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 .
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The abstract should not reference a Figure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2 and 3, “the leg portion” in the second to last line of claim 2 should be “one of the leg portions”; likewise for line 2 of claim 3 or any other terms that use “the” when a plurality is introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-9 are 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 2, the orientations regarding the longitudinal direction create indefiniteness:
Regarding, “a first width in a longitudinal direction” then, “leg portions projected at intervals… in the longitudinal direction” – the legs do not project in the same direction as the width, the bridges are claimed as being “spaced in the longitudinal direction.” With this in mind, should the legs also be claimed as being “spaced in the longitudinal direction”? The language of Claim 4 seems to correspond to this interpretation: “the leg portions… are provided… in the longitudinal direction” not “extend” or are “projected” in the longitudinal direction.
Also, if the width is in the longitudinal direction, the channel does not also extend in the longitudinal direction as claimed. Potentially, the first width is orthogonal to the longitudinal direction, then it would be correct to say that the channel extends in the longitudinal direction, the width of the channel being orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (as recited in claim 9).
Regarding claim 4, which leg is the recess adjacent to? Should claim 4 read “adjacent to each leg portion”? Which bridge portion is being referred to at the end of claim 4? If claim 4 is amended as suggested, claims 5 and 6 should be changed to “each recess.”
Regarding claim 5, it is not clear what “according to a distance” means. Does applicant intend the language to mean as the distance increases? Decreases?
Regarding claim 7, which bridge portion is being referred to? Likewise, for claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, which direction is “a flute direction”? is it the direction that the flutes are laid out in or is it the direction along the length of a flute? For the purposes of examination, the flute direction is interpreted as meaning the length of a flute is parallel to the indicated direction.
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dimer (DE 102006046077 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dimer discloses a cushioning member disposed inside a side of a packing frame (see description translation, the cushioning member is put into shipping packages, a shipping package meets the limitation “packaging frame”) surrounding a packed object (see description translation, “vehicle parts, electrical, or electronic devices and components), the cushioning member being provided to protect the packed object secured on an inner bottom of the packing frame, the cushioning member comprising:
fig. 2, a first cushioning member 2, made from foam (translation, page 4, 4th paragraph from the bottom near the end of the paragraph), that has a front face disposed adjacent to the packed object (not shown) and a back side opposite to the front face; and
a second cushioning member at 1 that has an upper end in contact with the back side of the first cushioning member and a bottom disposed near the side of the packing frame the second cushioning member comprises a corrugated board assembly, (translation, page 4, 3th paragraph from the bottom, entire paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the available prior art teaches the plurality of bridge portions in combination with the leg portions being held between the bridge portions and side walls.
The closest available prior art teaches leg portions that extend into corrugated blanks for retaining the positions of the foam bodies. For example:
Watson (US 5755331), fig. 1-3 and the Taravella reference cited on applicant’s IDS.
Miura (WO 2019/106869 A1), fig. 11-13 has a product similar to Dimer.
Yoshimura (US 6186330), fig. 2A and 2B teaches channels and bridges of folded corrugated board.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799