DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on February 4, 2026.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claim 1 has been amended,
Claims 3, 5 and 7-12 were previously presented, and
Claims 2, 4, 6, 13 and 14 have been cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5 and 7-12 is/are currently pending.
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, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12 and 20-24 is/are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, ln. 12-14, the phrase, “…wherein the sealing means disposed on the connecting surface provided on the bottom insulation element between the bottom insulation element and the four side insulation elements is a swelling tape…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/22/2021); emphasis added.
In claim 1, ln. 15-16, the phrase, “…each of the sealing means disposed on each of the connecting surfaces between the four side insulation element is an adhesive tape…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 12/22/2021); emphasis added.
As for claims 3, 5 and 7-12, due to their dependencies from claim 1, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, ln. 6-15, the phrase in each instance, “…the sealing means…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear to which aforementioned structure(s) being encompassed with such language. For instance, is the applicant encompassing “the swelling tape sealing means” (claim 1, ln. 12-14) OR “the adhesive tape sealing means” (claim 1, ln. 15-16) OR some other “sealing means”? Further clarification is required. An art rejection is provided below as best understood by the examiner; emphasis added.
In claim 1, ln. 15, the phrase, “…the connecting surfaces…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…the at least two connecting surfaces…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 3 and 5, ln. 1-2, the phrase in each claim, “…the sealing means…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which specific “sealing means” is being encompassed in these occurrences. For instance, is the applicant encompassing “the swelling tape sealing means” OR “the adhesive tape sealing means” OR some other “sealing means”? Further clarification is required. An art rejection is provided below as best understood by the examiner; emphasis added.
In claim 7, ln. 1-2, the phrase, “…the sealing means…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which specific “sealing means” is being encompassed in this occurrence. For instance, is the applicant encompassing “the swelling tape sealing means” OR “the adhesive tape sealing means” OR some other “sealing means”? Additionally, it is unclear as to how “an adhesive tape” or “a swelling tape” can further comprise “a heat transfer minimizing material, foam material…”? Further clarification is required. An art rejection is provided below as best understood by the examiner; emphasis added.
In claims 8-9, ln. 4, the phrase in each claim, “…a sealing means…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear to which aforementioned structure(s) being encompassed with such language. For instance, is the applicant encompassing the same “a sealing means” (claim 1, ln. 3, which claims 8 and 9 depend from) OR a different “sealing means” in these occurrences? Further clarification is required.
As for claims 3, 5 and 7-12, due to their dependencies from claim 1, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Furthermore, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP §2173.06
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights