DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/6/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2025 in response to Office Action 8/6/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1,
Applicant states that primary prior art Hull does not teach away from making its dishwasher safe liner of biodegradable material as taught by secondary prior art Jobe (agreeing with the examiner), but does argue that the primary function of Hull’s liner is to be dishwasher safe so cannot be made of biodegradable material, and that biodegradable material always breaks down in the dishwasher so is not a safe material in a dishwasher (page 6, paras 1-2 and last two lines). Examiner agrees with the statement and disagrees with the arguments. Examiner points out that being dishwasher safe is merely an ancillary intended use of Hull (since Hull only discloses that the liner material “may” be dishwasher safe). Regardless, the evidentiary reference Meyer that supports Jobe’s biodegradable liner shows a POSITA knows a biodegradable material is dishwasher safe by disclosing [0019] “The exemplary embodiments relate to a biodegradable… compostable packaging, container or the like” wherein [0055] “this [container] is also reusable, is very easy to clean after use (is also dishwasher safe) and, above all, is home-compostable”. Please see more detailed analyses in the previous action’s response and in the rejection below.
Applicant similarly argues that the intended use of Hull’s liner is for odor and stain resistance (page 7, para 1). Examiner points out that being odor and stain resistant is merely an ancillary intended use.
Applicant argues that since Hull has a pivoting lid it would not be obvious to add a central handle to the lid because an opposite end handle away from the pivot would be more practical by providing more leverage than a central handle in opening the lid (page 6, para 3). Examiner disagrees, but modifies secondary prior art Yang to now fully teach the lid as not pivoting.
Applicant also argues that Hull does not teach that the peripheral edge of the lid is “entirely surrounded by” and within the lip of the outer shell as claimed (page 8, para 1). However, examiner points out that Yang and Toida teach the claimed lid.
Applicant appears to argue that since cited elements of the cooler are added sequentially by secondary references, it is not obvious to put together all the claim elements without the Applicant’s application as guidance (page 6, para 4). In other words, there is at least one missing “logic leap” teaching reference in the prior art construction, meaning there’s a gap in why a POSITA would see it obvious to add each prior art to form the claimed invention without the instant application. Examiner disagrees and points to the obviousness of the cited common cooler elements (e.g. Yang’s handle and indent in the lid, Toida’s reshaping of the handle, prior art Samples’ cup holders in the lid, and Jobe’s material change and support wall reshaping) in the rejection below.
In further response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Beyond that, the examiner cannot respond since no claim element is particularly argued.
Applicant also argues that there are too many references used. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Applicant argues that Hull does not teach the amended tapering of support walls of the outer shell, and that modifying those walls is impossible without making the liner of Hull look weird when placed inside the outer shell because it no longer fits since the liner is depicted only as one size (page 7, last five lines to page 8 first two lines). However, examiner points out that Jobe teaches the taper, and Hull considers that the liner will fit inside regardless of shape which is exact evidence counter to the argument; [0002] “The shape of the liner may precisely mimic the contours of the interior surface of the insulated container, or it may also be slightly smaller. For instance, the wall edge of the liner may be aligned with a side edge of the rigid insulating container when the liner is fully inserted.”
In addition, Applicant argues that the other amendment of at least one liner contact location is not taught (page 7, para 5). However, please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Applicant argues that Jobe’s liner is not a planar liner as claimed (page 8, line 8). However, examiner points out that Hull already first teaches liner planar support walls.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20050035119 issued to Hull et al. (hereinafter “Hull”) in view of US Pat 5111664 issued to Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang”) in further view of US 5335809 issued to Toida et al. (hereinafter “Toida”) in further view of US Pat 10167184 issued to Samples (hereinafter “Samples”) in further view of US Pub 20200102139 issued to Jobe (hereinafter “Jobe”) and evidenced by US 20190144664 by Meyer et al. (hereinafter “Meyer”).
Regarding claim 1, Hull teaches a double-walled, slip fit disposable cooler (see examiner annotated Hull Figure 5, hereinafter “EAFH5”; with a removable/slip fit liner in a cooler shell that are each formed as a single component [0003], disposable [0001], has both vertical and horizontal lip portions of the shell Fig 5, where the inner liner contacts the base of the shell, and the lid sits around the shell) comprising:
a body (100, 10) comprising:
an outer shell (outside perimeter surface of 100) comprising a base (bottom surface 120), a plurality of support walls (side wall surfaces 130) coupled to the base, and an inner liner lip (opening edge 110) formed at distal ends of the plurality of support walls away from the base (Fig 5, 110 is formed at the distal ends of each of the plurality of support walls), the outer shell lip having a horizontal lip wall and a vertical lip wall (EAFH5, vertical lip wall, a horizontal lip wall is a level surface of a portion of opening edge 110), the base and the plurality of support walls defining an interior cavity therein (recess 140 defined by 130) and said outer shell lip facilitating lifting of said outer shell (Fig 5, 110 is necessarily capable of allowing lifting); and
an inner liner (inner liner 10) comprising
a base (bottom portion 20 of 10), a plurality of planar support walls coupled to the base (side walls 30 shown planar and coupled to 20), and an inner lip (an inner liner 10 inner lip is flange 70) extending substantially horizontally from the plurality of planar support walls at a distal end from the base (70 extends substantially horizontally from 30 at a distal end from the base which is an end area including upper wall edge 40), the base and the plurality of planar support walls defining an interior cavity of said inner liner therein (EAFH5, inner cavity, shown defined by 30 and 20) and forming an opening (opening 50) at an upper terminus of the plurality of support walls (50 is at an upper terminus of 130 which is an end area including wall edge 40), wherein the inner liner is removably disposed within the outer shell (shown) and the inner liner lip of the inner liner is set atop of and
supported by (shown) the horizontal lip wall (the horizontal lip wall is a portion of the opening edge 110) of said outer shell lip of the outer shell ([0013] the portion of opening edge 110 that flange 70 goes across) and wherein
at least one air gap is formed between the inner liner and the outer shell once the inner liner is disposed within the outer shell ([0013] space between bottom 20 of the liner and bottom 120 of the container once liner is disposed within), and wherein the inner liner lip of the inner liner is sitting atop and resting on the horizontal lip wall of the outer shell lip ([0011] and [0013] since flange 70 of the liner goes across the horizontal lip wall portion of 110 once disposed within and creates a space between wherein ice can fit therefore air, it is sitting and resting atop said portion of 110 (i.e. horizontal lip wall; also see “rests” [0011]), wherein said portion 110 is horizontal because the container is a rectangular box shape and the peripheral liner edge 60 is level; in addition [0002] liner can precisely mimic container contours); and
a lid ([0013] “other cover” (than the one depicted EAFH5)) positioned on the outer shell, and said lid substantially covering the opening of the inner liner ([0013] closes [the opening] and secures the liner, thereby necessarily said lid is positioned on the outer shell),
PNG
media_image1.png
851
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Hull does not explicitly teach a completely removable lid with a lid central handle.
Yang, however, teaches a substantially rectangular lid completely removably positioned on, and detachably removable from (Fig 1, a substantially rectangular completely removable detachable lid 2B) an outer shell (Fig 1, said lid is positioned on an outer shell 2),
said lid having a peripheral edge and an upper surface wherein said lid extends upwardly from said peripheral edge to said upper surface that is primarily spaced above said peripheral edge (Fig 1, an upper surface of the lid extends upwardly from and is spaced above (i.e. above the lead line of label 2B) a peripheral edge of the lid (i.e. a seated contact edge below the lead line of label 2B)) and forms a raised area beneath and between an under surface of said lid and said peripheral edge (Fig 1, a raised area is beneath an under surface of the lid and between the under surface and the peripheral edge), and the peripheral edge that is positioned inwardly of and entirely surrounded by the lip of the outer shell so that said peripheral edge is beneath an uppermost edge of the lip of the outer shell (Fig 1, the uppermost edge of an outer shell 2 lip (edge shown intersecting the lead line of label 2B) is shown above the lid peripheral edge (that is seated below the lead line of label 2B), wherein the peripheral edge is inward of and entirely surrounded by the outer shell lip).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid of Hull with a handle having an indentation and peripheral edge as taught by Yang in order to advantageously provide more dexterous gripping strategies for a wider variety of cooler users by allowing other angles of access to the user under the handle, and beneficially better protect the lid from jarring open from jostling by having the outer shell lip surround the lid peripheral edge.
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hull’s lid to be non-pivot type as it is no more than a simple substitution of one lid type for another that is known in the art for closing an opening of a cooler and would only produce the predictable results of closing the opening. MPEP 2143 I-B.
But Hull/Yang does not explicitly teach a specific central handle arrangement.
Toida, however, teaches a removable lid with a central handle (Fig 1, a removable lid 40 with a central handle knob 45) comprising:
two or more identical centrally formed, spaced apart indentations that form a centrally located handle of said lid (Fig 2, two centrally formed spaced apart (from each other) indents to the left and right from viewer perspective form 45), said centrally located handle having a handle upper surface that is co-planar with an upper surface of said lid (Fig 2, a topmost surface of 45 is coplanar with a topmost surface 43 of 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid handle of Yang/Hull to be coplanar with the lid topmost surface as taught by Toida in order to advantageously allow more efficient packing and stacking by reducing the protruding structure, and not interfere with other objects as easily, thereby reducing jostle of container contents and inadvertent lid/handle damage.
But Hull/Yang/Toida does not explicitly teach cup holders.
Samples, however, teaches a similar removable lid (Fig 1, a removable lid 20) comprising:
a plurality of cup holders that are positioned closer to the peripheral edge of the lid than the center of the lid and said plurality of cup holders are spaced about said center (Fig 2, four cup holders 75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid of Hull with cup holders as taught by Samples in order to advantageously reduce spilling from jostling by securing them in holders rather than resting them on a lid top surface.
But Hull/Yang/Toida/Samples does not explicitly teach biodegradable material and two sidewall channels.
Jobe, however, teaches a similar cooler (Fig 2A) comprising:
an outer shell, an inner liner, and a lid formed of pulp biodegradable material ([0044] [0047] each component [body, liner and lid] is the “same material”; wherein [0010] paper pulp or vegetable fiber pulp is necessarily biodegradable,
and further teaches options in light of the depending claims:
[0056] shredded paper filler which is necessarily recyclable paper;
[0056] shredded paper filler, and [0066] wax added in moisture barrier 182 to protect interior 114 is necessarily a combination of recycled paper and wax;
[0066] wax added in moisture barrier 182 to protect interior 114 of paper pulp [0010];
[0006] compostable plant fiber or starch),
each wall of said plurality of support walls tapering from a larger upper perimeter dimension to a smaller perimeter dimension (Fig 1 & 6, shows taper of the support walls),
two opposed support walls each having a channel formed in an exterior of said two opposed support walls that extends into said interior cavity of said outer shell, each said channel facilitating lifting of said outer shell (Fig 1, two opposed sidewalls have exterior channels extending into interior cavity necessarily capable of allowing lifting of the outer shell),
and wherein the inner liner contacts the outer shell in at least one location eliminating an air gap in at least one location (Fig 6, an inner liner 130 is shown contacting at least one location of outer shell 120 thereby interrupting an air gap shown on either side of said location (i.e. no air gap in contact area/it’s eliminated)).
The purpose of channels and a biodegradable material is to be easily disposed of street-side. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of US 20190144664 by Meyer et al. before them of a material that is both [0055] biodegradable/compostable and dishwasher safe, to have modified the body, liner and lid material of Hull/Yang/Toida to have channels and be biodegradable as taught by Jobe in order to advantageously biodegrade when forgotten street-side (i.e. pulp-based), or abide by the recycling/composting standard ASTM D6400 to be more sustainable by being recyclable (i.e. for recycled paper/wax additive), or make the biodegradable material resistant to water (i.e. wax additive), or decompose within 180 days to be used as fertilizer (i.e. compostable), and
beneficially the shell support wall channels and tapering provide strength to this type of material for stacking containers and preventing crushing while carrying. Liner contact with the shell advantageously reinforces the liner against tearing from heavier contents versus just having an air gap that would otherwise not support the liner against damage.
Examiner notes that Applicant uses many varieties of pulp biodegradable material, of which Meyer’s is one since sunflower seed husks are pulp that biodegrades and its combination material also biodegrades, as disclosed.
Regarding claim 2, Hull further teaches one or more of the plurality of support walls (shell side walls 30, side wall surfaces 130) are continuously and seamlessly (Fig 5 and [0003] thermoplastic material) coupled to the base (EAFH5 shown continuous and seamless; [0015] “the liner 10 and the cylindrical liner 200 may each be a single unitary body and can be formed using methods such as an injection molding process”).
Regarding claim 3, Hull further teaches the outer shell (outside perimeter surface of 100) is fabricated as a single component (Fig 5 and [0003] thermoplastic material) and is continuous and seamless (EAFH5 shown continuous and seamless; [0015] “the liner 10 and the cylindrical liner 200 may each be a single unitary body and can be formed using methods such as an injection molding process”).
Regarding claim 4, Hull further teaches the inner liner (liner 10) is fabricated as a single component (Fig 5 and [0003] thermoplastic material) and is continuous and seamless (EAFH5 shown continuous and seamless; [0015] “the liner 10 and the cylindrical liner 200 may each be a single unitary body and can be formed using methods such as an injection molding process”).
Regarding claim 6, Hull/Yang/Toida/Samples/Jobe/Meyer further teaches the biodegradable material of the body, the inner liner, and the lid is a pulp material (Jobe, pulp material). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 7, Hull/Yang/Toida/Samples/Jobe/Meyer already teaches the lid (Yang, Fig 1, 2B) is formed so as to fit inside the outer shell lip of the outer shell (Yang, Fig 1 shows the outermost peripheral edge of the lid is inward of and beneath the outer lip of 2) and cover the opening of the inner liner (Hull, [0013], liner). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 8, Hull further teaches the inner liner lip of the inner liner (Fig 5, flange 70) extends outwardly away (flange 70 extends outwardly away) from the interior cavity of the inner liner lip and
the outer shell lip of the outer shell comprises: the horizontal lip wall extending horizontally from the distal ends of each of the plurality of support walls of the outer shell and outwardly away from the interior cavity of the outer shell (level surface of a portion of opening edge 110 is shown); and the vertical lip wall extending vertically from an end of the horizontal lip wall (EAFH5, vertical lip wall is shown).
Regarding claim 9, Hull/Yang/Toida/Samples/Jobe/Meyer already teaches the lid (Yang, Fig 1, 2B) is formed such that the peripheral edge thereof is substantially flush with outer shell lip of the outer shell (Yang, Fig 1 shows the outermost peripheral edge of the lid is inward of and beneath the outer lip of 2 (i.e. substantially flush)) when the lid at least substantially covers the opening of the inner liner (Hull, when [0013] cover covers). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 11, Hull/Yang/Toida/Samples/Jobe/Meyer further teaches the pulp biodegradable material is derived from recycled paper (Jobe, recycled paper). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 12, Hull/Yang/Toida/Samples/Jobe/Meyer further teaches the pulp biodegradable material is made with a combination of recycled paper and wax (Jobe, recycled paper and wax combination). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 13, Hull/Yang/Toida/Samples/Jobe/Meyer further teaches the pulp biodegradable material includes a wax additive (Jobe, wax additive). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 14, Hull/Yang/Toida/Samples/Jobe/Meyer further teaches the pulp biodegradable material is compostable (Jobe/Meyer, compostable). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 18, Hull/Yang/Toida/Samples/Jobe/Meyer further teaches the lid covers and sits atop and around the outer shell lip of the outer shell (Yang, Fig 1, 2B sits atop and around the outer shell lip). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733