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 .
The amendments filed 2/24/2026 have been entered.
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 2 and 11 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.
Claims 2 and 11 both recite the limitation “wherein the single piece of resilient insulation material extends unbroken from the first end to the second end”. However, this limitation is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed. The term “unbroken” is not found in any form referring to the insulation material, and thereby is considered new matter which will not be treated on the merits.
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 8 and 16 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.
Claims 8 and 16 recite the limitation "the single piece of insulation material". However, since an element was previously consistently referred to as “a single piece of resilient insulation material”, it is not clear whether there is to be a distinction between the material and resilient version thereof. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto et al. (US Patent No. 6,938,968, of record) in view of US Patent No. 6,763,678 (Harper hereinafter) and US PG Pub No. 2015/0369529 (Monroe hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1, 2, and 5, Tanimoto et al. discloses: A thermal packaging comprising, a thermal liner defining a first end and a second end disposed opposite from the first end, the thermal liner defining an inner surface and an outer surface disposed opposite from the inner surface (see Fig. 1 below), the thermal liner comprising: a single piece of resilient insulation material (core 2, which can be considered a single piece inasmuch as is defined by Applicant’s specification in paragraph 0029, wherein “foams, pellets, fabrics” are disclosed as materials for the nonwoven liner, and see Tanimoto et al. Fig. 1 showing a single piece core 2) extending from the first end to the second end, the single piece of resilient insulation material defining the inner surface and the outer surface (as best understood, prior to application of outer covering, see Fig. 1 below), the single piece of resilient insulation material defining an inner storage cavity (when folded to form the C-shape, see Fig. 2, column 8, lines 9-48); and an outer covering (3) coupled to the single piece of resilient insulation material; and wherein: a first portion of the thermal liner defines the first end; a second portion of the thermal liner defines the second end; a third portion of the thermal liner is positioned between the first portion and the second portion (see fig. 2 below); the single piece of resilient insulation material at least partially defining each of the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion; the thermal liner is configured to fold to a C-shaped configuration; the first portion is positioned substantially parallel to the second portion in the C- shaped configuration; and the third portion is substantially perpendicular to the first portion and the second portion in the C-shaped configuration (See Fig. 5, folds of 90 degrees are possible, with the configuration of Fig. 5 having two fold regions, leading one to consider the panel capable of the claimed C-shape).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Uniform Thickness between ends)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (2nd End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (1st End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inner Surface)][AltContent: textbox (Outer Surface)]
PNG
media_image1.png
355
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Claim 1 Second Portion
Claim 11 Third Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inner Surface)]
[AltContent: textbox (Third Portion)][AltContent: textbox (First Portion)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer Surface)][AltContent: textbox (2nd End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st End)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
173
375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
314
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tanimoto et al. fails to disclose a divider defining a vent opening and configured to regulate fluid flow through the inner storage cavity to maintain a first portion of the inner storage cavity at a different temperature than a second portion of the inner storage cavity.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2, Harper discloses a container with a thermal liner (16) which defines a storage space having divider (44) defining a vent opening (48) and configured to regulate fluid flow through the inner storage cavity to maintain a first portion of the inner storage cavity at a different temperature than a second portion of the inner storage cavity (Harper, column 3, lines 5-29).
PNG
media_image4.png
639
487
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
414
439
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a vented divider as taught by Harper within the storage cavity of the insulated storage region/liner of Tanimoto et al. for the purposes of ensuring desired separation of contents such that contents located in the lower chamber do not contaminate contents of the upper chamber (Harper, column 3, lines 5-29), naturally allowing upper contents to be kept warmer/dryer.
Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper fails to disclose a refrigerant secured to the divider.
However, with reference to Fig. 1, Monroe discloses a thermal packaging including a divider (16), and a refrigerant secured to the divider (“chilled gel pack, a pack of frozen water, or water based fluid, or may be any similar chilled material capable of cooling items around it”, Monroe, paragraph 0018).
PNG
media_image6.png
722
431
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a refrigerant as taught by Monroe incorporated with the divider of Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper to “aid in cooling the contents within the interior” of the thermal liner (Monroe paragraph 0018).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the single piece of resilient insulation material extends from the first end to the second end (See Figs. 1 and 2 above), and wherein the thermal liner defines a thickness between the inner surface and the outer surface, the thickness being uniform from the first end to the second end when the thermal liner is in an unfolded configuration (see unfolded configuration of Fig. 1 above).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the outer covering extends from the first end to the second end (see figs. 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the single piece of resilient insulation material and the outer covering each extend from the first end to the second end (see figs. 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the outer covering at least partially encapsulates the single piece of resilient insulation material (See Fig. 2 above).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the outer covering fully encapsulates the single piece of resilient insulation material (see Fig. 2 above).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the outer covering comprises a polymer (column 9, lines 14-24).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the single piece of insulation material is a single piece of nonwoven insulation material (column 3, lines 3-13).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses A method of configuring a thermal liner in a C-shape, the method comprising: folding a first portion of the thermal liner to be substantially perpendicular to a second portion of the thermal liner (see fig. 5, “bent” column 8, lines 41-45), the thermal liner comprising a single piece of resilient insulation material and an outer covering coupled to the resilient insulation material, the single piece of resilient insulation at least partially defining each of the first portion and the second portion (As in re claim 1 above); and folding a third portion of the thermal liner to be substantially perpendicular to the second portion of the thermal liner, the single piece of resilient insulation material at least partially defining the third portion, the thermal liner defining an inner surface and an outer surface disposed opposite from the inner surface, the single piece of resilient insulation material defining the inner surface and the outer surface (as in re claim 1 above), the first portion, the second portion, and third portion at least partially defining an inner storage cavity; securing a refrigerant to a divider (as in re claim 1 above) and inserting the divider into the inner storage cavity to thermally separate the inner storage cavity. (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the steps of folding the first portion of the thermal liner to be substantially perpendicular to the second portion of the thermal liner and folding the third portion of the thermal liner to be substantially perpendicular to the second portion of the thermal liner each comprise folding the single piece of resilient insulation material (to achieve the C-shape, see un-folded configuration in Fig. 2, as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the first portion defines a first end of the thermal liner; the third portion defines a second end of the thermal liner; and the single piece of resilient insulation material extends from the first end to the second end (See fig. 2 above).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the first portion defines a first end of the thermal liner; the second portion defines a second end of the thermal liner; and the outer covering extends from the first end to the second end (as in re claims 1 and 3 above).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the first portion defines a first end of the thermal liner; the second portion defines a second end of the thermal liner; and the outer covering and the single piece of resilient insulation material each extend from the first end to the second end (as in re claims 1 and 4 above).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the outer covering at least partially encapsulates the single piece of resilient insulation material (as in re claim 5 above).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the outer covering fully encapsulates the single piece of resilient insulation material (as in re claim 6 above).
In re claim 16, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the single piece of insulation material is a single piece (i.e. “core 2”) of nonwoven insulation material (as in re claim 8 above).
In re claim 21, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the thermal liner, the outer covering in an outer box, and the divider achieve a first specific temperature profile in the first portion (i.e. upper portion) of the inner storage cavity that is different from a second specific temperature profile in the second portion (i.e. lower portion, since warm air rises and cooler air sinks) of the inner storage cavity.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. “in an outer box”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II. Therefore the outer box is not considered or disclosed by Applicant to be part of the claimed “thermal liner” to which the claims are directed, and therefore is considered as an intended use of the thermal liner.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe as evidenced by US PG Pub No. 2004/0043053 (Yu et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the single piece of resilient insulation material is biodegradable (Tanimoto et al. can be formed by a larger percentage of Si02 Silica at column 5, lines 65-67, which is biodegradable as evidenced by Yu et al., paragraph 0013).
In re claim 18, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the thermal liner is compostable (absent any specific definition in Applicant’s specification regarding the time required to biodegrade, at least a component of the material of the core of Tanimoto et al. is considered compostable, see in re claim 17 above).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2007/0051782 (Lantz, of record).
In re claim 19, with reference to Figs. 1, 2 and 5, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the thermal liner is a first thermal liner.
Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe fails to disclose folding a second thermal liner into a C-shape, wherein the method further comprises: folding a first portion of the second thermal liner to be substantially perpendicular to a second portion of the second thermal liner, the second thermal liner comprising a single piece of resilient insulation material at least partially defining each of the first portion and the second portion; folding a third portion of the second thermal liner to be substantially perpendicular to the second portion of the second thermal liner, the single piece of resilient insulation material at least partially defining the third portion; and inserting the C-shape of the second thermal liner into the C-shape of the first thermal liner.
However, Lantz discloses folding a second thermal liner (upper 20a in Fig. 3) into a C-shape, wherein the method further comprises: folding a first portion (22) of the second thermal liner to be substantially perpendicular to a second portion (24) of the second thermal liner; folding a third portion (26) of the second thermal liner to be substantially perpendicular to the second portion of the second thermal liner; and inserting the C-shape of the second thermal liner into the C-shape of the first thermal liner (see Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image7.png
712
536
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe disclose a thermal liner comprising a single piece of resilient insulation material at least partially defining each of a first portion and a second portion the single piece of resilient insulation material at least partially defining a third portion (As in re claim 1 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the thermal liner of Tanimoto et al. as a first thermal liner of a two thermal liner insulation system as taught by Lantz, therefore providing the second thermal liner as a single piece of resilient insulation material as that of the first thermal liner of Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper, for the predictable purposes of providing external protection to a shipment and preventing heat leakage between the portions of the first thermal liner when utilized (Lantz, paragraphs 0024-0025).
In re claim 20, with reference to Figs. 1, 2 and 5, Tanimoto et al. in view of Harper and Monroe discloses the claimed invention including wherein the single piece of resilient insulation material of the second thermal liner extends from a first end of the first portion to a second end of the second portion of the second thermal liner (as in re claim 11 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’ arguments filed 2/24/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-21 are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tanimoto does not teach the claimed “single piece of resilient insulation material”. However Applicant admits that the term “single piece” is never defined in Applicant’s original disclosure, which at paragraph 0029 indicates that pellets can be considered as a material to form the thermal liner. Examiner asserts that laminated/layered materials can be considered as “a single piece”, as evidenced by US PG pub No. 2004/0195246 to Immel et al., which teaches at paragraph 0024 “The insulation layers 24 can be provided as a single piece of insulation that is wrapped around inner tank 22…” Therefore, absent any special definition provided by Applicant, and utilizing an interpretation consistent with that of analogous prior art, the consideration of many materials/layers/laminates assembled/presented together as a “single piece” is proper.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733