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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the diagonal second cushion of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
For the purposes of examination, the crate is interpreted as being positively claimed. “disposed inside a crate part” is written in the affirmative and not in a functional sense. In addition, for the purposes of examination, at least two vertical frames of a packing frame are also interpreted as being positively claimed based on the limitation “... is fit between the two vertical frames” a positive recitation of the vertical frames as part of the cushioning structure invention, rather than a functional relationship.
In claim there is a limitation “a bottom of the second cushioning member,” later a “bottom wall” of the cushioning member is recited. For clarity it is interpreted that a bottom is a bottom surface of the bottom wall.
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 4-6 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 claims 4 and 5, the orientations regarding the longitudinal direction are indefinite:
claim 4 recites, “a first width in a longitudinal direction” then, claim 5 recites “the width direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction serves as a flute direction. The directions are contradictory. For the purposes of examination, the widths are interpreted as being orthogonal to the longitudinal direction
The limitation “a bottom wall that forms a channel” is indefinite. It is not the bottom wall but the bottom wall and the side walls that form the channel. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to mean that the channel is formed by a bottom wall and two side walls of the second cushioning member.
The language “in a range of the channel” is indefinite. What is a range of the channel? The words seem superfluous; consider deleting the phrase.
Regarding claim 5, 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.
Regarding claim 6, it is not clear if applicant intends to positively claim the outboard motor. For the purposes of examination, the motor is interpreted as being positively claimed because of the language, “fixed on a bracket.”
Further regarding claim 6, the language, “the second cushioning member supporting the first cushioning member is diagonally positioned on the front face of the base part along a bottom cowl part of the outboard motor,” is indefinite. Diagonally positioned with respect to what? In addition, the second cushioning member is angled with respect to an edge of the base part but not diagonal based on the definition of diagonal – that is “joining two opposite corners of a square, rectangle, or other straight sided shape. The cushioning member does not join two corners.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 are allowed.
Claims 4- 6 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 four members of the cushioning structure oriented as claimed and connected to vertical frames as claimed. Specifically, the combination of a foam member, a corrugated member in contact with the foam member, a corrugated base in contact with the corrugated member and then an anchor part on the base part that is fit within two vertical frames.
The closest available prior art is:
Cole (US 1368606), at 13, fig. 1, teaches the concept of positioning a member, 3, between two vertical frames.
Boeye (US 3006462) teaches a bridge, fig. 6-8.
Richter (US 3701465) teaches a foam member at 21 with legs 23 inserted into a corrugated member, 26.
Miura (WO 2019/106869 A1), fig. 11-13 is relevant to multiple layers of cushioning.
Dimer (DE 102006046077), fig. 2, teaches a foam member at 2 with feet at 3 and cardboard members with bridges.
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
Prosecution Insights