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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 6/22/2026, wherein claims 1 and 9 were amended, claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/22/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deis (DE 102018110816 A1) in view of Maida (US 5544473 A).
With respect to claim 1, Deis discloses a structure of packaging bag, the packaging bag comprising: an outside wall surface (top/exterior surface of 32); an inside wall surface (bottom/interior surface of 32), which is opposite to the outside wall surface, the inside wall surface surrounding and defining a containing space (28); at least one buffer body (34), which is made in a prefabricated shaped form and disposed in the containing space, the buffer body having an unfixed outer side surface (surface closest to 32) facing the inside wall surface, the unfixed outer side surface being not fixed to the inside wall surface (see [004] on page 4 of google translation attached).
Deis failed to disclose a plurality of honeycomb cells, which are formed in the buffer body, each of the honeycomb cells comprises a peripheral edge in a polygonal form and a high edge extending from the peripheral edge in a vertical direction, so as to make the honeycomb cell forming a three-dimensional configuration, the peripheral edge comprising a plurality of cell edges, an included angle formed between each of the cell edges, wherein the included angle formed between two adjacent cell edges of the same peripheral edge is between 45 degrees and 135 degrees. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging, Maida taught of a package with honeycomb cells as it cushion material (item 40, figures 4 and 4) as an alternate form of packing material. Maida teaches of a regular hexagon which has an angle of 120° between all sides; the teachings of the same length for all sides is specifically taught by column 4 lines 10-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of packaging before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hexagonal cells as taught by Maida for the honeycomb shape as disclosed by Deis since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, both serve the same function of protecting the product stored and Maida’s device is biodegradable (col 1 lines 48-53). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
296
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Deis further discloses wherein an inner layer (30) is provided on a side of the buffer body facing away from the inside wall surface, and the buffer body has an unfixed inner side surface (surface closes to 30) facing the inner layer, the unfixed inner side surface being not fixed to the inner layer. (see [004] on page 4 of google translation attached)
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Deis further discloses wherein the packaging bag is provided with a cover (16) member for closing the containing space.
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Deis further discloses wherein the packaging bag comprises one of an envelope bag, a cold-keeping bag, and a heat preservation bag. (title/abstract)
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further disclose wherein the buffer body is made of a biodegradable paper material. (abstract of Deis teaches of paper and abstract and col 1 lines 48-53 of Maida reference)
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Deis further discloses, wherein a total area of the unfixed outer side surface is smaller than a total area of the inside wall surface. (inherent of figures, as the inside wall surface extends further than the buffer body)
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further disclose wherein the packaging bag and the inner layer comprise a material selected from paper, cloth, or plastic. (abstract of Deis and Maida describes an paper)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deis (DE 102018110816 A1) in view of Maida (US 5544473 A) and Kruger (US 1524399 A).
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the packaging bag is provided with at least one handle member. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely packaging containers, Kruger taught of an easily attachable handle in order to permit the package to be carried in a convenient manner (col 1 lines 9-17). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Deis and Maida to include a handle as taught by Kruger in order to allow convenient carrying of the package.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-1524399-A OR US-0382228-A OR US-20220250827-A1 OR US-20210206535-A1 OR US-20190100369-A1 OR US-20240383663-A1 OR US-20240067425-A1 OR US-20230399144-A1 OR US-20230020226-A1 OR US-20220106093-A1 OR US-20210031997-A1 OR US-20190315567-A1 OR US-20130189479-A1 OR US-20020153275-A1 OR US-20250091787-A1 OR US-20240300697-A1 OR US-20230182989-A1 OR US-20230167939-A1 OR US-5544473-A OR US-12115753-B2 OR US-5688578-A OR US-5518802-A OR US-5462171-A OR US-5040696-A
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments with respect the drawings overcome the objection of 3/19/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Maida reference teaches a structure that is expanded during use to form a temporary three dimensional cushion configuration. Whereas the present invention is a prefabricated buffer. Firstly,. The “in use” configuration has the plurality of honeycomb cells and allows for sufficient cushioning. The application of Maida’s teachings does not use or require a collapsed configuration. Maida is used to teach that hexagonal honeycomb cells can provide sufficient structure in packaging and has been previously demonstrated in the field of packaging.
Secondly, applicant argues that the claimed angle range is associated with the geometry of the honey comb cells in the maintained three-dimensional configuration. As written, Maida teaches of achieving the claimed angular relationship in the in-use configuration. The angular relationship is achieved by Maidas teachings applied to the buffer body of Deis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights