Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 14, 2026
Application No. 17/173,293

INSULATED BOX

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 11, 2021
Priority
May 09, 2017 — continuation of 10/954,057
Examiner
TAWFIK, SAMEH
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Pratt Retail Specialties LLC
OA Round
9 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
9-10
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allowance Rate
631 granted / 1001 resolved
-7.0% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
1096
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
56.0%
+16.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1001 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/23/2026 has been entered. 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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. Claim(s) 1-2,6-11,13,15 and 51-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurrell et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0000983) in view of Solli et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0148453) and further in view of Mintzes (U.S. Pat. No. 2,532,778). Regarding claim 1: Spurrell discloses a method for assembling an insulated box assembly, the method comprising: positioning an inner corrugated portion (Fig. 2; via 108) and an insulated layer (via 104/106) between a plurality of side portions of an outer corrugated portion (via outer side portions 102), each side portion defining a handle, see for example (Figs. 1-2; inherently the final made container 100 is lifted by hand; any given portion of the side panels or bottom panel could be “defined” as a handle to carry and handle the container), the inner corrugated portion comprising a plurality of side panels hingedly coupled together (via the shown different panels or sides of 108) an defining a top end and a bottom end of the inner corrugated portion (Figs. 2 & 7; via the top and bottom ends of 104/106), the insulated layer extending around the plurality of side panels (via 104/106 rounds around the panels of 108), the insulated layer coupled to the inner corrugated portion (via 104/106 coupled to the inner corrugated portion 108), the insulated layer positioned between the inner corrugated portion and the outer corrugated portion (via 104/106 “entirely” positioned between the inner 108 & outer 102 layers; and paragraph 0042, “The insulating member may be corrugated…and any type of corrugated medium”), the insulated layer comprising at least one insulation batt (via “expanded polystyrene is the material of choice to use as thermal insulation” and/or “insulating members made from n encapsulated cellulose-based substrate may provide adequate insulation”), comprising an adhesive thermoplastic binder adhered to a cellulose fiber, see for example (paragraph 0043; “the container blanks will be encapsulated with a polymeric film…and sealing, adhering,… any bag opening or open sides of the wrapping” & paragraph 0067; “the hot melt adhesive used in the encapsulated blanks”); the plurality of side panels defining a top end and a bottom end of the inner corrugated portion (Fig. 8; via the top/bottom portions of final formed 102), a bottom panel being positioned at the bottom end below the insulated layer (Figs. 2 & 8; inherently the bottom folded panels positioned under and below insulation 104/106), the plurality of side panels and the bottom panel at least partially defining a cavity (Fig. 8; via forming inner container space), the cavity being insulated by the insulated layer (via surrounding of 104/106 around the inner of the formed container 102), an opening to the cavity being defined at the top end (Fig. 8; via top formed opening), and enclosing the cavity with a top (Figs. 8-9; via closing the 102 with the top flaps 136/138). Spurrell may not suggest the positioning of the insulated layer to be coupled to the inner corrugated portion between the top end and the bottom end of the inner corrugated portion. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Spurrell’s insulated layer to be positioned between the inner corrugated portion between the tope and bottom ends, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, it is noted that positioning an insulated materials between top and bottom ends of a corrugated inner portion is old and well known in the art, see for example the following documents: -U.S. Pat. No. 11,066,228; Figs. 1 & 7-13; via 130 between the top/bottom ends of inner portion 120. -U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0148410; Figs. 4, 7, & 9; via 310 between to/bottom ends of inner portion 520. -U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0327171; Figs. 3-5. -U.S. Pat. No. 5,441,170; Figs. 3 & 6. Spurrell does not disclose an insulated layer defining an open top end, an open bottom end, and extending around the plurality of side panels. However, Sollie discloses similar method with a use of insulated layer with an open top end, an open bottom end, and extending around plurality of side panels, see for example (Figs. 1 and 6-8; via climate control and insulating liners 600 with shown cavity 650 around box 110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted Spurrell’s insulated layer by another layer with an open top end, an open bottom end, and extending around plurality of side panels, as a matter of design choice and suggested by Sollie, in order to gain more control of the inner temperature (paragraph 0006-0009). Further, Spurrell in view of Sollie do not suggest the step of having a flexible handle loop to be extending beyond an end portion of the side portion. However, Minitzes discloses similar method comprising the step of having a flexible handle loop extending beyond an end portion of the side portion of the layer, see for example (Figs. 1-2; via handle loop 35 extending beyond end portion of the sides 11/12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Spurrell in view of Sollie’s method by having a step of positioning a handle loop to the side portions, as suggested by Minitzes, in order to come up with a simple and convenient to carry bags (column 1, lines 4-10). Regarding claim 2: Spurrell discloses that wherein enclosing the cavity with a top comprises: positioning the top between the plurality of side portions; and covering the opening with the top (via flaps 136/138 positioned and closed between the side panels of the container 102). Regarding claim 6: Spurrell discloses that wherein enclosing the cavity with a top comprises positioning the top between the plurality of side panels (via flaps 136/138 positioned and closed between the side panels of the container 102). Regarding claim 7: Spurrell discloses that the outer corrugated portion extends around the bottom panel and at least one side panel of the plurality of side panels (Fig. 2-4; via corrugated side panels of 102 surrounding the bottom panel 108). Regarding claim 8: Spurrell discloses that: a portion of the outer corrugated portion is hingedly connected to the plurality of side portions; and the bottom panel is position between the plurality of side portions and above the portion (Fig. 2-4; via corrugated and hingedly side panels of 102 surrounding the bottom panel 108). Regarding claim 9: Spurrell discloses that the bottom panel is positioned in facing contact with the portion (via bottom 108 in respect to completely formed 102). Regarding claim 10: Spurrell discloses that the plurality of side panels comprises a first side panel, a second side panel, a third side panel, and a fourth side panel; and the insulated layer extends around the first side panel, the second side panel, the third side panel, and the fourth side panel, see for example (Figs.2-3; via side panels 110, 112, 114, 116). Regarding claim 11: Spurrell further comprising: folding the second side panel about a first fold line to position the second side panel substantially perpendicular to the first side panel; folding the third side panel about a second fold line to position the third side panel substantially perpendicular to the second side panel; and folding the fourth side panel about a third fold line to position the fourth side panel substantially perpendicular to the third side panel, (Figs. 2-3; via the shown fold lines between the panels). Regarding claim 13: Spurrell discloses that the inner corrugated layer comprises cardboard (via corrugated cardboard of 108). Regarding claim 15: Spurrell discloses that the at least one insulation batt is adhesively coupled to the inner corrugated portion (inherently adhesive will be applied to secure the insulting materials to the panels; “hot melt adhesive used in the encapsulated blanks affects quality” and/or “a process utilizing adhesives to bond the polymeric films to each other and optionally to the cellulose-based substrate”). Regarding claims 51-55 (the best understood): Spurrell discloses the claimed “insulation batt”, “cellulose fibers”, “thermoplastic binder”, “glass transition”, etc., see for example (Figs. 2 & 10; paragraph 0002, 0067, 0040). Regarding claim 56: Spurrell discloses that the plurality of side portion of the outer corrugated portion comprises a first side portion and a second side portion, see for example (Figs. 2 & 7; via the shown sides panels/flaps of the container); and The first side portion defines a first handle and the second side portion defines a second handle, see for example (Figs. 1 & 7; inherently the shown final made container is lifted by hand; any given portion of the side panels or bottom panel could be “defined” as a first and second handle portions to carry and handle the container). Regarding claim 57: Spurrell does not show the first and second handle extend upwardly beyond the top end of the inner corrugated portion. However, the Office takes an official notice that a use of handles in a given corrugated container to be extended upwardly and beyond the top end of the box is something very old and well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Spurrell’s method for assembling a box by placing handles extended upwardly and beyond the top end portion of the box, in order to make the process of carrying and moving the box around easier. Regarding claim 58: Mintzes discloses that each handle loop comprises twisted paper rope (Figs. 1-2; via the shown straps 35). Regarding claim 59: Mintzes further discloses that each handle loop is connected to the corresponding end portion by a base strip (Fig. 1; via 35/36; further “Flexible and pliable straps 35 are attached to the upper edge portions of the side walls 11, 12 by stitching 36 or otherwise as desired”). Regarding claim 60: Mintzes may not suggest a step of laminating each handle loop. However, the Office takes an official notice that laminating web’s portions or handles of bags is a very old teaching and known in the art. Further, the filed application is referring to such step by the filed original specification that “handles 178a,b can be laminated”, not very positive step. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Spurrell in view of Solli and further in view of Mintzes’s method for assembling a box with handle, to have those handles laminated, as an engineering design choice to be made, in order to make the process of carrying and moving the box around easily and safe. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 6-11, 13, 15, and 51-60 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection modified to address the latest filed amendments and added new claims. In respect to applicant’s latest amendment and argument that the applied arts of record do not suggest the amended claims referring to the claimed “handle” to be “extending beyond the end portion” of the “side portion”; the Office as set forth above believes that such use of handles “extending beyond the end portion” of the sides of the blank or bag is very old and known and clearly suggested by the newly addressed art of Mintzes ‘778. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle 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. /SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 17 earlier events
Oct 23, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Mar 05, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jun 23, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703571
MOVING BODY
2y 10m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12691655
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PRODUCING PRESSWARE
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12686605
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR BEVERAGE TRANSFER FROM SOURCE TO DESTINATION CONTAINER
3y 9m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12686525
MACHINE FOR APPLYING SAFETY STRIPS TO THE UPPER PART OF CONTAINERS
1y 12m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12679681
SHEET CONVEYING DEVICE, IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS, AND OPERATION CONTROL METHOD CAPABLE OF SUPPRESSING OCCURRENCE OF PROBLEMS RELATING TO PAIR OF CONVEYING MEMBERS USED FOR SHEET POSITION CORRECTION
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 14, 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

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+31.1%)
3y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1001 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