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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 6 May 2025.
Claims 1 – 5 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6 May 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Packing System.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 3, the limitation, “from pair of end portions”, should read, “from a pair of end portions”.
Regarding claim 1, line 4, the limitation, “extending out away”, should read, “extending out and away”.
Regarding claim 1, lines 8 – 9, the limitation, “said elastic skirts configured”, should read, “said elastic skirts are configured”.
Regarding claim 4, lines 2 – 3, the limitation, “foam; bubble wrap; paper; cardboard; and stuffing”, should read, “foam, bubble wrap, paper, cardboard, and stuffing”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation, “said pair of end portions and said central portion are made of a material selected from a list comprising: foam; bubble wrap; paper; cardboard; and stuffing”, is indefinite because the limitation uses improperly cited Markush language. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022) (each independent claim recites "a selection from the group comprising a person, an animal, an animated character, a creature, an alien, a toy, a structure, a vegetable, and a fruit) "Given the breadth of variation among the specified alternatives and the use of the open-ended word ’comprising’ to define the scope of the list, we affirm the Board's conclusion that the pending claims recite improper Markush language and are indefinite under § 112(b)." ) See MPEP 2173.05(h). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean, “said pair of end portions and said central portion are made of a material selected from a list comprising of foam, bubble wrap, paper, cardboard, and stuffing”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 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.
[AltContent: textbox (Williams (US 4,753,650 A)
Annotated figs. 1 and 2)]Claims 1 and 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 4,753,650 A), in view of the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1)][AltContent: textbox (Figure 2)][AltContent: textbox (Figure 3)][AltContent: textbox (The non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine” – figs. 1, 2, and 3)]
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses a packing system comprising:
a packing device (apparatus of figure 1) comprising a body (11, fig. 1) formed from a pair of end portions (portion A, portion B, annotated fig. 1) bridged by a central portion (portion C, annotated fig. 1);
each of said pair of end portions comprising a pair of flaps (flaps D within portion A and flaps E within portion B, fig. 1) extending out and away from said end portions;
each of said flaps comprising an adhesive tab (15, fig. 1);
said central portion having a left side and a right side each comprising an elastic skirt (the portion of the central portion C between an absorbent batt 11 and the right edge of the central portion C and the portion of the central portion C between an absorbent batt 11 and the left edge of the central portion C. Please note, these portion comprise elastic bands 13, fig. 1),
whereby said pair of end portions, said central portion, and said elastic skirts configured to form a cup-like interior space (space F, annotated fig. 2).
.
Williams does not explicitly disclose said pair of end portions, said central portion, and said elastic skirts configured to form a cup-like interior space configured to receive a fragile object; wherein said flaps are configured to be wrapped about said fragile object; and wherein said adhesive tabs are configured to secure said flaps around said fragile object.
However, the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”, teaches a pair of end portions, a central portion, and an elastic skirts configured to form a cup-like interior space configured to receive a fragile object wherein flaps are configured to be wrapped about said fragile object (Figures 1 and 2 show a packing device similar to the packing device of Williams being used to secure a fragile object/wine bottle within a cup-like interior space formed by the structures of the packing device. One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that with the combination of the teachings of the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”, with the invention of Williams, the pair of end portions, the central portion, and the elastic skirts of Williams would be configured to form the cup-like interior space to receive a fragile object such as a wine bottle as taught by the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”); wherein said flaps are configured to be wrapped about said fragile object; and wherein said adhesive tabs are configured to secure said flaps around said fragile object (Figures 1, 2, and 3 shows flaps being wrapped about the fragile object/wine bottle and adhesive tabs securing flaps around the fragile object/wine bottle. One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that with the combination of the teachings of the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”, with the invention of Williams, the flaps of Williams would be configured to be wrapped about the fragile object/wine bottle and the adhesive tabs would be configured to secure the flaps around the fragile object/wine bottle as taught by the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”).
The non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”, is evidence that having the pair of end portions, the central portion, and the elastic skirts configured to form the cup-like interior space configured to receive a fragile object; wherein the flaps are configured to be wrapped about the fragile object; and wherein the adhesive tabs are configured to secure the flaps around the fragile object was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the packing system of Williams such that the pair of end portions, the central portion, and the elastic skirts configured to form the cup-like interior space is configured to receive a fragile object; wherein the flaps are configured to be wrapped about the fragile object; and wherein the adhesive tabs are configured to secure the flaps around the fragile object, as taught by the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the packing system of Williams such that the pair of end portions, the central portion, and the elastic skirts configured to form the cup-like interior space is configured to receive a fragile object; wherein the flaps are configured to be wrapped about the fragile object; and wherein the adhesive tabs are configured to secure the flaps around the fragile object, as taught by the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”, to use the absorbent felted portion 11 of the packing system of Williams to protect the fragile object/wine from impacts and to absorb liquid/wine if the fragile object/wine leaks or breaks.
Williams does not explicitly disclose a plurality of packaging devices.
However, the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”, teaches a plurality of packing devices (Figures 1 and 2 shows using a first packing device on a top portion of a fragile object/wine bottle and figure 3 shows using a second packing device on a bottom portion of the fragile object/wine bottle).
The non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”, is evidence that having the plurality of packaging devices was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the packing system of the modified Williams such that there are a plurality of packing devices, as taught the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the packing system of the modified Williams such that there are a plurality of packing devices, as taught the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”, in order to ensure the fragile object/wine bottle are completely enclosed by the packing devices to prevent direct contact between the fragile object/wine bottle and the outside environment so that the fragile object/wine bottle is not abraded during shipment.
Regarding claim 4, Williams, as modified by the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”, as further modified by Chinman, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Williams discloses said pair of end portions (portion A, portion B, annotated fig. 1) and said central portion (portion C, annotated fig. 1) are made of a material selected from a list consisting of foam; bubble wrap; paper; cardboard; and stuffing (Annotated figure 1 shows the pair of end portions A, B and the central portion C having absorbent batt 11 wherein col. 2, ll. 62 – 68 describes this absorbent batt 11 as a stuffing (a material used to stuff or fill – Merriam Webster dictionary) between a polyethylene plastic backing sheet 10 and a moisture permeable non-woven fibrous facing sheet 12).
Regarding claim 5, Williams, as modified by the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”, as further modified by Chinman, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Williams discloses said plurality of packing devices comprise unused diapers (Col. 2, ll. 62 – 68 describes the invention of Williams as a diaper).
Claims 2 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 4,753,650 A), in view of the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”, in further view of Chinman (US 4,562,952 A).
Regarding claim 2, Williams, as modified by the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine” discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Williams does not explicitly disclose said plurality of packing devices comprising at least a first quantity of said packing devices and a second quantity of said packing devices; and wherein the packing devices contained within said first quantity of packing devices are of a larger size than the packing devices contained within said second quantity of packing devices.
However, Chinman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches said plurality of packing devices comprising at least a first quantity of said packing devices and a second quantity of said packing devices; and wherein the packing devices contained within said first quantity of packing devices are of a larger size than the packing devices contained within said second quantity of packing devices (Chinman – Col. 3, ll. 58 – 64 describes a set of four different sized wrappers 10 to accommodate different sized articles wherein different colored ribbons and/or tags would differentiate the type of articles in the individual wrappers, particularly where more than one wrapper of the same size is used).
Chinman is evidence that having the plurality of packing devices comprising at least the first quantity of the packing devices and the second quantity of the packing devices and wherein the packing devices contained within the first quantity of packing devices are of the larger size than the packing devices contained within the second quantity of packing devices was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the packing system of the modified Williams such that the plurality of packing devices comprising at least the first quantity of the packing devices and the second quantity of the packing devices and wherein the packing devices contained within the first quantity of packing devices are of the larger size than the packing devices contained within the second quantity of packing devices, as taught Chinman. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the packing system of the modified Williams such that the plurality of packing devices comprising at least the first quantity of the packing devices and the second quantity of the packing devices and wherein the packing devices contained within the first quantity of packing devices are of the larger size than the packing devices contained within the second quantity of packing devices, as taught Chinman, so that the packing device can accommodate all necessary fragile objects when the fragile objects are different sizes.
Regarding claim 3, Williams, as modified by the non-patent literature document, “Diapering Wine”, as further modified by Chinman, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Williams discloses said first quantify of packing devices are identified with a first color code and said second quantity of packing devices are identified with a second color code (Chinman – col. 3, ll. 58 – 64 describes a set of four different sized wrappers 10 to accommodate different sized articles wherein different colored ribbons and/or tags would differentiate the type of articles in the individual wrappers, particularly where more than one wrapper of the same size is used).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
12 January 2026