DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 2, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on September 2, 2025, the claim objections and the 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 06/02/2025), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 15, 19 and 20 have been amended,
Claims 2-14, 16 and 17 were previously presented,
Claim 18 has been cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1-17, 19 and 20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…a second phase change material (PCM)…” could read “…a second phase change material (PCM) element…” to correct the typographical error and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 17, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…a second phase change material (PCM)…” could read “…a second phase change material (PCM) element…” to correct the typographical error and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-17, 19 and 20 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. 11-12, the phrase, “…the PCM elements…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “the one or more PCM elements…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 15, ln. 5, the phrase, “…the PCM elements…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “the one or more PCM elements…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 19, ln. 2-10, the phrase, “…comply with test conditions for individual….include (i) shock test in which….(ii) random vibration with dynamic load….(iii) random vibration without load….and inside the composite…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. The above term(s), “shock test”, “random vibration with dynamic load” and “random vibration without load”, ARE NOT defined by the claim, the specification DOES NOT provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In other words, it is unclear as to how these test conditions above are imparting any additional structural limitations or features on the claimed invention. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and further clarification is required.
In claim 19, ln. 10, the phrase, “…the composite…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…the composite container…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
As for claims 2-17, 19 and 20, 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taka et al. (US 20170158411 A1; hereinafter Taka) in view of Blezard et al. (US 20140331711 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Blezard).
Regarding claim 1, Taka teaches a composite container (10) comprising:
a thermally insulated inner container (30) disposed within a thermally insulated outer container (20),
the thermally insulated inner and outer containers are made of different materials (see Taka [0027,0029,0032]),
the thermally insulated inner container configured to receive one or more phase change material (PCM) elements, and the one or more PCM elements being configured to define a payload enclosure surrounded by the one or more PCM elements (Taka [0026-0038] and Figs. 1-5).
Examiner’s note: Taka teaches the following, “…the payload is first placed inside of the inner container 30 along with cooling means (e.g., ice pack, crushed ice, dry ice, PCM (phase change material), etc.)…” (see Taka [0035-0036]). Examiner construes the above disclosure to mean that the inner container (30 – which examiner equates to the claimed thermally insulated container) is provided with one or more PCM panel(s) or element(s) which defines a payload enclosure; emphasis added.
However, Taka does not explicitly teach each of the one or more PCM elements comprising a rigid container containing a cooling material, the rigid container being made of a different material from the materials of the thermally insulated inner and outer containers.
Blezard is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Taka, which is a thermally-insulated transport container. Blezard teaches a composite container embodiment (14; as shown in Figs. 12-14) comprising:
a thermally insulated inner container (i.e. in the form of an insulated inner liner (18)) disposed within a thermally insulated outer container (i.e. in the form of an outer box (20)),
the thermally insulated inner and outer containers are made of different materials, the thermally insulated inner container configured to receive one or more phase change material (PCM) elements (100A, 102 A and 104A), each of the one or more PCM elements comprising a rigid container (i.e. in the form of polyethylene bladder) containing a cooling material (i.e. flowable PCM (12) via the filling ports (106B and 108B)), and the rigid container being made of a different material from the materials of the thermally insulated inner and outer containers (Blezard [0039,0050]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the thermally insulated inner container (of Taka) with similar one or more PCM elements (as taught by Blezard) to minimize the temperature variance of the payload enclosure within the thermally insulated inner container.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the one or more phase change material (PCM) elements (of Taka) with similar one or more phase change material (PCM) elements (as taught by Blezard) because the resultant structure(s) will work equally well. Since, the one or more PCM elements of both Taka and Blezard are considered to be art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the one or more PCM elements (of Blezard) for the one or more PCM elements (of Taka). An express suggestion to substitute on equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP §2143(I)(B) or §2144.06(II)
Examiner’s note: Since, modified Taka teaches a substantially identical structure as claimed, which includes a thermally insulated inner container configured to the receive one or more phase change material (PCM) elements (made from the same claimed material), and the thermally insulated inner container disposed within a thermally insulated outer container, then the one or more PCM elements will maintain a payload disposed in the payload enclosure between -20°C and 8°C and -25°C for a period of at least 48 hours in an ambient temperature of up to 35°C when the overall composite container, the [one or more] PCM elements and the payload disposed in the payload enclosure are tested together; emphasis added. See MPEP §2112.01(I) or MPEP §2112.01(II)
Regarding claim 2, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein one or both of the thermally insulated inner container and the thermally insulated outer container are made from a foam material (see Taka [0027,0029,0032]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the foam material is selected from the group consisting of expanded polypropylene (EPP), expanded polystyrene (EPS), expanded polyethylene (EPE), porous EPP and a combination of expanded polystyrene and polyethylene (see Taka [0027,0029,0032]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the thermally insulated inner container is made from EPS and the thermally insulated outer container is made from a different foam (see Taka [0027,0029,0032]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the thermally insulated inner container is made from EPS and the thermally insulated outer container is made from EPP (see Taka [0027,0029,0032]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the foam material has a density of at least 1.5 pcf.
Examiner’s note: since modified Taka teaches a substantially identical structure as claimed, which includes a thermally insulated inner container and a thermally insulated outer container that are made from the exact same claimed material (i.e. “foam material”), then the foam material will have a density of at least 1.5 pcf; emphasis added. See MPEP §2112.01(I) or MPEP §2112.01(II)
Regarding claim 7, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the thermally insulated inner container is separable from the thermally insulated outer container (Taka [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein at least one of the thermally insulated inner container and the thermally insulated outer container is integral (Taka [0034]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the thermally insulated inner container comprises an inner container lid element (38) removably coupled to an inner container receptacle element (Taka [0030] and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the thermally insulated inner container is shaped as a cube or rectangular cuboid (Taka [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the thermally insulated outer container comprises an outer container lid element (28) removably coupled to an outer container receptacle element (Taka [0028] and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the thermally insulated outer container is shaped as a cube or rectangular cuboid (Taka [0028]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the one or more phase change material (PCM) elements are capable of being be pre-conditioned to a temperature of at least -25°C.
Regarding claim 14, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the one or more phase change material (PCM) elements are capable of being pre-conditioned to a temperature of at least -30°C.
Regarding claim 15, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the one or more phase change material (PCM) elements are configured to maintain a payload disposed in the payload enclosure between 2°C and 8°C for a period of at least 48 hours in an ambient temperature of up to 35°C when the composite container, the [one or more] PCM elements, and the payload disposed in the payload enclosure are tested together.
Examiner’s note: Since modified Taka teaches a substantially identical structure as claimed, which includes a thermally insulated inner container configured to the receive one or more phase change material (PCM) elements (made from the same claimed material), and the thermally insulated inner container disposed within a thermally insulated outer container, then the one or more PCM elements will maintain a payload disposed in the payload enclosure between 2°C and 8°C for a period of at least 48 hours in an ambient temperature of up to 35°C when the overall composite container, the [one or more] PCM elements and the payload disposed in the payload enclosure are tested together; emphasis added. See MPEP §2112.01(I) or MPEP §2112.01(II)
Regarding claim 16, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein a first phase change material (PCM) element (102A) is configured to be in abutting relationship with a second phase change material (PCM) element (104A; see Blezard Figs. 12-14).
Regarding claim 17, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein a first phase change material (PCM) element is configured to be in a detachably coupled relationship with a second phase change material (PCM) element (see Blezard Figs. 12-14).
Regarding claim 19, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the composite container is configured to comply with test conditions for individual packaged products shipped through a parcel delivery system, wherein the test conditions include (i) shock test in which there are no puncture of the composite container, including the payload inside the composite container, greater than 9 square inches or 10% of damages on a surface of the composite container, no failure of tapes or seals on the composite container, and no parts escaping the composite container, (ii) random vibration with dynamic load in which no abnormality is observed externally on the composite container and inside the composite container, and (iii) random vibration without load in which no abnormality is observed externally on the composite container and inside the composite.
Examiner’s note: Since modified Taka teaches a substantially identical structure as claimed, then the [overall] composite container will comply with the test conditions noted above; emphasis added. See MPEP §2112.01(I) or MPEP §2112.01(II)
Regarding claim 20, modified Taka as above further teaches wherein the composite container is used to transport payload disposed in the payload enclosure from a shipping location to a destination location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
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.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, 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