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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/21/2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/10/2026, with respect to claim objection for claim 3 have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The objection of 1/14/2026 has been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Claim Rejections Under 35 USC 112(a)
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the recitation of “is adjusted” being replaced with “is determined” to overcome the 112(a) new matter rejection, the examiner respectfully disagrees that this amendment overcomes the 112(a) rejection. The specification fails to establish by what particular means/steps are required for the amended claim language of “is determined”. As such it is ambiguous as to whether this is an additional process/step/structure or simply the inherent advantage of the definitive process steps. Based on the disclosure the examiner believes the language to be directed to inherent advantages of the definitive steps and the claims have been interpreted as such for prior art examination
Claim Rejections Under 35 USC 112(b)
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments towards a pinhole openable under pressure does not have associated structure to make a pinhole openable under pressure. As noted in the 112(b) rejection below, a pinhole is interpreted as a really small hole and as such is already established to be open, therefore, it cannot further be openable under pressure.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards claim 18 and the recitation of the functional language to “rotate the container”, the examiner respectfully points out that the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims and the rotating of the container is considered by the examiner to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01(i).
Claim Rejections Under 35 USC 102
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(2), the examiner respectfully points out that the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims and the rotating of the container is considered by the examiner to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01(i).
Regarding the applicant’s arguments that Hewlett fails to teach a raw material provide inside the pouch that is sublimated or evaporated to expand the container due to heating. The examiner respectfully argues that any known material expands when heated and is capable of being sublimated or evaporated given enough heat is provided. Therefore, the examiner still interprets the insulating material of Hewlett to be capable of expanding and sublimating or evaporating provided enough heat energy is provided. The examiner respectfully argues out that the insulating material of Hewlett is substantially identical to the structure recited in the claims and the insulating material expanding and sublimating when provided a heat source is considered by the examiner to be inherent per MPEP 2112.01(I).
The amendments of 4/10/2026 fail to appreciably change the scope of the claims of the instant application and are therefore considered to still be taught by the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards the rejections under 35 USC 103 for claims 15, 17, and 18 in view of Long that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Long teaches that it is used in combination with Hewlett to teach that it is obvious and known in the art to add a vent hole to a gel filled cavity that is meant to be subject to heating. This acts as a blow off or safety feature which blows off under a designed pressure where the blow off occurs before the gel filled cavity fails under pressure and explodes.
For these reasons, the examiner respectfully believes that the art of Long still reads on the claims 15, 17, and 18.
Further, the applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The amendments of 4/10/2026 fail to appreciably change the scope of the claims of the instant application and are therefore considered to still be taught by the prior art of record.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: is determined to at least one should be is determined to be at least one. Appropriate correction is required.
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 18 and 19 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 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 18, the recitation of “wherein an expansion point of time of the plurality of the pouches is determined to at least one of an amount of the raw material inside each of the plurality of the pouches, a sublimation temperature of the raw material, an evaporation temperature of the raw material, a frozen shape of the raw material and a dielectric constant of the raw material” is considered new matter because the applicant does not disclose how the pouch or pouches are defined then later adjusted because the fact that the pouches are already defined precludes them from being later adjusted. i.e. The device of claim 18 represents a final product. The disclosure does not provide support for “is adjusted” i.e. being able to adjust any of the claimed options after the device has been fully constructed into the final product.
Claim 19 is also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
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 12 and 14-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear what is meant by the relative term gradually, that is how exactly must the band be arranged to produce a gradual rotation and what structures specifically meet the relative limitation “gradually.”
Regarding claims 15 through 17, it is unclear how the pin hole is opened under pressure and how a hole is opened since it is a hole and there is no structure to make it openable and therefore closable. i.e. a hole by itself is not a valve and no unique structure has been disclosed that discusses how the claimed hole can operate as a check valve. Therefore, the scope of the claim limitation is unclear.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “wherein the plurality of the pouches rotate the container in one direction or another direction by being sequentially expanded and unwound while expansion points of time of the plurality of the pouches are differently formed according to the raw material inside the plurality of the pouches” is unclear as to the structure that is required to allow the pouches to rotate the container and what structure is required to cause expansion points of time of the plurality of pouches to be differently formed. Therefore the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation of “wherein an expansion point of time of the plurality of the pouches is determined to at least one of an amount of the raw material inside each of the plurality of the pouches, a sublimation temperature of the raw material, an evaporation temperature of the raw material, a frozen shape of the raw material and a dielectric constant of the raw material” is unclear how the pouch or pouches are defined then later adjusted because the fact that the pouches are already defined precludes them from being later adjusted. Please see the 112(a) written description rejection above. Further, it appears applicant is trying to incorporate a method step into an apparatus claim, “is adjusted”, and as such the claim may not fall into a particular statutory category of invention which further reduces clarity.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " the pouch is adjusted ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a plurality of pouches is disclosed.
Claims 14-19 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 12, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US4989418A Hewlett.
Regarding claim 12, Hewlett teaches,
A container (20) using a pouch (a bottle is capable of being rotated, Examiner wishes to point out that in order to be entitled weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31), the container comprising:
a container storing content therein (beverage container 20 is inherent to include a beverage) and having a container shape (fig. 1);
the pouch (wrap 10 and heat absorbing and insulating blanket 25) coupled to the container while being wound around a circumference of the container of the container shape (fig. 1);
and a raw material provided inside the pouch (gel compartment 31 contains gel and is part of heat absorbing and insulating blanket 25 which is part of wrap 10), wherein the raw material expands the pouch by being sublimated or evaporated while being heated (materials are known to expand and go through phase changes when being heated), and the container is rotated according to expansion of the pouch (the pouch and container of Hewlitt is capable of being rotated, It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967))
wherein the pouch is wound around the circumference of the container while forming a shape of a band (fig. 1), and when the pouch is expanded by the raw material, the container is rotated as the pouch is gradually expanded along a long direction of the band wherein the pouch rolls and rotates the container as the pouch is unwound by the expansion (materials are known to expand and go through phase changes when being heated and the pouch and container of Hewlitt is capable of being rotated, It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) see MPEP 2112.01(I), further, the applicant is respectfully reminded that the mere observation of still another beneficial result of an old process cannot form the basis of patentability. Allen et al. v. Cae, 57 USPQ 136; In re Maeder et al. 143 USPQ 249 and that 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. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art).
Regarding claim 14, Hewlett teaches,
wherein the raw material is provided at one side end of the pouch having the shape of the band (fig. 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s)15, 17, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US4989418A Hewlett in view of US4782670A Long.
Regarding claim 15,
Hewlett teaches, The container of claim 12 as discussed above.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Hewlett does not teach: wherein the pouch comprises a pin hole that externally discharges the gas inside the pouch by being opened by designated gas pressure.
Long teaches a known technique that is applicable to the base device to heat a liquid thermal gel in column 2 lines 31 through 65 of insulated cup 10.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the heat absorbing and insulating blanket 25 of Hewlett.
The results would have been predictable, because it is obvious to use the heat absorbing and insulating blanket 25 of Hewlett to provide a desired temperature either hot or cold to a beverage.
Regarding “wherein the pouch comprises a pin hole that externally discharges the gas inside the pouch by being opened by designated gas pressure”, some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation of a pin hole which is desired for the heating of a liquid thermal gel in column 2 lines 31 through 65 of insulated cup 10. Specifically, Long teaches wherein the pouch comprises a pin hole (safety pressure release 33) that externally discharges the gas inside the pouch by being opened by designated gas pressure (column 5 lines 65 through 67 and column 6 lines 1 through 11).
The use of a pin hole to provide for pressure release would have been recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art to add to the heat absorbing and insulating blanket 25 of Hewlett to provide for internal pressure release for safety of an end user when a gel packet is heated.
Regarding claim 17,
Hewlett teaches, The container of claim 15 as discussed above.
Hewlett discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of wherein there are a plurality of the pouches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the heat absorbing and insulating blanket 25 of Hewlett, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the heat absorbing and insulating blanket 25 of Hewlett for the purpose of providing additional thermal mass.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Hewlett does not teach: wherein there are a plurality of the pouches, and the pin hole of one pouch is connected to the pin hole of another pouch through a connection portion.
Long teaches a known technique that is applicable to the base device of wrap 10 of Hewlett because Long teaches inner supports per fig. 13 which divides the space for thermal gel into a plurality of compartments or pouches which are flow space 26 and safety pressure release 33 see fig. 13.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to segment wrap 10 of Hewlett.
The results would have been predictable to allow for even gel flow inside the wrap 10 of Hewlett.
Regarding claim 18,
In light of the 112(b) above, the examiner is interpreting claim 18 broadly.
Hewlett teaches, The container of claim 12 as discussed above and also teaches wherein an expansion point of time of the plurality of the pouches is determined to at least one of an amount of the raw material inside each of the plurality of the pouches, a sublimation temperature of the raw material, an evaporation temperature of the raw material, a frozen shape of the raw material and a dielectric constant of the raw material (materials are known to expand and go through phase changes when being heated and the pouch and container of Hewlitt is capable of being rotated, It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Hewlett does not teach: wherein there are a plurality of the pouches, wherein the plurality of the pouches rotate the container in one direction or another direction by being sequentially expanded and unwound while expansion points of time of the plurality of the pouches are differently formed according to the raw material inside the plurality of the pouches.
Hewlett discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of a plurality of the pouches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the heat absorbing and insulating blanket 25 of Hewlett, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the heat absorbing and insulating blanket 25 of Hewlett for the purpose of providing additional thermal mass.
Regarding “wherein there are a plurality of the pouches, wherein the plurality of the pouches rotate the container in one direction or another direction by being sequentially expanded and unwound while expansion points of time of the plurality of the pouches are differently formed according to the raw material inside the plurality of the pouches”, the functional language and statement of intended use and have been carefully considered but are not considered to impart any further structural limitations over the prior art. Since Hewlett utilizes a heat absorbing and insulating blanket 25 for imparting thermal energy onto a beverage container 20 which is inherent to include a beverage as claimed by the applicant, Hewlett is therefore capable of being used to rotate beverage container 20. In addition, nothing prevents Hewlett from being used in/as to rotate beverage container 20. Therefore, they are capable of being able to rotate the container in one direction or another direction by being sequentially expanded and unwound while expansion points of time of the plurality of the pouches are differently formed according to the raw material inside the plurality of the pouches.
Regarding claim 19,
In light of the 112(b) above, the examiner is interpreting claim 18 and therefore claim 19 broadly.
Hewlett teaches, The container of claim 18.
Hewlett discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of wherein a direction in which one pouch from among the plurality of the pouches rotates the container is opposite to a direction in which another pouch from among the plurality of pouches rotates the container. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the wrapping direction of one of a plurality of heat absorbing and insulating blankets 25 onto beverage container 20, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the wrapping direction of one of a plurality of heat absorbing and insulating blankets 25 onto beverage container 20 to allow suitable connecting of the ends of wrap 10.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US4989418A Hewlett in view of US4782670A Long in view of US 20070278221 A1 Skaife.
Regarding claim 16,
Hewlett in combination with Long teaches, The container of claim 15.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Hewlett in combination with Long does not teach: wherein residual internal pressure inside the pouch is determined according to a size of the pin hole through which the gas inside the pouch is externally discharged when the gas pressure inside the pouch reaches the designated gas pressure to control a discharge speed of gas from the pouch.
Skaife teaches a “comparable” device where it is known to: adjust a vent hole size of a microwavable pressure cooker such that residual internal pressure inside the pouch is determined according to a size of the pin hole through which the gas inside the pouch is externally discharged when the gas pressure inside the pouch reaches the designated gas pressure to control a discharge speed of gas from the pouch as taught in par. 79 of Skaife.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the improvement taught by Skaife would have been capable of being applied to Hewlett in combination with Long and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have applied the known improvement technique where residual internal pressure inside the pouch is determined according to a size of the pin hole through which the gas inside the pouch is externally discharged when the gas pressure inside the pouch reaches the designated gas pressure to control a discharge speed of gas from the pouch of Skaife in the same way to the safety pressure release 33 of Long as applied to Hewlett in and the results would have been predictable because Skaife teaches that the use of contained steam and consequently, the level of pressure in the present invention is controlled by the size of the hole/aperture 28 or steam valve 26 used upon the pressure cooking container assembly 10 (Skaife par. 79).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights