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 without traverse of Group I (i.e. claims 1-14) and Species D (i.e. figs. 14-16b) in the reply filed on May 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant further noted that claims 1-7 and 10-14 are associated with the elected species.
Claims 8-9 and 15-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10 and 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, ln. 3, the phrase, “…the fold lines…” should read “…the plurality of fold lines…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 1, ln. 5, the phrase, “…each one of a multiplicity of the panel regions…” should read “…each one of [[a multiplicity of the]] the plurality of panel regions…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 1, ln. 5-6 and 9, the phrase in each instance, “…the molded pulp standoff components…” should read “…the plurality of impact absorbing molded pulp standoff components…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 1, ln. 8-10, the phrase in each instance, “…the panel regions…” should read “…the plurality of panel regions…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 2, ln. 1, the phrase, “…the molded pulp standoff components…” should read “…the plurality of impact absorbing molded pulp standoff components…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 5, ln. 3, the phrase, “…the panel regions…” should read “…the plurality of panel regions…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 6, ln. 2, the phrase, “…a first penal region…” should read “…a first [[penal]]panel region…” to correct the typographical error.
In claim 6, ln. 3, the phrase, “…the plurality of molded pulp standoff components…” should read “…the plurality of impact absorbing molded pulp standoff components…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 7, ln. 2, the phrase, “…a first penal region…” should read “…a first [[penal]]panel region…” to correct the typographical error.
In claim 7, ln. 3, the phrase, “…the plurality of molded pulp standoff components…” should read “…the plurality of impact absorbing molded pulp standoff components…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 10, ln. 2, the phrase, “…a first penal region…” should read “…a first [[penal]]panel region…” to correct the typographical error.
In claim 10, ln. 4, the phrase, “…the plurality of molded pulp standoff components…” should read “…the plurality of impact absorbing molded pulp standoff components…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 13, ln. 4, the phrase, “…the first fold lines…” should read “…the plurality of first fold lines…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 13, ln. 7-8, the phrase, “…each one of a multiplicity of the first panel regions…” should read “…each one of [[a multiplicity of ]] the plurality of first panel regions…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 13, ln. 8-13, the phrase in each instance, “…the first molded pulp standoff components…” should read “…the plurality of first impact absorbing molded pulp standoff components…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 13, ln. 12-15, the phrase in each instance, “…the first panel regions…” should read “…the plurality of first panel regions…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 13, ln. 16, the phrase, “…offset from each other.” should read “…offset from each other [[.]];…” to correct the typographical error.
In claim 13, ln. 19-20, the phrase, “…the second fold lines…” should read “…the plurality of second fold lines…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 13, ln. 22-23, the phrase, “…each one of a multiplicity of the second panel regions…” should read “…each one of [[a multiplicity of]] the plurality of second panel regions…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 13, ln. 23-28, the phrase in each instance, “…the second molded pulp standoff components…” should read “…the plurality of second impact absorbing molded pulp standoff components…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 13, ln. 30, the phrase, “…the second panel regions…” should read “…the plurality of second panel regions…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with remainder of the claim(s).
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 1-7 and 10-14 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, ln. 8-9, the phrase in each instance, “...substantially...” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 13, ln. 12-28, the phrase in each instance, “...substantially...” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As for claims 2-12 and 14, due to their dependencies from claims 1 and 13 (respectively), they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 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 1, 3-7, and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kyocera Corp (JP 202195188A – art of record; hereinafter Kyocera).
Regarding claim 1, Kyocera discloses a packaging assembly (10) comprising:
a panel component (2) including a plurality of fold lines (i.e. in the form of fold lines (21a, 22a); as shown in Figs. 2-3) formed therein and along which the panel component is foldable, the fold lines collectively defining a plurality of panel regions (i.e. in the form of plate portions (21-24));
a plurality of impact absorbing molded pulp standoff components (i.e. pulp mold members (3)) fixed on the panel component, wherein each one of a multiplicity of the panel regions includes at least one of the molded pulp standoff components fixed thereto;
wherein the panel component is changeable between a laid flat configuration (as shown in Fig. 3) and a folded configuration (as shown in Figs. 1-2), wherein, in the laid flat configuration, the panel regions lie in a substantially common plane and the molded pulp standoff components project in a substantially common direction from the panel component, wherein, in the folded configuration, the panel regions lie in multiple different planes, wherein at least some of the multiple different planes are angularly offset from each other (Kyocera [0001-0057] and Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claims 3-4, Kyocera further discloses wherein the panel component is not formed of molded pulp, specifically a corrugated board panel (Kyocera [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Kyocera further discloses wherein the packaging assembly lacks any molded pulp standoff components that are fixed to more than one of the panel regions (see Kyocera Figs. 1-4 and 7).
Regarding claim 6, Kyocera further discloses wherein: the plurality of panel regions include a first panel region (21) and a second panel region (23);
the plurality of molded pulp standoff components include a first molded pulp standoff component (i.e. any of the vertically orientated pulp mold members (3) that are attached to the first plate portion (21) which examiner equates to the claimed first panel region; as shown in Figs. 1-4) and a second molded pulp standoff component (i.e. any of the horizontally orientated pulp mold members (3) that are attached to the third plate portion (23) which examiner equates to the claimed second panel region; as shown in Figs. 1-4);
the first molded pulp standoff component located on the first panel region, the second molded pulp standoff component located on the second panel region, wherein the second molded pulp standoff component has a different configuration than the first molded pulp standoff component.
Regarding claim 7, Kyocera further discloses wherein: the plurality of panel regions include a first panel region (i.e. the right plate portion (22) as shown in Fig. 3) and a second panel region (i.e. the left plate portion (22) as shown in Fig. 3);
the plurality of molded pulp standoff components include a first molded pulp standoff component (any of the pulp mold members (3) that are on the right plate portion (22) as shown in Fig. 3) and a second molded pulp standoff component (any of the pulp mold members (3) that are on the left plate portion (22) as shown in Fig. 3);
in the folded configuration, at least the first panel region lies in a first plane, at least the second panel region lies in a second plane that is spaced apart from and substantially parallel to the first plane, and the first molded pulp standoff component is located on the first panel region and projects toward the second panel region and the second molded pulp standoff component is located on the second panel region and projects toward the first panel region (see Kyocera Figs. 1, 3 and 7).
Regarding claim 10, Kyocera further discloses wherein: the plurality of panel regions include a first panel region (i.e. either the right plate portion (22) OR the left plate portion (22) as shown in Fig. 3), a second panel region (i.e. plate portion (21) as shown in Fig. 3) and a third panel region (i.e. either the left plate portion (24) OR the right plate portion (24) as shown in Fig. 3);
the plurality of molded pulp standoff components include a first molded pulp standoff component (any of the pulp mold members (3) that are on either the right plate portion (22) OR the left plate portion (22) as shown in Fig. 3), a second molded pulp standoff component (any of the pulp mold members (3) that are on plate portion (21) as shown in Fig. 3), and a third molded pulp standoff component (any of the pulp mold members (3) that are on either the right plate portion (24) OR the left plate portion (24) as shown in Fig. 3);
in the folded configuration, the first, second and third panel regions are oriented relative to each other to define a three-dimensional corner, the first molded pulp standoff component is located on the first panel region and projects outward from the corner in a first direction, the second molded pulp standoff component is located on the second panel region and projects outward from the corner in a second direction that is different from the first direction, and the third molded pulp standoff component is located on the third panel region and projects outward from the corner in a third direction that is different from both the first direction and the second direction (see Kyocera Figs. 1-4 and 7).
Regarding claim 11, Kyocera further discloses wherein: the plurality of fold lines include a first fold line (i.e. either the right fold line (21a) OR the left fold line (21a) as shown in Fig. 3) and a second fold line (i.e. either the right fold line (22a) OR the left fold line (22a) as shown in Fig. 3);
the first panel region and the second panel region are directly connected along the first fold line, wherein the first panel region and the third panel region are directly connected along the second fold line, and the second panel region and the third panel region are not directly connected along any fold line (see Kyocera Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Kyocera further discloses a multi-sided product, wherein the panel component is in the folded configuration, wherein a corner region of the multi-sided product is disposed at an interior side of the three-dimensional corner and in engagement with the first panel region, the second panel region and the third panel region via the plurality of molded pulp standoff components (3; see Kyocera Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kyocera discloses a packaged product assembly (10), comprising:
a first combination panel and standoff component assembly (i.e. the lower front panel (2); as shown in Figs. 1) comprising:
a first panel component (2; as shown in Figs. 2-3) including a plurality of first fold lines (i.e. right and left fold lines (21a) in Figs. 1-3) formed therein and along which the first panel component is foldable, the first fold lines collectively defining a plurality of first panel regions (i.e. the left plate portion (22), the plate portion (21) AND the right plate portion (22); as shown in Fig. 3);
a plurality of first impact absorbing molded pulp standoff components (all of the pulp mold members (3); as shown in Figs. 1-3) fixed on the first panel component, wherein each one of a multiplicity of the first panel regions includes at least one of the first molded pulp standoff components fixed thereto;
wherein the first panel component is changeable between a first laid flat configuration (as shown in Fig. 3) and a first folded configuration (as shown in Figs. 1-2), wherein, in the first laid flat configuration, the first panel regions lie in a substantially common first plane and the first molded pulp standoff components project in a substantially common first direction from the first panel component, wherein, in the first folded configuration, the first panel regions lie in multiple different planes, wherein at least some of the multiple different planes are angularly offset from each other (as shown in Figs. 1-3);
a second combination panel and standoff component assembly (i.e. the lower rear panel (2); as shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
a second panel component (2; as shown in Figs. 2-3) including a plurality of second fold lines (i.e. right and left fold lines (21a) in Figs. 1-3) formed therein and along which the second panel component is foldable, the second fold lines collectively defining a plurality of second panel regions (i.e. the left plate portion (22), the plate portion (21) AND the right plate portion (22); as shown in Fig. 3);
a plurality of second impact absorbing molded pulp standoff components (all of the pulp mold members (3); as shown in Figs. 1-3) fixed on the second panel component, wherein each one of a multiplicity of the second panel regions includes at least one of the second molded pulp standoff components fixed thereto;
wherein the second panel component is changeable between a second laid flat configuration (as shown in Fig. 3) and a first folded configuration (as shown in Figs. 1-2), wherein, in the second laid flat configuration, the second panel regions lie in a substantially common second plane and the second molded pulp standoff components project in a substantially common second direction from the second panel component, wherein, in the second folded configuration, the second panel regions lie in multiple different planes, wherein at least some of the multiple different planes are angularly offset from each other (as shown in Figs. 1-3);
a packaged product (9) engaged (i) on a first side or end by the first combination panel and standoff component assembly in the first folded configuration and (ii) on a second side or end by the second combination panel and standoff component assembly in the second folded configuration (Kyocera [0001-0057] and Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 14, Kyocera further discloses a box (8);
wherein the packaged product, first combination panel and standoff component assembly and second combination panel and standoff component assembly are contained within the box (see Kyocera Fig. 1).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyocera Corp (JP 202195188A – art of record; hereinafter Kyocera) in view of Kamigaki et al. (US 20230131323 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Kamigaki).
Regarding claim 2, Kyocera teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein the molded pulp standoff components are fixed on the panel component by an adhesive.
Kamigaki is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Kyocera, which is a packaging assembly. Kamigaki teaches a panel component (P1) including a plurality of fold lines formed therein and along which the panel is foldable, the plurality of fold lines defining a plurality of panel regions;
a plurality of impact absorbing standoff components (specifically (R1)) fixed to the panel component by an adhesive (Kamigaki [0048] and Figs. 1-2).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a similar adhesive (as taught by Kamigaki) between the plurality of impact molded pulp absorbing standoff components (of Kyocera) AND the panel component (of Kyocera) to establish a secured connection between the components and prevent the loss of the plurality of impact molded pulp absorbing standoff components – during use or transport.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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 ttps://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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights