
V
=
45.4
m
m
3
. When the percent of volume is taken, there is a cell volume of 10% being used. Further Shi et al teaches that the number of S-configuration reinforcing structures can be modified to include more than one reinforcing structure (see e.g. minimum spacing between reinforcing structures of one ordinary unit cell “1” and each column containing multiple S-configuration reinforcing unit cells “2” in paragraph 27 and modifications and changes able to be made to make suitable for particular purposes in paragraph 40), but does not teach that they fill up 50% of the cell volume.
Perry teaches of reinforcing members made of corrugated cardboard that visually fill in more than 50% of the original cell (see e.g. Figure 5, where cardboard “48” and corrugated cardboard “50” fill nearly the whole post “46”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al by the reinforcing member’s percent volume taught in Perry because the more filled the cells are, the more support and reinforcement they will have to absorb shock during transportation.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as fill volume of the reinforcing member including to fill at least 50% by volume of the cell through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 28, Shi et al teaches of reinforcing members (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15). While Shi et al teaches that the direction of the S-configuration reinforcements can be modified depending on the needs of the design, modified Shi does not explicitly disclose the flutes extending transverse to the panel (see e.g. direction of S-configuration reinforcement can be positive or negative directions according to design needs and changed due to peak load and failure mode of the core in paragraph 27). Shi et al does not teach that the corrugated material comprises flutes.
Perry teaches that the corrugated material (see e.g. where spiraled shock absorbers are made of corrugated fiberboard or paper board in 1:68-72) comprises flutes (see e.g. Figure 5 where cardboard and corrugated fiberboard/paperboard make up the faces and flutes respectively in 3:18-23). Perry discloses that it is preferable to have at least one reinforcing member that is oriented such that the flutes of that reinforcing member extend transverse to the panel (see e.g. Figures 1 and 5 where it is essential that corrugations extend normally or perpendicular to the inner faces of the members “24” and “26” where the usefulness depends on the direction of the corrugations, or in other words flutes, and are either thereagainst are parallel to take in the impact of the force, or mounted with corrugations perpendicular in 3:41-46 and 4:3-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the materials of the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al with the corrugated material taught in Perry because corrugated material provides more shock absorption (see e.g. corrugations of the shock absorber portions arranged to provide the greatest strength in resisting the load applied in 1:70-72 and 2:1-2) and is a cheaper alternative than other materials, leading to cheaper shipping/transportation costs (see e.g. material is inexpensive and inexpensive manufacturing in 1:55-68 of Perry).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al to be made of corrugated material with flutes taught in Perry because it allows for more energy absorption through the fluted, corrugated design (see e.g. inherent quality of post’s strength is corrugation, or in other words flutes, in 3:44-48 in Perry).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcement members taught by Shi et al to be transverse to the panels as taught in Perry because that is the strongest embodiment of corrugations (see e.g. post strength was found through extensive tests to have definite usefulness and the force of impact of the load thereagainst are parallel to the corrugations of the fiberboard material posts “46” in 3:44-53 in Perry).
Regarding claim 29, Shi et al teaches that the second quantity is no more than 20% of the first quantity (see e.g. s-shaped reinforcing members are 10-50% of the total number of column units in paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 31, Shi et al teaches of reinforcing members (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15). Additionally, Shi et al teaches that the rough volume of each cell is about 10% (see e.g. preferable measurements of unit cell are diameter of 6 mm, wall thickness of 0.06 mm and a height of 20 mm, with the S-configuration reinforcement having a thickness twice the thickness of the cell wall in paragraph 28). Simplifying the shapes to simple shapes, the hexagons volume is roughly
433
m
m
3
using the equation for a cylinder,
V
=
2
π
r
r
+
h
. Then the S-shaped reinforcement is found using the circumference of a circle
C
=
2
π
r
that equals 18.8 mm and can then be ‘rearranged’ into an S-shape and stretched in order to use the volume of a rectangle equation
V
=
l
w
h
where the thickness is doubled from 0.06 mm to 0.12 mm to get
V
=
45.4
m
m
3
. When the percent of volume is taken, there is a cell volume of 10% being used. Further Shi et al teaches that the number of S-configuration reinforcing structures can be modified to include more than one reinforcing structure (see e.g. minimum spacing between reinforcing structures of one ordinary unit cell “1” and each column containing multiple S-configuration reinforcing unit cells “2” in paragraph 27 and modifications and changes able to be made to make suitable for particular purposes in paragraph 40), but does not teach that they fill up 50% of the cell volume.
Perry teaches of reinforcing members made of corrugated cardboard that visually fill in more than 50% of the original cell (see e.g. Figure 5, where cardboard “48” and corrugated cardboard “50” fill nearly the whole post “46”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al by the reinforcing member’s percent volume taught in Perry because the more filled the cells are, the more support and reinforcement they will have to absorb shock during transportation.
Regarding claim 32, Shi et al teaches that the panel (see e.g. honeycomb sandwich panel in paragraph 15) comprises opposing spaced-apart top and bottom edges and opposing spaced-apart first and second side edges extending between the top and bottom edges, wherein a first reinforcing member (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraph 15) is closer to the top edge than the bottom edge, wherein a second reinforcing member (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraph 15) is closer to the bottom edge than the top edge, wherein a third reinforcing member (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraph 15) is between the top and bottom edges (see e.g. Figure 1, where the reinforced structure goes down along the core and corresponding panel, all along length of panel).
Regarding claim 33, Shi et al teaches of reinforcing members (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15). While Shi et al teaches that the direction of the S-configuration reinforcements can be modified depending on the needs of the design, modified Shi does not explicitly disclose the flutes extending transverse to the panel (see e.g. direction of S-configuration reinforcement can be positive or negative directions according to design needs and changed due to peak load and failure mode of the core in paragraph 27). Shi et al does not teach of the first and second reinforcing members being formed from corrugated material with flutes.
Perry teaches that each first and second reinforcing member is formed from corrugated material (see e.g. where spiraled shock absorbers are made of corrugated fiberboard or paper board in 1:68-72), wherein the corrugated material comprises flutes (see e.g. Figure 5 where cardboard and corrugated fiberboard/paperboard make up the faces and flutes respectively in 3:18-23). Perry discloses that it is preferable to have at least one reinforcing member that is oriented such that the flutes of that reinforcing member extend transverse to the panel (see e.g. Figures 1 and 5 where it is essential that corrugations extend normally or perpendicular to the inner faces of the members “24” and “26” where the usefulness depends on the direction of the corrugations, or in other words flutes, and are either thereagainst are parallel to take in the impact of the force, or mounted with corrugations perpendicular in 3:41-46 and 4:3-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al to be made of corrugated material with flutes taught in Perry because it allows for more energy absorption through the fluted, corrugated design (see e.g. inherent quality of post’s strength is the direction of the corrugation or in other words flutes in 3:44-48 in Perry).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al to be made of corrugated material with flutes taught in Perry because it allows for more energy absorption through the fluted, corrugated design (see e.g. inherent quality of post’s strength is corrugation, or in other words flutes, in 3:44-48 in Perry).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcement members taught by Shi et al to be transverse to the panels as taught in Perry because that is the strongest embodiment of corrugations (see e.g. post strength was found through extensive tests to have definite usefulness and the force of impact of the load thereagainst are parallel to the corrugations of the fiberboard material posts “46” in 3:44-53 in Perry).
Regarding claim 34, Shi et al teaches that all the reinforcing members (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15) are separated by substantially the same distance (see e.g. Figure 1 and each S-reinforced unit cell is separated by at least one ordinary cell as in paragraph 8-9) in a height direction of the void filler (see e.g. columnar unit cells divided into a normal unit cell and S-configuration reinforced unit cell, where the columnar unit cells are all the same size in paragraph 25 and Figure 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
363
596
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Labeled Shi et al (CN-115320183-A) Published 2022
Regarding claim 35, Shi et al teaches that the panel comprises a first (see e.g. honeycomb sandwich panel in paragraphs 15 and 29), but despite calling the structure a sandwich does not explicitly list or show two panels (see e.g. honeycomb sandwich structure as in paragraph 15 and the panel being made out of multiple panels in paragraph 29).
Perry teaches that the reinforced void filler further comprising a second panel (see e.g. preferably includes first member “24” and second member “26” in 2:43-64), wherein the core is attached to the second panel such that the core is positioned between the first and second panels (see e.g. first and second members “24” and “26” are spaced apart by plurality of posts “46” in 3:10-11 and Figure 2)
PNG
media_image5.png
446
387
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Labeled Perry (US-2846959-A) Published 1958
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single panel as disclosed in Shi et al with the multiple panels/members disclosed in Perry because it would allow for more resiliency, decrease deformation to the corrugated cells, and supply added support.
Adding another panel is also obvious under the court’s findings in regard to duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04.VI). The courts found In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected product.
Regarding claim 36, Shi et al teaches that there is a core (see e.g. honeycomb core in paragraph 15) that comprises a first core with a first quantity of cells (see e.g. plurality of unit cells in honeycomb pattern in paragraphs 5 and 15 and Figure 1) being greater than the fourth quantity of reinforcing members(see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15 and that the s-shaped reinforcing members are 10-50% of the total number of column units in paragraph 28), but does not teach of a second core that is positioned between the first and second panels. Wherein each of the reinforcing members is positioned in a different one of the cells (see e.g. Figure 1 shows the reinforcements are not in every cell though are in columns, separated by at least one ordinary cell as in paragraph 8-9).
Perry teaches that the reinforced void filler further comprising a second panel (see e.g. preferably includes first member “24” and second member “26” in 2:43-64), wherein the core is attached to the second panel such that the core is positioned between the first and second panels (see e.g. first and second members “24” and “26” are spaced apart by plurality of posts “46” in 3:10-11 and Figure 2). Perry further teaches that the second core attached to the first panel and the second panel such that the second core is positioned between the first panel and the second panel and spaced-apart from the first core (see e.g. first and second members “24” and “26” are spaced apart by plurality of posts “46” in 3:10-11 and see Figures 2 and 3 where the posts “46” are spaced apart in parallel)
PNG
media_image6.png
235
579
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Labeled Perry (US-2846959-A) Published 1958
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single core and single panel as taught in Shi et al with the multiple cores, spaced apart and second panel taught in Perry because it adds additional support and reinforcement than a single panel and core.
The inclusion of another core and panel with the same properties of the first core and panel is obvious under the court’s findings in regard to duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04.VI). The courts found In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected product.
Regarding claim 37, Shi et al teaches of reinforcing members (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15). While Shi et al teaches that the direction of the S-configuration reinforcements can be modified depending on the needs of the design, modified Shi does not explicitly disclose the flutes extending transverse to the panel (see e.g. direction of S-configuration reinforcement can be positive or negative directions according to design needs and changed due to peak load and failure mode of the core in paragraph 27). Shi et al does not teach of the first and second reinforcing members being formed from corrugated material with flutes.
Perry teaches that the reinforcing members are formed from corrugated material (see e.g. where spiraled shock absorbers are made of corrugated fiberboard or paper board in 1:68-72) comprising flutes (see e.g. Figure 5 where cardboard and corrugated fiberboard/paperboard make up the faces and flutes respectively in 3:18-23). Perry discloses that it is preferable to have at least one reinforcing member that is oriented such that the flutes of that reinforcing member extend transverse to the panel (see e.g. Figures 1 and 5 where it is essential that corrugations extend normally or perpendicular to the inner faces of the members “24” and “26” where the usefulness depends on the direction of the corrugations, or in other words flutes, and are either thereagainst are parallel to take in the impact of the force, or mounted with corrugations perpendicular in 3:41-46 and 4:3-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the materials of the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al with the corrugated material taught in Perry because corrugated material provides more shock absorption (see e.g. corrugations of the shock absorber portions arranged to provide the greatest strength in resisting the load applied in 1:70-72 and 2:1-2) and is a cheaper alternative than other materials, leading to cheaper shipping/transportation costs (see e.g. material is inexpensive and inexpensive manufacturing in 1:55-68 of Perry).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcing members taught in Shi et al to be made of corrugated material with flutes taught in Perry because it allows for more energy absorption through the fluted, corrugated design (see e.g. inherent quality of post’s strength is the direction of the corrugation or in other words flutes in 3:44-48 in Perry).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcement members taught by Shi et al to be transverse to the panels as taught in Perry because that is the strongest embodiment of corrugations (see e.g. post strength was found through extensive tests to have definite usefulness and the force of impact of the load thereagainst are parallel to the corrugations of the fiberboard material posts “46” in 3:44-53 in Perry).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al (CN-115320183-A) in view of Perry (US-2846959-A) as applied to claims 24 above, and in further view of Morris (Commonly Used Resins and Packaging, The Science and Technology of Flexible Packaging, 2016, pgs. 69-119) .
Regarding claim 25, Shi et al teaches of the reinforcement members (see e.g. configuration of s-shaped reinforcements that divides the unit cell in paragraphs 5 and 15). Perry teaches that the facing and fluted components can be formed from paperboard, cardboard, and corrugated material (see e.g. Figure 5 where cardboard and corrugated fiberboard/paperboard make up the faces and flutes respectively in 3:18-23). Modified Shi does not teach the reinforcement members have facing or fluted components that are formed from kraft paper.
Morris teaches that kraft paper is common in shipping and high strength (see e.g. course and exceptionally strong in chapter 4.3.6.1 Kraft pg. 107).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the paperboard corrugated material of Shi et al in view of Perry with kraft paper taught in Morris because kraft paper is very commonly used in packaging, due to its high tensile strength. This would help maintain compressive strength caused during shipping.
Additional References
Additional references that were found to read on the claims presented in the instant applications were Jiang (CN-114368210-A), Zhang (Cn-107160804-A), Bramlett (US-3593671-A), Adams et al (US-20160375648-A1), and Montgomery (US-2196470-A) for their reinforcements inside a cellular core packing, Han et al ((Honeycomb-Corrugation Hybrid as a Novel Sandwich Core for Significantly Enhanced Compression, Material and Design, Vol. 93, 2016 pages 271-282) for a honeycomb and corrugation hybrid core, and Yoshi (US-20180037015-A1) with a similar honeycomb core embodiment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA N WHIPKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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 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.
/T.N.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights