DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In the Amended Claims of June 17, 2026, Claims 2, 6, 8-12 and 14-15 are pending. Claim 2 is amended.
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 more than one and less than all sidewalls having a plurality of protrusions AND corresponding complementary recesses must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Notably, in the Remarks and Arguments of June 17, 2026 on Page 4, Applicant states that support may be inferred for this limitation within Page 21 Lines 10-12 of the Specification. This section states that as “one or more” of the sidewalls can include protrusions, it follows that less than all of the side walls can have protrusions. However, this wall configuration is not shown in the drawings.
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 § 103
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 2, 6, 8-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friday (US 2885135) in view of Weikert (US 3383009).
Regarding Claim 1, Friday discloses a container (specified to be especially suited for quick freezing of foods – Col. 1 Lines 33-35 and Col. 3 Lines 45-46) comprising a solid compostable or recyclable body that is primarily dried, hardened, molded and compressed paper pulp in the shape of a tub, wherein the body includes a floor, four rectangular side walls (12 and 14) that are continuously and seamlessly coupled to the floor along first common edges and each rectangular side wall of the four rectangular side wall continuously and seamlessly coupled to two adjacent rectangular side walls along second common edges as the container is integrally molded (Col. 1 Lines 38-42).
Friday also discloses the floor and the four rectangular side walls define an interior space of the body to receive an item and an opening to the interior space with the side walls being solid and homogenous between the interior space and an exterior surface of the cooler. Friday further discloses a lid (11) formed of dried, hardened, molded and compressed paper pulp and having a downwardly projecting portion (18) that fits inside an upper rim of the side walls of the tub, wherein the lid comprises a recess formed in a top surface thereof.
While Friday does not explicitly disclose the floor and side walls of the body have a thickness between 0.01 and 0.75 inches, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the thickness of the walls seen in Friday may be varied as a modification in the dimension of the walls to increase the wall strength or decrease manufacturing cost based on the intended contents and usage of the container.
Friday does not disclose at least one and less than all of the side walls include a plurality of protrusions extending inwardly toward the interior space and running vertically on the plurality of side walls to provide increased structural support for the body while maintaining the interior space of the body as a single tub.
Weikert discloses a similar tub-shaped container used for frozen contents having a four rectangular side walls (17 and 19) with indentations (30) on more than one and less than all sidewalls extending inwardly toward the interior space and running vertically on the plurality of side walls while maintaining the interior space of the body as a single tub and defining complementary recesses on the outside of the side walls. These indentations would further provide increased structural support to the body as an inherent structural feature.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tub-shaped molded pulp body of Friday with the plurality of indentations as shown in Weikert in order to provide increased surface area and reduced distance between the outside surface of the container and the center of the container to facilitate rapid freezing or cooling of the contents (Col. 2 Line 71-Col. 3 Line 7). Furthermore, such protrusions or indentations facilitate aligned nested stacking (Col. 4 Lines 53-60) and provide areas for hand grips for transportation (Col. 2 Lines 67-71). A person having ordinary skill in the art would further recognize and find obvious that such indentations may be a plurality of indentations as an obvious variation in the duplication of parts that would have no unexpected results in providing further cooling or additional hand grips.
Regarding Claim 6, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the dimensions of the containers seen in Friday and Weikert may be varied to hold different volumes of contents
Regarding Claim 8, Friday discloses a moisture barrier material mixed with the fiber paper pulp to increase resistance of the body to water (Col. 2 Line 70-Col. 3 Line 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Friday discloses the floor, the side walls, or a combination thereof is covered by a moisture barrier layer (Col. 2 Line 70-Col. 3 Line 4).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, the molded pulp material of Friday is both compostable and recyclable.
Regarding Claim 12, Weikert discloses each sidewall of a pair of opposing sidewalls from the plurality of side walls being substantially planar (adjacent to the side walls having the protrusions).
Regarding Claim 14, Weikert discloses the lid comprises a pair of recesses (44) formed at opposite edges of the lid.
Regarding Claim 15, as discussed above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the thickness and other dimensions of the floor and sidewall may be modified according to design parameters based on the intended use of the container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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 Aviles can be reached at (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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights