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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 02/23/2026. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 1-7 remain pending for consideration.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US20170320626A1) in view of Wang et al. (US9279610B2, herein after referred to as Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a freezer container support structure (package 100 Fig. 11) comprising: two or more rigid plates (rear portion 110 and front portions 120-130 Fig. 11 and paragraph [0069] where it is disclosed that the portions are made of “hard plastic sheets) being formed from a freezer-safe material (paragraph [0084] where it is disclosed that package 100 can be kept in a “freezing compartment”); and one or more straps (fasteners 170 Fig. 11) forming a loop around said plates (paragraph [0061] where it is disclosed that fastener 170 can be a “rubber ring”), tightenable to compress (paragraphs [0050] and [0061] where it is understood that the adjustment of the content’s volume by fastener 170 is accomplished through compression) a freezer container (disclosed “container” in paragraph [0086]) between the plates during freezing of a freezable (disclosed “food” in paragraph [0084]) contained in the freezer container (paragraph [0086]).
Park teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the freezable is a liquid”.
However, Wang teaches a freezable (the disclosed “breast milk” in Col. 1 line 26 corresponds to the freezable of Park) is a liquid (Col. 1 line 26) as part of milk storage system (Col. 3 lines 46-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Park to include “the freezable is a liquid” in view of the teachings of Wang as part of milk storage system.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein said one or more straps maintain the plates in register (Fig. 12 of park where rear portion 110 is parallel to front portions 120-130).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the plates each have a quadrilateral shape (Fig. 11 of Park).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein a number of plates and freezer containers (Fig. 4A-4C of Wang where removable shelves 410 correspond to the plates of Park) within the freezer container support structure (housing 405 Fig. 4A of Wang corresponds to the freezer container support structure of Park) is adjustable (Col. 4 lines 52-61 of Wang).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (KR20160036850A, herein after referred to as Jin).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein each of the plates includes a raised peripheral lip”.
However, Jin teaches wherein each of the plates (container shelf 120 Fig. 1 corresponds to the plates of Park) includes a raised peripheral lip (Fig. 1) to keep items on the plates from falling off (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein each of the plates includes a raised peripheral lip” in view of the teachings of Jin to keep items on the plates from falling off.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshio (JP3100154U).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising: the freezer container, which includes one or more indicia corresponding with one or more corresponding indicia positionable on an outside of a freezer compartment, thereby to identify the freezable liquid contained in freezer containers without opening the freezer compartment”.
However, Yoshio teaches further comprising: the freezer container (the food container illustrated in Fig. 5 corresponds to the freezer container of Park), which includes one indicium (expiration date management sticker S Fig. 5) corresponding with one corresponding indicium (expiration date management sticker S Fig. 6 and page 5) positionable on an outside (Fig. 1) of a freezer compartment (Fig. 1 where a person skilled in the art would recognize that refrigerator R would include a freezer), thereby to identify the freezable liquid contained (the food in the container illustrated in Fig. 5 corresponds to the freezable liquid of Wang) in freezer containers without opening the freezer compartment (referring to paragraph [1] of page 2, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the labeling system disclosed by Yoshio would allow a user to determine what items are stored in the refrigerator without opening the door).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising: the freezer container, which includes one or more indicia corresponding with one or more corresponding indicia positionable on an outside of a freezer compartment, thereby to identify the freezable liquid contained in freezer containers without opening the freezer compartment” in view of the teachings of Yoshio to track the freshness of the stored items.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the corresponding indicium includes: a pair of characters (characters written on expiration date management sticker S Fig. 2 of Yoshio) located on the outside of the freezer compartment (Fig. 1 of Yoshio) with characters (characters written on expiration date management sticker S Fig. 5 of Yoshio) matching that on the one freezer container (Fig. 5 and page 5 of Yoshio).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-13 that Parks does not establish fasteners that are “tightenable to compress” as disclosed by claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
Referring to paragraph [0061], Park discloses “Another example of such fastener 170 may be an elastic band, such as a known rubber ring, male and female couplers formed to be able to adjust the volume of the content, as used in, e.g., various piles or stationery or other containers”.
From the above statement, a person skilled in the art would recognize that a rubber ring incorporating male and female coupler is circumferentially reducible upon engagement of the couplers, and such engagement would tighten and decrease the diameter of the ring resulting in the generation of an inward radial force that would compress any enclosed item adjusting its volume in the process. Thus, the fasteners of Park are “tightenable to compress”.
Therefore, Applicant arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 13 that Parks does not teach “tighten the fastener to compress” as disclosed by claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
Referring to paragraph [0061], Park discloses “Another example of such fastener 170 may be an elastic band, such as a known rubber ring, male and female couplers formed to be able to adjust the volume of the content, as used in, e.g., various piles or stationery or other containers”.
From the above statement, a person skilled in the art would recognize that in order to adjust the volume of the item contained in the support structure of Park, the diameter of the rubber ring needs to be varied with the understanding that a smaller diameter would exert a higher compressive force on the stored item. Therefore, during operation and based on a user’s need, a user would adjust the size of the rubber ring which would result in either tightening or loosening the rubber ring around the plates to provide the needed compressive force to adjust the volume of the stored item. Thus, Park does teach “tighten the fastener to compress”.
Therefore, Applicant arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant's arguments against the references individually on page 14, more specifically that Parks does not teach “a freezer container having freezable liquid that is positioned between plate members and compressed by tightening a loop” as disclosed by claim 1, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the case at hand and for clarity purposes, Park teaches a freezer container support structure (package 100 Fig. 11) comprising: two or more rigid plates (rear portion 110 and front portions 120-130 Fig. 11 and paragraph [0069] where it is disclosed that the portions are made of “hard plastic sheets); and one or more straps (fasteners 170 Fig. 11) forming a loop around said plates (paragraph [0061] where it is disclosed that fastener 170 can be a “rubber ring”), tightenable to compress (paragraphs [0050] and [0061] where it is understood that the adjustment of the content’s volume by fastener 170 is accomplished through compression) a freezer container (disclosed “container” in paragraph [0086]) between the plates.
The apparatus of Park is modified by the teachings of Wang to include a freezable (the disclosed “breast milk” in Col. 1 line 26 corresponds to the freezable of Park) which is a liquid (Col. 1 line 26) as part of milk storage system (Col. 3 lines 46-50).
Therefore, Applicant arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant's arguments against the references individually on pages 14-15, more specifically that Parks does not teach that fastener 170 is “tightened to apply compressive clamping between plates to a freezer container during freezing of a liquid contained therein” as disclosed by claim 1, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the case at hand and for clarity purposes, Park teaches a freezer container support structure (package 100 Fig. 11) comprising: two or more rigid plates (rear portion 110 and front portions 120-130 Fig. 11 and paragraph [0069] where it is disclosed that the portions are made of “hard plastic sheets); and one or more straps (fasteners 170 Fig. 11) forming a loop around said plates (paragraph [0061] where it is disclosed that fastener 170 can be a “rubber ring”), tightenable to compress (paragraphs [0050] and [0061] where it is understood that the adjustment of the content’s volume by fastener 170 is accomplished through compression) a freezer container (disclosed “container” in paragraph [0086]) between the plates during freezing of a freezable (disclosed “food” in paragraph [0084]) contained in the freezer container (paragraph [0086]).
The apparatus of Park is modified by the teachings of Wang to include a freezable (the disclosed “breast milk” in Col. 1 line 26 corresponds to the freezable of Park) which is a liquid (Col. 1 line 26) as part of milk storage system (Col. 3 lines 46-50).
Therefore, Applicant arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 15-16 that the Examiner did not provide a rational to combine Park and Wang, Examiner disagrees.
The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. 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). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning). See MPEP 2144.I.
In the case at hand, the apparatus of Park is modified by the teachings of Wang to include a freezable (the disclosed “breast milk” in Col. 1 line 26 corresponds to the freezable of Park) which is a liquid (Col. 1 line 26) so as to provide a milk storage system (Col. 3 lines 46-50).
Therefore, Applicant arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763