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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-22, 25, 27-28, and 30-31 remain pending in the application. Claims 7 and 9-22 are withdrawn. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a transfer wall defining and closing one side of the well, the transfer wall in intimate contact with the external wall when the well is closed, the transfer wall configured to be disposed between the external wall and the vessel” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note that Figs. 4-6 appears to show the claimed external wall, i.e. element 322, but does not show an additional transfer wall as claimed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 25, 27-28, 30- 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “a closure wall and an external wall that define a well therebetween…and a transfer wall defining and closing one side of the well, the transfer wall in intimate contact with the external wall when the well is closed, the transfer wall configured to be disposed between the external wall and the vessel”. The specification, paragraph [0097], and Figs. 4-6 teaches a closure wall 352 and transfer wall 322 that define a chamber 330 therebetween, where the closure wall 352 and transfer wall 322 are hingedly secured by hinge 355. The specification, paragraphs [0026], discloses “an external wall of the body” and paragraph [0028] discloses a “transfer element may be configured to be in intimate contact with the external wall of the box”. However, the disclosure fails to describe the carrier having both an external wall and a transfer wall, which define and close one side of the well. Is the claimed ”external wall” equivalent to the “transfer wall 322” as described in the disclosure? If so, the disclosure fails to describe the claimed “external wall”. As shown in Fig. 5, it appears that “transfer wall 322” reads on both the claimed “external wall” and “transfer wall defining and closing one side of the well”. However, if “transfer wall 322” is both the claimed “external wall” and “transfer wall”, the limitation of claimed “the transfer wall in intimate contact with the external wall when the well is closed, the transfer wall configured to be disposed between the external wall and the vessel” is not described, since it is unclear if and how the transfer wall 322 contacts itself. Additionally, the specification, paragraph [0095] discloses “a thermal energy transfer element 346 that is positioned on one side of the well 342.” However, it is unclear if the “thermal energy transfer element” is the same or different from the claimed “transfer wall” due to the difference in terminology. Due to the presence of both “transfer wall 322” and “thermal transfer element 346” in the disclosure, it is unclear if the claimed “a closure wall and an external wall that define a well therebetween…and a transfer wall defining and closing one side of the well, the transfer wall in intimate contact with the external wall when the well is closed, the transfer wall configured to be disposed between the external wall and the vessel” is supported by the disclosure. Therefore, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is suggested to use consistent and corresponding terminology in the claims as the disclosure in order to ensure proper written description of the claimed elements (e.g. box 310, chamber 330, closure wall 352, transfer wall 322, carrier 340, vessel 20, pad 358, transfer element 346). Claims 2, 4-6, and 25, 27, 28, 30- 31 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on all of the limitations and the written description issues of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 25, 27-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsumura et al. (US 20180007890 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumura teaches a carrier (Figs. 1-2) for receiving a vessel (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; abstract; Figs. 1-2), the carrier comprising:
a body (Fig. 1, container 1) including a closure wall (upper portion 14) and an external wall (lower portion 15) that define a well therebetween (Figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0028] teaches the upper portion 14 and lower portion 15 defines a space, i.e. well, therebetween that accommodates a freezer bag 2), the closure wall hingedly secured to the external wall (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0028] teaches the upper portion 14 is hingedly secured to the lower portion 15 by a hinge 18) such that the well is selectively closeable between the closure wall and the external wall (Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]), the well sized and dimensioned to receive a vessel including media therein (Figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0028] teach the container 1 is configured to accommodate a freezer bag, therefore is sized and dimensioned to receive a vessel including media; note that “a vessel including media” is not positively recited structurally), the body including a pad (Figs. 1-2, ridges 11 at the upper portion 12) separate from and attached to the closure wall (Figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0037] teaches the ridges are molded as separate bodies and then attached to the upper portion of the container), the pad configured to urge the vessel towards the external wall of the body to enhance thermal energy transfer into or out of the media within the vessel through material of the external wall (interpreted as a functional limitation of the pad, see MPEP 2114; Figs. 1-2 teach the ridges 11 at the upper portion 12 is structurally configured to and capable of urging a vessel, e.g. freezer bag 2, towards the lower portion 15; paragraph [0030] teaches the container comprises a metallic material, such as aluminum; paragraph [0037] teaches the ridges comprise a metallic material, such as aluminum; therefore, the ridges is structurally capable of urging the vessel to enhance thermal energy transfer into or out of the media within the vessel through material of the external wall at a later time), the external wall configured to conduct thermal energy into or out of the media within the vessel (paragraph [0030] teaches the container comprises a metallic material, such as aluminum; thus, is configured to conduct thermal energy into and out of media within a vessel); and
a transfer wall defining and closing one side of the well (Figs. 1-2, interpreted ridges 11 at the lower portion 15 that defines and closes one side of the well, since the ridges 11 on lower portion 15 is a structural portion that covers and closes the inside of the container 1), the transfer wall (Figs. 1-2, ridges 11 at the lower portion 15) in intimate contact with the external wall when the well is closed (Figs. 1-2 teaches ridges 11 is in intimate contact with the wall of lower portion 15 when the container 1 is closed), the transfer wall configured to be disposed between the external wall and the vessel (Figs. 1-2 teaches ridges 11 is between the wall of lower portion 15 and bag 2).
Note that the vessel including media are not positively recited structurally and are interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed carrier. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (vessel including media) worked upon by a structure (the carrier) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). As discussed above, the apparatus of Matsumura is capable of performing the claimed functional limitations regarding the vessel including media.
Note that the limitations that describe the body, closure wall, external wall, well, pad, and transfer wall, are interpreted as intended uses or functional limitations and are given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed carrier. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. As discussed in detail above, the structure of Matsumura is capable of performing these intended uses and functional limitations. The apparatus of Matsumura is identical to the presently claimed structure. Since Matsumura discloses the body, closure wall, external wall, well, pad, and transfer wall as claimed and therefore, Matsumura would have the ability to perform the use recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumura further teaches wherein the well (Figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0028] teaches the upper portion 14 and lower portion 15 defines a space, i.e. well, therebetween that accommodates a freezer bag 2) is sized and dimensioned to compensate for expansion of the media within the vessel as the temperature of the media within the vessel changes (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; note that “media within the vessel” is not positively recited structurally; Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs [0017],[0030] teach the container 1 is sized and dimensioned to compensate for freezing and thawing of a bag, while protecting the freezing bag; therefore the well defined by the container is structurally capable of compensating for expansion of media as claimed).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumura further teaches wherein the transfer wall (Figs. 1-2, interpreted ridges 11 at the lower portion 15 ) is formed of aluminum (paragraph [0037] teaches the ridges comprise a metallic material, such as aluminum).
Regarding claim 25, Matsumura further teaches the carrier according to claim 1, wherein the external wall (Figs. 1-2; lower portion 15) includes a continuous major contact surface (Figs. 1-2, surface of lower portion 15), the continuous major contact surface configured to conduct thermal energy therethrough (paragraph [0030] teaches the container is made of aluminum for transferring heat to the freezing bag; therefore, the surface of the lower portion is configured to conduct thermal energy as claimed).
Regarding claim 27, Matsumura further teaches wherein the continuous major contact surface forms an outermost surface of the body (Figs. 1-2 shows an outermost surface of lower portion 15 forms an outermost surface of the container 1).
Regarding claim 28, Matsumura further teaches wherein the body (container 1) is configured to compress the vessel within the well (interpreted as a functional limitation of the body, see MPEP 2114; Figs. 1-2 shows the container 1 is configured to compress a freezer bag 1 within the space of the container).
Regarding claim 30, Matsumura further teaches wherein the hinge (Fig. 1, hinge 18) defines a fixed pivot axis (Fig. 1 shows hinge 18 defining a fixed pivot axis), the closure wall pivoting relative to the external wall about the fixed pivot axis (Fig. 1; paragraph [0028]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Green et al. (US 4747519 A).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumura fails to teach: the carrier according to claim 1, further comprising a hook for supporting the body during filling of the vessel received within the body.
Green teaches a hanger system for a container (abstract; Figs. 1-9). Green teaches hanging mechanisms and support hooks have been used with containers and dispensers in various ways (column 1, lines 13-15). Green teaches there remain problems in providing a hanger system which does not interfere with standard manufacturing, shipping, and hanging procedures, while allowing convenient suspension of a container (column 2, lines 22-28). Green teaches the hanger system of the invention provides a detachable hanger member (column 2, lines 37-44). Green teaches a container wherein a detachable hanger member is conveniently attachable to such container and rotatable a full 360 degrees while in such attached position to provide adaptability of such hanger system to various bottle shapes, support structures, and environments (column 2, lines 45-51). Green teaches the hanger system comprise a hook for supporting a bottle (Figs. 7-8, hanger member 10 is a hook shape).
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 carrier of Matsumura to incorporate the teachings of detachable hooks of Green to provide the carrier further comprising a hook for supporting the body during filling of the vessel received within the body. Doing so would utilize known hanging mechanisms, as taught by Green, which would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving convenience and adaptability of hanging the carrier as taught by Green (column 2, lines 45-51), allowing for a system that does not interfere with standard manufacturing, shipping, and hanging procedures (Green, column 2, lines 22-28), and allowing for convenient suspension of a container (Green, column 2, lines 22-28).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumura fails to teach: wherein the hook is removeably secured to the body.
Green teaches there remain problems in providing a hanger system which does not interfere with standard manufacturing, shipping, and hanging procedures, while allowing convenient suspension of a container (column 2, lines 22-28). Green teaches the hanger system of the invention provides a detachable hanger member (column 2, lines 37-44). Green teaches a container wherein a detachable hanger member is conveniently attachable to such container and rotatable a full 360 degrees while in such attached position to provide adaptability of such hanger system to various bottle shapes, support structures, and environments (column 2, lines 45-51). Green teaches the hanger system comprise a hook for supporting a bottle (Figs. 7-8, hanger member 10 is a hook shape).
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 carrier of Matsumura to incorporate the teachings of detachable hooks of Green to provide wherein the hook is removeably secured to the body. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving convenience and adaptability of hanging the carrier as taught by Green (column 2, lines 45-51), allowing for a system that does not interfere with standard manufacturing, shipping, and hanging procedures (Green, column 2, lines 22-28), and allowing for convenient suspension of a container (Green, column 2, lines 22-28).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zorovich et al. (US 20100183789 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Matsumura fails to teach: wherein the transfer wall includes a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating or a thermal grease disposed on the transfer wall.
Zorovich teaches a frozen comestible maker that includes a heat exchanger for maximizing heat transfer away from a fluid that is being frozen (Figs. 1-2; abstract), which is an analogous art since heat exchanging for freezing is in the same field of endeavor of Matsumura and the instant application. Zorovich teaches a fluid is frozen in molding chambers and removed from the chambers (paragraph [0009]). Zorovich teaches the molding cavities are made of aluminum (paragraph [0031]). Zorovich teaches the inside of the molding cavities includes a surface finish that is critical to release the frozen comestible since freezing liquid has a tendency to stick to surfaces, wherein the surface finish includes a TEFLON, i.e. PTFE, coating to help produce a nonstick surface (paragraph [0034]).
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 transfer wall of Matsumura to incorporate Zorovich’s teachings of a TEFLON coating to prevent materials from sticking during freezing in a cavity (paragraphs [0009],[0031],[0034]) to provide: wherein the transfer wall includes a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully preventing sticking of the vessel in the carrier, and therefore improve removing the vessel after freezing.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 25, 27-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (US 20080199577 A1) in view of Voute et al. (US 8177123 B2; cited in the IDS filed 09/20/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Jensen teaches a carrier (Fig. 1, package 10) for receiving a vessel (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 1 shows a package 10 with internal space that is capable of receiving a vessel), the carrier comprising:
a body (Fig. 1, body of package 10) including a closure wall (wall of food storage container 12) and an external wall (wall of removable cover 14) that define a well therebetween (Fig. 1 shows a volume, interpreted as a well, defined between the food storage container 12 and removable cover 14), the well sized and dimensioned to receive a vessel including media therein (Fig. 1 shows the volume, interpreted as the well, defined between the food storage container 12 and removable cover 14, is sized and dimensioned to be capable of receiving a vessel including media at a later time; note that “a vessel including media” is not positively recited structurally), the body including a pad (Fig. 1, absorbent food pad 20) separate from and attached to the closure wall (Fig. 1 shows absorbent food pad 20 separate from and secured to the container 12), the pad configured to urge the vessel towards the external wall of the body to enhance thermal energy transfer into or out of the media within the vessel through material of the external wall (interpreted as a functional limitation of the pad, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 1 shows the absorbent food pad comprises at least some thickness, thus is capable of urging a vessel towards the removable cover 14 to enhance thermal energy transfer into and out of media within a vessel through material of the removable cover 14 at a later time), the external wall configured to conduct thermal energy into or out of the media within the vessel (interpreted as a functional limitation of the external wall, see MPEP 2114; paragraph [0026] teaches the cover and container are used for freezing, therefore, the removable cover 14 is at least partially capable of conducting thermal energy in order to freeze, i.e. conduct thermal energy, into or out of media within a vessel at a later time; note that “media within the vessel” is not positively recited structurally); and
a transfer wall defining and closing one side of the well (Figs. 4-5, interpreted as securing means 16, which define and closes one side of the well since the securing means 16 is a structural portion that defines and closes a portion of the container 12), the transfer wall (Figs. 4-5, securing means 16) in intimate contact with the external wall when the well is closed (Figs. 4-5, teaches securing means 16 is connected to and in intimate contact with the wall of removable cover 14 when the well is closed as shown in Figs. 2-3), the transfer wall configured to be disposed between the external wall and the vessel (Figs. 1-5, teaches the securing means 16 is configured to be disposed between the wall of removable cover 14 and a vessel within the container 12; note that “vessel” is not positively recited structurally).
While Jensen teaches a cover can be opened and closed multiple times (paragraph [0043]), Jensen fails to teach: the closure wall hingedly secured to the external wall such that the well is selectively closeable between the closure wall and the external wall.
Voute teaches a system for use in storing biopharmaceutical materials includes a holder and a container for holding biopharmaceuticals therein (abstract; Figs. 1-2), specifically, the system is for freezing, storing, and thawing materials (column 1, lines 8-10). Voute teaches an embodiment of a holder (Fig. 2) comprising two separate portions (115,117). Voute teaches it would will be understood that those skilled in the art may provide two portions formed as elements fixedly connected together (column 10, lines 10-13). Voute teaches an embodiment wherein a holder may include portions that are constructed as one piece that are connected via a hinge (column 10, lines 10-19). Voute teaches a holder comprising two portions are connected to each other by hinges to allow the interior to be accessed while the portions remain connected to one another (column 10, lines 61-67).
Since Voute teaches a system including a container for freezing and storing, similar to Jensen, 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 closure wall and external wall of Jensen to incorporate the teachings of two portions of a holder being fixedly connected together via a hinge of Voute (column 10, lines 10-19; column 10, lines 61-67) to provide: the closure wall hingedly secured to the external wall such that the well is selectively closeable between the closure wall and the external wall. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving connection and accessibility of the interior of the system as discussed by Voute (column 10, lines 61-67).
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the closure wall is attached to the external wall by a hinge) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. allowing for attachment of elements of a carrier), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the closure wall and external wall to hingedly secured would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling for a closable connection of the elements that allows for accessibility of the interior of the carrier). See MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 2, Jensen further teaches wherein the well is sized and dimensioned (Fig. 1 shows the volume, interpreted as the well, defined between the food storage container 12 and removable cover 14, is sized and dimensioned) to compensate for expansion of the media within the vessel as the temperature of the media within the vessel changes (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; note that “media within the vessel” is not positively recited structurally; the volume, interpreted as the well, defined between the food storage container 12 and removable cover 14 is structurally capable of compensating for expansion of media as claimed at a later time).
Regarding claim 5, Jensen further teaches the carrier according to claim 1, further comprising a hook (paragraph [0025] teaches the package 10 comprises a hook) for supporting the body during filling of the vessel received within the body (interpreted as an intended use of the hook, see MPEP 2114; note that the “vessel” is not positively recited structurally; paragraph [0025] teaches a hook, thus is structurally capable of supporting the body as claimed at a later time ).
Regarding claim 6, Jensen further teaches wherein the hook is removeably secured to the body (paragraph [0014] teaches the securing means, i.e. hook, may be removably attached).
Regarding claim 25, Jensen further teaches wherein the external wall (Fig. 1, wall of removable cover 14) includes a continuous major contact surface (Fig. 1, interpreted as the surfaces of wall of removable cover 14), the continuous major contact surface configured to conduct thermal energy therethrough (interpreted as a functional limitation of surfaces of the removable cover 14; paragraph [0026] teaches the cover and container are used for freezing, therefore, the removable cover 14 is at least partially capable of conducting thermal energy therethrough).
Regarding claim 27, Jensen further teaches wherein the continuous major contact surface forms an outermost surface of the body (Fig. 1, wall of removable cover 14 forms the outermost surface of the package 10).
Regarding claim 28, Jensen further teaches wherein the body (Fig. 1, container 12) is configured to compress the vessel within the well (interpreted as a functional limitation of the body, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 1 shows a container 12, which is structurally capable of compressing a vessel within the well at a later time; note that a vessel is not positively recited structurally).
Regarding claim 30, modified Jensen fails to explicitly teach: wherein the hinge defines a fixed pivot axis, the closure wall pivoting relative to the external wall about the fixed pivot axis.
Voute teaches a system for use in storing biopharmaceutical materials includes a holder and a container for holding biopharmaceuticals therein (abstract; Figs. 1-2), specifically, the system is for freezing, storing, and thawing materials (column 1, lines 8-10). Voute teaches an embodiment of a holder (Fig. 2) comprising two separate portions (115,117). Voute teaches it would will be understood that those skilled in the art may provide two portions formed as elements fixedly connected together (column 10, lines 10-13). Voute teaches an embodiment wherein a holder may include portions that are constructed as one piece that are connected via a hinge (column 10, lines 10-19). Voute teaches a holder comprising two portions are connected to each other by hinges to allow the interior to be accessed while the portions remain connected to one another (column 10, lines 61-67).
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 closure wall and external wall of modified Jensen to incorporate the teachings of two portions of a holder being fixedly connected together via a hinge of Voute (column 10, lines 10-19; column 10, lines 61-67) to provide: wherein the hinge defines a fixed pivot axis, the closure wall pivoting relative to the external wall about the fixed pivot axis. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving connection and accessibility of the interior of the system as discussed by Voute (column 10, lines 61-67).
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. the hinge defines a fixed pivot axis, the closure wall pivoting relative to the external wall about the fixed pivot axis) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. allowing for attachment of elements of a carrier, and pivoting of the elements to open and close the carrier), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. providing the closure wall and external wall to be connected by a hinge, and the closure wall pivoting relative to the external wall about a fixed pivot axis, would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling for a fixed connection of the elements that allows for accessibility of the interior of the carrier, and for pivoting of the elements to open and close the carrier). See MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Voute as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zorovich et al. (US 20100183789 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jensen fails to teach: wherein the transfer element is formed of aluminum.
Jensen teaches the container is made of aluminum (paragraph [0034]), wherein the container is preferably useful for freezing (paragraph [0026]).
Voute teaches systems for freezing (column 1, lines 7-10). Voute teaches a holder is made of materials to support a weight and prevent the container from damage or stress while allowing for the holder to remain stable and retain structural properties over a large range of temperatures, wherein the holder may be formed of aluminum (column 9, lines 46-66).
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 transfer element of modified Jensen to incorporate Jensen’s teachings of aluminum (paragraph [0034]) and Voute’s teachings a holder for freezing and the holder comprising aluminum (column 9, lines 46-66) to provide: wherein the transfer element is formed of aluminum. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving freezing of contents within the carrier while preventing the transfer element from damage or stress over a large range of temperatures, such as during freezing.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Voute as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zorovich et al. (US 20100183789 A1).
Regarding claim 31, modified Jensen to teach: wherein the transfer wall includes a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating or a thermal grease disposed on the transfer wall.
Zorovich teaches a frozen comestible maker that includes a heat exchanger for maximizing heat transfer away from a fluid that is being frozen (Figs. 1-2; abstract), which is an analogous art since heat exchanging for freezing is in the same field of endeavor of Matsumura and the instant application. Zorovich teaches a fluid is frozen in molding chambers and removed from the chambers (paragraph [0009]). Zorovich teaches the molding cavities are made of aluminum (paragraph [0031]). Zorovich teaches the inside of the molding cavities includes a surface finish that is critical to release the frozen comestible since freezing liquid has a tendency to stick to surfaces, wherein the surface finish includes a TEFLON, i.e. PTFE, coating to help produce a nonstick surface (paragraph [0034]).
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 transfer wall of modified Jensen to incorporate Zorovich’s teachings of a TEFLON coating to prevent materials from sticking during freezing in a cavity (paragraphs [0009],[0031],[0034]) to provide: wherein the transfer wall includes a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully preventing sticking of the vessel in the carrier, and therefore improve removing the vessel after freezing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 03/25/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, specifically regarding amended claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of: Matsumura et al. (US 20180007890 A1); and Jensen et al. (US 20080199577 A1) in view of Voute et al. (US 8177123 B2; cited in the IDS filed 09/20/2022). Note that it is suggested to incorporate additional structural limitations as shown in the instant application Figs. 4-9, such as inclusion of elements of both box 310 and carrier 340, and specific structural limitations of the box and carrier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fletcher et al. (US 4587810 A) teaches an ice maker with a flexible bag supported on a planar cooling surface (abstract). Fletcher teaches a heat conductive grease is preferably used between load plate 62 and cooling tray 54 and between sink plate 64 and base plate 66 so as to ensure good thermal contact of the thermoelectric modules with the cooling tray on one side and with the base plate on the other side; this direct thermal communication provides efficient heat removal so that the time required to convert liquid water to ice is minimized (column 7, line 58 - column 8, line 2). Fletcher teaches individual thermoelectric modules 61 are coated with a surrounding layer of thermal grease that helps seal the module thermocouples against moisture and also facilitates thermal communication between load side plate 62 and tray 54 and sink side plate 64 and heat exchanger base plate 66 (column 12, line 66 - column 13, line 3). Fletcher teaches a carrier (Figs. 1-2) comprising a body comprising two elements connected by a hinge (Fig. 2 teaches a top and bottom wall connected by hinge 52), and a transfer wall (Fig. 2, aluminum cooling tray 54) defining and closing one side of a well (Fig. 2, freezing chamber 56), the transfer wall in intimate contact with an external wall (Fig. 2, rows 58 and 60 of thermoelectric modules 61) when the well is closed (Fig. 2), the transfer wall configured to be disposed between the external wall (Fig. 2, rows 58 and 60) and a vessel (bag 57). Fletcher teaches the transfer wall allows for direct thermal communication with an adjacent thick base plate for transferring heat, therefore allowing for efficient heat removal in a minimized time (column 7, lines 44-65).
Wilkerson (US 9797652 B1) teaches an invention for rapid chilling or heating of fluids (abstract). Wilkerson teaches: the first thermal interface 111 material may be a thermally conductive grease, adhesive, or elastomer; the second thermal interface 113 material may be a thermally conductive grease, adhesive, or elastomer; the coolant circulating block or blocks 114 may be any suitable metal, alloy, or a combination of metal and plastics (column 8, lines 25-31).
Wisniewski et al. (US 6453683 B1; cited in the IDS filed 09/20/2022) teaches a biopharmaceutical material cryopreservation system (abstract). Wisniewski teaches thermal contact quality and repeatability may be enhanced in a variety of ways, including using thermal greases (column 8, lines 39-48).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights