Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 19/082,778

CUSHIONING MATERIAL

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Mar 18, 2025
Priority
Apr 25, 2024 — JP 2024-071551
Examiner
RODRIGUEZ MOLINA, MARCOS JAVIER
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Konica Minolta Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allowance Rate
84 granted / 159 resolved
-17.2% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
200
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
52.1%
+12.1% vs TC avg
§102
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
§112
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 159 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . This Office Action is in response to the reply filed on June 9, 2026 wherein claim(s) 1, 5-7 were amended, and claim(s) 2 canceled. The Examiner notes amendments in claims are directed to overcome their rejections under 35 USC § 112 / 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claims 1, 3-7 are pending and will be examined. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-7 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 applications subject to pre-Al A 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim(s) 1, recites: --side surface distal wall section-- (line(s) 4, 6-7) which is vague and indefinite and will be interpreted as “side surface separate wall section not directly attached to the wall section that is flatly placed on the product” since “distal” requires a defined attachment point to be meaningful and it is lacking thereto. Claim(s) 1, recites: --a connecting section that connects the flat surface wall section and the side surface distal wall section in a separated state-- (line(s) 6-7) wherein --separated state-- is vague and indefinite since --flat surface wall section-- / --side surface distal wall section-- are “connected”. For purposes of examination recitation is being interpreted as “a connecting section that connects the flat surface wall section and the side surface distal wall section in a tethered state--". Claims 3 rejected by dependency of claim 1. Claim(s) 4, recites: --wherein the connecting section includes a mat board that rises in a vertical direction-- (line(s) 2) wherein --mat board-- is vague and indefinite and will be interpreted as one of vertical sections of the “U shape”. Claim(s) 1, 5, recites: --U shape having a 180 degree turn-- (claim 1, line 8), (claim 5, line 9) which is vague and indefinite and will be interpreted as “square U shape”. Claim(s) 5, recites: --side surface distal wall section-- (line(s) 4, 7) which is vague and indefinite and will be interpreted as “side surface tethered wall section not directly attached to the wall section that is flatly placed on the product” since “distal” requires a defined attachment point to be meaningful and it is lacking thereto. Claim(s) 5, is vague and indefinite since it is not clear how does the “wall section, that lays flat on the product, have a distal wall? What is the “distal wall section provided on a distal wall of the wall section”? For purposes of examination “distal wall” is interpreted as a “tethered wall”. Furthermore, the phrase --the connecting section-- (line(s) 9) is the first place it is mentioned and therefore the use of the term “the” before --connecting section-- implies as being positively claimed, hence it will interpreted as “a connecting section”. Claim(s) 7, is vague and indefinite since it is not clear how “the wall section and the distal wall section are glued in such a manner that the edge comes into contact with the hollow section” because it is unclear “glued” to what structure, and for purposes of examination will be interpreted as “wall section” - “distal wall section” as being “glued” together. Claim(s) 7, is vague and indefinite since it is not clear how an “edge comes into contact with the hollow section” in recitation --the wall section and the distal wall section are glued in such a manner that the edge comes into contact with the hollow section-- since it is “hollow” and will interpreted as “a surface of the product comes in contact with a surface proximal to the “hollow section”. Claims 6 rejected by dependency of claim 5. 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/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Höfs (German Patent Application Publication DE19802087A1) hereinafter HÖFS. Regarding claim 1, HÖFS teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 5 below) a cushioning material 2 to be placed on a top surface (Fig. 2) or a bottom surface (Fig. 2) of a product to protect the product, the cushioning material 2 comprising: a flat surface wall section H5-01 flatly placed on the product; a side surface distal wall section H5-02 provided on a side surface H5-03 of the flat surface wall section H5-01; and a connecting section H5-04 that connects the flat surface wall section H5-01 and the side surface distal wall section H5-02 in a separated state (Fig. 3); wherein the connecting section H5-04 has a U shape (Fig. 5) having a 180 degree turn H5-05, H5-06 with right-angled corners H5-07, H5-08 and having an open top H5-09. PNG media_image1.png 434 936 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 567 835 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 434 820 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 335 815 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 287 914 media_image5.png Greyscale Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 3, 6 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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments / amendments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 112 / 35 USC § 103 / 35 USC § 103 filed on June 9, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections does not rely on exactly all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments. With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Voorhees (U. S. Patent US11643265B1): Teaches a “corner element” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Niu et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20050035257A1): Teaches a “corner post” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Ragsdale (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20030155272A1): Teaches a “cushion insert” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 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, ANTHONY D. 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. /M.J.R.M./ /Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 18, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112
Jun 09, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 05, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703563
CONTAINER SYSTEM FOR PHOSPHOROUS PENTASULFIDE
3y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12703536
MEAL KIT ASSEMBLY
3y 0m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12686527
Tethered Closure Device with Stabilised Connecting Element
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12685695
TRANSPARENT BOTTLES INCLUDING FACETED SIDE WALLS
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12674643
Carry bag for multiple rifles
3y 8m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+25.0%)
2y 4m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 159 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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