Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/054,137

CUSHIONING MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 14, 2025
Examiner
ORTIZ, RAFAEL ALFREDO
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Panasonic Holdings Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
689 granted / 1137 resolved
-9.4% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1184
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1137 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 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 and 3 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 term “expos” is indefinite because it is unclear what applicant meant with the term. Claim 3 inherit the same issue due to the dependency on the claim. 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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP H086738) in view of (JP H01126918). JP H086738 Figure PNG media_image1.png 256 394 media_image1.png Greyscale JP H01126918 Figures PNG media_image2.png 337 409 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 494 490 media_image3.png Greyscale Claim 1 JP ‘738 discloses a cushioning material (10) capable to be housed in a box comprising a bottom plate (12); front and rear end walls (18 and 20) standing upright from front and rear edge portions of the bottom plate respectively; left and right side walls (14 and 16) standing upright from left and right edge portions of the bottom plate respectively; wherein each sidewall includes an outside wall (18 a and 20a) disposed continuously on an edge portion of the bottom plate; and an inside wall (defined by 18c and the inside wall shown in the figure above) provided continuously on an upper edge portion of the outside wall and is folded back to an inner surface side of the outside wall, wherein the inside wall (20) includes a lower portion (22) which includes an inclined supporting portion capable of supporting a lower surface of a content, wherein the inclined supporting portion is inclined relative to the outside wall such that the inclined supporting portion is further from the outside wall as extending downward to the bottom plate (see figure above). JP ‘738 further discloses the left and right sidewalls comprising a stopper (24) comprising a hole (52) in which protrusions of the inclined panel is attached, when folded (see figure 1). JP ‘738 further discloses the stopper (24) is divided into first plate (54) and second plate (56) which when the inclined panel is attached to the stopper, the first acts as a reinforcement rib, while the second plate is prevented from being displaced toward the inclined wall, preventing the inclined wall from being deformed (see pages 4 and 5). JP ‘738 does not disclose inside wall (18c) including an inclined wall and the structure of the stopper. JP ‘738 does not disclose each inside wall includes a flap provided continuously on a lower edge portion of the inclined supporting portion, as required. However, Regarding the inclined wall of inside wall (18), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inside wall and the front and rear walls, each having an inclined supporting portion engaging with a stopper including the first and second plate portions for stronger arrangement on the other sidewall of the cushioning member. After JP ‘738 is modified having an inclined wall extending from the inside wall of side wall (18), and the front and rear walls includes the stopper at a side where sidewall (18) is provided, then both sides of the cushioning member would share the same strength at each side of the cushioning member. Regarding the limitation of the flap extending from the inside wall, JP ‘918 discloses a tray comprising sidewalls comprising an outside walls, inside walls and a flap panels extending from the inside wall (see figure above and figure 1), wherein the flap panel is overlaid on an upper surface of a bottom plate, wherein the flaps includes an end portions (23) in a front-rear direction and the end portion is inserted in a recessed portion (11) defined by a lower edge portion of end walls (see figures above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify JP ‘738 having a flap extending from the bottom of the inclined inside wall being flat with the bottom plate as taught by JP ‘918 to provide a stronger support bottom surface to the cushioning material. Claim 2 JP ‘738 further discloses each expos/end wall includes an outer end wall (14a and 16a) provided continuously on the edge portion of the bottom plate; and an inner end wall (14c and 16c) provided continuously on an upper edge portion of the outer end wall and folded back to the inner surface side of the outer end wall (see figure 3). JP ‘918 further discloses the recessed portion (11) is defined by a lower edge portion of the inner end wall (see figures above). After JP’738 is modified by JP ‘918, the recessed portion will be located on a lower edge portion of the inner end walls. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP H086738) and (JP H01126918) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sugita (JP 2018008730). JP ‘738 further discloses each end wall includes an intermediate plate (14b and 16b) disposed between an upper edge portion of the outer end wall and an upper edge portion of the inner end wall (see figures 1 and 2), wherein the intermediate plate defines an opening portion (38) (see figure 3). JP ‘738 does not disclose each end wall includes a rib plate, as required. However, Sugita discloses a cushioning tray comprising end walls (20 defined panels 2, 7 and 8) including push-in piece/rib plate (7a) extending through the interior of the end walls, provided continuously on an edge of an opening (defined by opening formed by the aperture of the push-in piece/rib plate 7a), and the push-in piece/rib plate is folded downward relative to intermediate plate (defined by panel 7 between outside wall 2 and inside wall 8) and inserted between the outer end wall and the inner end wall (see figures 1-4). Sugita discloses the push-in piece/rib plate is used to maintain a distance between outside panel (2) and inside panel (8) (see page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify JP ‘738 having the push-in piece/rib plate provided in the intermediate plate as taught by Sugita to maintain the appropriate distance between the outer end wall and inner end wall. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm. 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. Aviles can be reached at 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 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. RAFAEL A. ORTIZ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3736 /RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 14, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599690
MEDICAL OR DENTAL CASSETTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600525
STRUCTURE FOR LOCKING AND RELEASING SHEET-LIKE OBJECT AND PACKAGING STORAGE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595094
ERGONOMIC HANDLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590478
LID OPENING/CLOSING STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589937
DETERGENT PRESENTATION PACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+36.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1137 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month