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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Impex Diffusion (FR2559136).
Regarding Claim 1, Impex Diffusion discloses a buffer material (Figure 1) comprising: a first planar portion (Figure 1) includes a first face that is flat (Figure 1), and an opening (figure 1); a first buffer portion (figure 1) including a first cylindrical portion (figure 1 and 2), having a cylindrical shape extending from an outer circumferential edge of the first planar portion (Figure 2), in a direction opposite thereto (figure 1); and a second buffer portion (figure 1) including a second cylindrical portion (figure 1 and 2), located on an inner side of the first cylindrical portion of the first buffer portion (figure 1), and having a cylindrical shape extending from an inner circumferential edge of the first planar portion (figure 1 and 2), in a direction opposite thereto (figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
838
994
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Impex Diffusion discloses a size of the first buffer portion along a direction of a perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion (figure 1), and a size of the second buffer portion along the direction of the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion (figure 1), are equal to each other (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Impex Diffusion discloses the first cylindrical portion is inclined by a first angle with respect to the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion (figure 1), such that a diameter of the first cylindrical portion becomes larger in a direction away from the first planar portion (figure 1), the second cylindrical portion is inclined by a second angle with respect to the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion (figure 1), such that a diameter of the second cylindrical portion becomes larger in a direction toward the first planar portion (figure 1), and the first angle and the second angle are equal to each other (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Impex Diffusion discloses a first thickness of the first cylindrical portion and a second thickness of the second cylindrical portion are equal to each other (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Impex Diffusion discloses the first buffer portion further includes a flange portion (figure 1) extending from an end portion of the first cylindrical portion on an opposite side of the first planar portion, to an outer side and parallel to the first face (figure 1).
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graffenberger (U.S. Patent No. 2054934).
Regarding Claim 1, Graffenberger discloses a buffer material (figure 4) comprising: a first planar portion f (figure 4) includes a first face that is flat (figure 4), and an opening (Figure 4); a first buffer portion h (figure 4) including a first cylindrical portion (Figure 4), having a cylindrical shape extending from an outer circumferential edge of the first planar portion (Figure 4), in a direction opposite thereto (figure 4); and a second buffer portion i (figure 4) including a second cylindrical portion (Figure 4), located on an inner side of the first cylindrical portion of the first buffer portion (Figure 4), and having a cylindrical shape extending from an inner circumferential edge of the first planar portion, in a direction opposite thereto (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Graffenberger discloses a length of the second buffer portion along a direction of a perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion is shorter than a length of the first buffer portion along the direction of the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion (figure 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Graffenberger discloses the first cylindrical portion is inclined by a first angle (Figure 4) with respect to the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion, such that a diameter of the first cylindrical portion becomes larger in a direction away from the first planar portion, the second cylindrical portion is inclined by a second angle (Figure 4) with respect to the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion, such that a diameter of the second cylindrical portion becomes larger in a direction toward the first planar portion, and the first angle and the second angle are equal to each other (figure 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Graffenberger discloses a first thickness of the first cylindrical portion and a second thickness of the second cylindrical portion are equal to each other (when unfolded; figure 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Graffenberger discloses a first thickness of the first cylindrical portion and a second thickness of the second cylindrical portion are different from each other (Figure 4, thins towards b).
Regarding Claim 18, Graffenberger discloses the second thickness is thinner than the first thickness (Figure 4, thins towards b).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Impex Diffusion (FR2559136) in view of Skala (U.S. Patent No. 7845512).
Regarding Claim 4, Impex Diffusion teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the first cylindrical portion is inclined by a first angle with respect to the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion, such that a diameter of the first cylindrical portion becomes larger in a direction away from the first planar portion, the second cylindrical portion is inclined by a second angle with respect to the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion, such that a diameter of the second cylindrical portion becomes larger in a direction toward the first planar portion, and the first angle and the second angle are different from each other. However, Skala teaches the first cylindrical portion is inclined by a first angle with respect to the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion (Figure 3), such that a diameter of the first cylindrical portion becomes larger in a direction away from the first planar portion (Figure 3), the second cylindrical portion is inclined by a second angle (Figure 3) with respect to the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion, such that a diameter of the second cylindrical portion becomes larger in a direction toward the first planar portion (Figure 3), and the first angle and the second angle are different from each other (Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Impex Diffusion to include the above, as taught by Skala, in order to allow for a different size object.
Regarding Claim 5, Skala teaches the first angle is larger than the second angle (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Impex Diffusion and Skala do not disclose the second angle is larger than the first angle. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.05(III)(C).
Regarding Claims 8-10, Impex Diffusion and Skala teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a first thickness of the first cylindrical portion and a second thickness of the second cylindrical portion are different from each other wherein the second thickness is thinner than the first thickness or the first thickness is thinner than the second thickness. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.05(III)(C).
Claim(s) 13-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graffenberger (U.S. Patent No. 2054934) in view of Skala (U.S. Patent No. 7845512).
Regarding Claim 13, Graffenberger teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the first cylindrical portion is inclined by a first angle with respect to the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion, such that a diameter of the first cylindrical portion becomes larger in a direction away from the first planar portion, the second cylindrical portion is inclined by a second angle with respect to the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion, such that a diameter of the second cylindrical portion becomes larger in a direction toward the first planar portion, and the first angle and the second angle are different from each other. However, Skala teaches the first cylindrical portion is inclined by a first angle with respect to the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion (figure 3), such that a diameter of the first cylindrical portion becomes larger in a direction away from the first planar portion (figure 3), the second cylindrical portion is inclined by a second angle with respect to the perpendicular line to the first face of the first planar portion (Figure 3), such that a diameter of the second cylindrical portion becomes larger in a direction toward the first planar portion (Figure 3), and the first angle and the second angle are different from each other (Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graffenberger to include the above, as taught by Skala, in order to allow for a different size for objects.
Regarding Claim 14, Skala teaches the first angle is larger than the second angle (figure 3).
Regarding Claims 15 and 19, Graffenberger and Skala teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the second angle is larger than the first angle and the first thickness is thinner than the second thickness. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.05(III)(C).
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm est.
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, NATHAN JENNESS can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights