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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
As a result of the amendments to the claim, the objection to the Drawings have been withdrawn due to cancellation of the claim.
Also, the 112(b) rejections over Claims 2-8 have been withdrawn.
Also, the 112(d) over Claim 8 have been withdrawn due to cancellation of the claim.
Claims 1, 3-7 are currently pending in this Office Action.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding Claim 7, the term “equilateral trapezoid” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what constitutes an “equilateral” trapezoid. Based on what is shown in the drawings (51 of Fig. 6), it appears Applicant intends to recite an “isosceles trapezoid” in which the non-parallel sides and the base angles are of the same measure. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (CN 211894125 U) in view of Wu (US 2008/0104806 A1) and Amazon (Lightweight Backpack Cooler, First available July 23, 2018, Amazon.com).
Regarding Claim 1, Dong discloses an ice bag (heat preservation container, see abstract), comprising a box (main body 2, Fig. 1) and a cover (cover body 1, Fig. 1), wherein: the box and the cover are connected through a zipper tape which is provided with a zipper pull (“the cover opening component is a zipper”, page 2, line 24); a protruding portion is disposed on a lower surface of the cover (inner bump 12, see Fig. 1), and a concave portion is disposed on an upper surface of the box (opening 22 of the main body, Fig. 1); and when the cover covers the box, the protruding portion is inlaid in the concave portion, such that an internal space of the box is sealed by the cover (see Fig. 3).
While Dong discloses a zipper component which would necessarily have a portion in contact with fingers of the users, Dong does not specifically recite a zipper pull that is arc. Wu is relied on to teach known zipper pull tabs having an arc (clamping member 20, paragraph 22 and Fig. 2). The clamping member allows a round decorative tab to be interchangeably attached to the zipper assembly and allows patterns of words or figures to provide a decorative or commercial effect (paragraph 25).
Therefore, since Dong is directed to a cooler bag having a zipper component for opening and closing the cooler bag, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the zipper tab to one taught by Wu for the purpose of adding a decorative or commercial effect.
While Dong discloses the zipper tape, Dong is silent to wherein when the bag is placed upright such that the cover is on top and a bottom of the box is configured to be on a flat surface, a non-zero first angle is formed between at least a tail of the zipper tape and a horizontal direction.
Amazon is relied on to teach a cooler bag comprising a box and a cover that is joined by a zipper tape, and wherein the tail end of the zipper tape forms a non-zero first angle with the horizontal direction. Since both Dong and Amazon are directed to cooler bags with a cover closed by a zipper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the orientation of the zipper tape based on design choice.
Regarding Claim 3, Dong further teaches wherein the ice bag further comprises: straps which are disposed on two sides of the ice bag (lifting handle 8, see page 4, last paragraph). Dong does not specifically recite wherein the straps are of a double-layer structure. However, since Dong discloses straps having at least a single layer, providing a second layer would have been merely a duplication of parts. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B). In this case, providing a second layer would have been an obvious matter of reinforcing the structural integrity of the straps.
Regarding Claim 4, Dong further teaches wherein when the ice bag is placed upright such that the cover is on the top and the bottom of the box is configured to be on the flat surface, a non- zero second angle is formed between the straps and a vertical direction (see 8 of Fig. 1 where a portion for straps curve towards the center, thereby forming a non-zero angle with the vertical axis).
Regarding Claim 5, since the straps of Dong begins in a near vertical direction, and curves into a horizontal direction, it is construed that, at some portion of the strap, the strap comprises a 3° angle with the vertical direction.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 5, further in view of Maldonado et al. (US 2005/0263528 Al).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Dong is silent to wherein a cross-section of the box is hexagonal. Maldonado is relied on to teach a cooler bag having a hexagonal cross-section (see Fig. 5). That is, the cross-section comprises a rectangular portion (see 20 of Fig. 3) constituting 3 sides of the cross-section, and a trapezoidal section (dry good storage compartment 32, Fig. 2), constituting another 3 sides of the cross-section, thereby defining a hexagonal cross-section. The additional compartment is provided as a secondary or auxiliary compartment for additional storage without requiring access to the insulated storage portion (paragraph 22).
Therefore, since both Dong and Maldonado are directed to cooler bags, it would have been obvious to further comprise additional storage for the purpose of accessing foodstuff while retaining the insulated compartment of the cooler. The combination therefore results in a cooler bag having a hexagonal profile. Additionally, the cross-section of Maldonado constitutes an equilateral trapezoid and a rectangle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 21 Sep 2025 has been considered but is rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
The Amazon reference has been relied on to teach the limitation of having a zipper tape forming a non-zero angle with a horizontal direction. Applicant argues that the orientation of the zipper is significant because it allows the users to “bow or squat to pull the ice bag open”; however, the claims are directed to a cooler bag, and there is no requirements that the bag must be operated while the user is bowing or squatting. Therefore, the orientation of the tape does not provide a patentable distinction. Even if one were required to operate the cooler bag from a bowing or squatting position, the fact that the unzipping is facilitated due to the zipper tape being oriented in the pull direction would not be unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, a cooler bag having a zipper tape that has a zero angle with the horizontal direction would not function any differently if the bag was elevated.
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 THANH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0346. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792