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 .
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the internal walls" in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitation are not readily understood.
Claims 2-4 fail to cure the deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollie et al. (US 2020/0148453 A1; hereinafter Sollie) in view of Amrutiya et al. (CN 116829329 A; hereinafter Amrutiya).
Regarding claims 1-2, Sollie discloses an insulated box assembly and temperature-regulating lid therefor comprising an external box (110) having sides with an upper portion and a lower portion, a top extending from a juncture at the upper portion of the sides, and a bottom extending from a junction at the lower portion of the sides (see Fig. 1); and an internal box (120) having sidewalls, a bottom, and extensions (450) extending from the sidewalls (see Fig. 4A), the sidewalls of the internal box surrounding an internal space for holding the contents, the internal box being sized and configured to be inserted and contained within the external box (see Figures 1 and 7-11), the extensions being positioned proximate the juncture of the top and the upper portion of the sides of the external box, wherein, when the internal box is inserted within the external box, gaps are present between the sides of the external box and the sidewalls of the internal box, and a bottom space is present between the bottom of the internal box and the bottom of the external box (see Par. 0108-0110), the gaps being filled with an insulation material (600) to create an insulated space surrounding at least a portion of the internal space of the internal box, the extensions of the internal box extending over the gaps between the side walls proximate the top of the external box forming a closed perimeter over the gaps between the external box and the side walls of the internal box (see Fig. 11; Examiner notes that flaps 444 and 446 cover the gaps). Sollie lacks teaching that the insulation material is a loose fill material.
Amrutiya teaches an insulation filler for a bulk container made of a loose-fill recycled pulp (see Par. 0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Sollie’s container by replacing the insulation material with the loose-fill recycled pulp taught by Amrutiya, as a known substitution of materials in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollie in view of Amrutiya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Madanagopal et al. (US 11511927 B2; hereinafter Madanagopal).
Regarding claim 4, Sollie, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the insulation having an R-value per inch in the range of approximately 3.1-3.8. Madanagopal teaches temperature insulated packaging systems wherein inner insulation layers have an insulation R-value per inch in the range of approximately 3.1-3.8 (Col 4 lines 65-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Sollie’s container to have insulation with an R-value per inch in the range of approximately 3.1-3.8, as taught by Madanagopal, as a known substitution of materials in the art.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blezard et al. (US 2023/0251011 A1; hereinafter Blezard).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Amrutiya discloses an insulation filler for a bulk container, the container comprising an external box having sides (16/18; see Fig. 18), a top, and a bottom; and a plurality of insulated panels (100; see Fig. 20), each of the insulated panels having a top, a bottom, and spaced apart sidewalls defining an interior space therebetween, each of the insulated panels being sized and configured to be inserted and contained within the external box (see Fig. 18), the interior space being filled with a loose-fill insulation material (see Par. 0014-0015) between the sidewalls, the loose-fill insulation being formed of separated particles configured to be blown into and fill the interior space; and a filling port (124), the loose-fill insulation material being filled through the filling port and into the interior space, wherein, when the insulated panels are inserted within the external box, the insulated panels with the interior space filled with the insulation material are arranged along the sides, top, and bottom of the external box, respectively, to create an insulated space defining a cargo hold for holding the temperature sensitive contents (see Par. 0073-0074).
Regarding claim 6, Blezard discloses a container wherein at least three of the insulated panels are connected to form a tri-fold panel (see Fig. 19; Examiner notes that the insulating bladder must be fold three ways to fit in the container).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blezard in view of Madanagopal.
Regarding claim 9, Blezard discloses the claimed invention except for the insulation having an R-value per inch in the range of approximately 3.1-3.8. Madanagopal teaches temperature insulated packaging systems wherein inner insulation layers have an insulation R-value per inch in the range of approximately 3.1-3.8 (Col 4 lines 65-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Blezard’s container to have insulation with an R-value per inch in the range of approximately 3.1-3.8, as taught by Madanagopal, as a known substitution of materials in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 regarding the USC 103(a) rejection of Claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Sollie in view of Amrutiya fail to disclose the covered gaps between inner and outer boxes, as claimed.
-Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Sollie indeed teaches flaps (444/446) that cover an insulation gap between side walls of the inner and outer boxes (see Figures 7-11).
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-8, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5-8 under USC 102(a)(1)—in view of Amrutiya have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amrutiya lacks a filling port, as claimed. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of USC 102(a)(1)--Blezard.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through 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, NATHAN J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734