DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on August 14, 2025, the claim objections and 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 03/31/2025), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 6, 10-12 and 16 have been amended,
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 13-14 and 17-19 were previously presented, and
Claims 5 and 15 were and still are withdrawn from further consideration.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-19 are currently pending.
Drawings
Applicant states that new figures 6a-6c have been submitted to address the drawings and specification objections of the previous office action (see item II of Remarks pg. 5 – submitted on 08/14/2025). However, upon further review of the response (dated 08/14/2025) and file history, no such replacement drawings have been provided. Therefore, examiner maintains the previous drawings and specification objections; emphasis added.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 7-9, ln. 1, the preamble of each claim currently reads, “The packing system…” which should be change to “The [[packing system]]container system…” to establish the proper antecedent basis with the remainder of the claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 1, 6, 10 and 16, the limitation in each claim, “…pocket(s)…” is a relative term and is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree.
In other words, when the patentee or applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer in redefining the meaning of particular terms from their ordinary meaning, he or she must clearly express that intent in the written description.
The term “pocket(s)” is very broad [emphasis added] and where there are more than one meaning or interpretation of the term, it is incumbent upon the patentee or applicant to make clear which meaning is being relied upon to claim the invention. See MPEP §2173.05(A)(I) or §2173.05(A)(III)
With that in mind, there are multiple meaning or interpretations of the noted limitation above. For instance,
The first interpretation could be a small bag carried by a person (i.e. purse)
The second interpretation could be receptacle or container
The third interpretation could be a small often isolated area or group (i.e. air pocket OR a cavity containing a deposit such as gold, water or gas)
For the purpose of examination, examiner will rely on the third interpretation (specifically “air pocket” or “a cavity containing gas”) in the art rejection below; emphasis added.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMahon et al. (US 9604750 B2; hereinafter McMahon).
Regarding claim 1, McMahon discloses a packing system embodiment (i.e. in the form of a blank (100); as shown in Figs. 2-4, 6-14 and 21) comprising:
a base layer (102 or 104); and
an insulating layer disposed on the base layer in one or more areas;
wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of block-shaped pockets taking a rectangular form (i.e. in the form of elongated flutes (106) - in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation; essentially air pocket(s) or cavities filled with air or gas);
and further wherein the base layer is folded to join the rectangular or cube forms in each of the one or more areas to align with the inner surface area of all or part of a shipping container (McMahon Col. 12 ln. 53 – Col. 17 ln. 40).
Regarding claim 10, McMahon discloses a packing system embodiment (i.e. in the form of a blank (100); as shown in Figs. 2-4, 6-14 and 21) comprising:
a base layer (104);
an insulating layer disposed on the base layer in one or more areas, and;
a sealing layer (102) covering the base layer and insulating layer; wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of block-shaped pockets taking a rectangular form (i.e. in the form of elongated flutes (106) - in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation; essentially air pocket(s) or cavities filled with air or gas);
and further wherein the base layer is folded to join the rectangular or cube forms in each of the one or more areas to align with the inner surface area of all or part of a shipping container (McMahon Col. 12 ln. 53 – Col. 17 ln. 40).
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 2-4, 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon in view of Delafosse et al. (WO 2021151170 A1; hereinafter Delafosse).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 11 and 14, McMahon as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 10 (respectively), except for wherein the base layer and the insulating layer (or the sealing layer) are derived from a renewable resource, specifically [recycled] polyethylene.
Delafosse is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McMahon, which is an insulating packing system. Delafosse teaches a packing system embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a base layer (14);
an insulating layer (16) disposed on the base layer in or more areas; and
a sealing layer (12) covering the base layer and insulating layer;
wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of block-shaped pockets (i.e. in the form of hexagon-shaped recesses (18)) in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation; and
wherein the base layer, the insulating layer (or the sealing layer) are derived from a renewable resource, specifically [recycled] polyethylene (Delafosse [0018, 0036, 0045-0046, 0058, 0094, 0098, 00119-00121] and Figs. 1-4).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the base layer, insulating layer and the sealing layer (of McMahon) out of recycled polyethylene (as taught by Delafosse) in order to make the overall packing system (of McMahon) more eco-friendly while reducing waste.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claims 3 and 12, modified McMahon as above further teaches wherein the base (14) layer, the insulating layer (16) (or the sealing layer (12)) are derived from a waterproof biodegradable polymer (Delafosse [0014] and Figs. 1-4).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Claims 6, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon in view of Rockom et al. (US 4889252 A; hereinafter Rockom).
Regarding claim 6, McMahon teaches a packing system embodiment (i.e. in the form of a blank (100); as shown in Figs. 2-4, 6-14 and 21) comprising:
a base layer (102 or 104); and an insulating layer disposed on the base layer in one or more areas; wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of block-shaped pockets taking a rectangular form (i.e. in the form of elongated flutes (106) - in each of the one or more areas), wherein the base layer is folded to join the rectangular forms in each of the one or more areas to align with the inner surface area of all or part of the containers (McMahon Col. 12 ln. 53 – Col. 17 ln. 40).
However, McMahon fails to teach a shipping container with the base layer and insulating [layer] placed in the [shipping] container.
Rockom is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McMahon, which is an insulating packing system. Rockom teaches a packing system (32) comprising:
a base layer (i.e. outer layer (40) that is adhered to an inner surface of the corrugated cardboard (12) as shown in Rockom Fig. 2); and
an insulating layer (46) disposed on the base layer in one or more areas; and
a sealing layer (i.e. the inner layer (40) opposite the adhered layer (40) as shown in Rockom Fig. 2) covering the base layer and insulating layer;
wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of block-shaped pockets (i.e. in the form of air bubbles (46)) in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation;
further wherein the base layer is folded to join each of the one or more areas to align with the inner surface area of all or part of a shipping container (10, 12, 14, 16 and 18; Rockom Abstract, Col. 2 ln. 13-68 and Figs. 1-2).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the packing system (of McMahon) with a similar shipping container (as taught by Rockom) to make transporting contents within the packing system much easier and also enhancing the insulative properties of the overall packing system (since there is now an additional exterior layer covering the overall packing system).
Regarding claim 13, McMahon teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 10, except for wherein the sealing layer is paper or reflective foil.
Rockom is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McMahon, which is an insulating packing system. Rockom teaches a packing system (32) comprising:
a base layer (i.e. outer layer (40) that is adhered to an inner surface of the corrugated cardboard (12) as shown in Rockom Fig. 2); and
an insulating layer (46) disposed on the base layer in one or more areas; and
a sealing layer (i.e. the inner layer (40) opposite the adhered layer (40) as shown in Rockom Fig. 2) covering the base layer and insulating layer;
wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of block-shaped pockets (i.e. in the form of air bubbles (46)) in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation;
further wherein the base layer is folded to join each of the one or more areas to align with the inner surface area of all or part of a shipping container (10, 12, 14, 16 and 18); and
wherein the sealing layer is a reflective foil (Rockom Abstract, Col. 2 ln. 13-68 and Figs. 1-2).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sealing layer (of McMahon) out of a similar reflective foil (as taught by Rockom) to provide insulating against radiant heat, as well as a cushioning effect (see Rockom Col. 2 ln. 51-55).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 16, McMahon discloses a packing system embodiment (i.e. in the form of a blank (100); as shown in Figs. 2-4, 6-14 and 21) comprising: a base layer (104),
an insulating layer disposed on the base layer in one or more areas, and a sealing layer (102) sealing the base layer and insulating layer, wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of block-shaped pockets taking a rectangular form (i.e. in the form of elongated flutes (106) - in each of the one or more areas), wherein the base layer is folded to join the rectangular forms in each of the one or more areas to align with the inner surface area of all or part of the containers (McMahon Col. 12 ln. 53 – Col. 17 ln. 40).
However, McMahon fails to teach a shipping container, with the base layer, the insulating layer and sealing [base] layer placed in the [shipping] container.
Rockom is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McMahon, which is an insulating packing system. Rockom teaches a packing system (32) comprising:
a base layer (i.e. outer layer (40) that is adhered to an inner surface of the corrugated cardboard (12) as shown in Rockom Fig. 2); and
an insulating layer (46) disposed on the base layer in one or more areas; and
a sealing layer (i.e. the inner layer (40) opposite the adhered layer (40) as shown in Rockom Fig. 2) covering the base layer and insulating layer;
wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of block-shaped pockets (i.e. in the form of air bubbles (46)) in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation;
further wherein the base layer is folded to join each of the one or more areas to align with the inner surface area of all or part of a shipping container (10, 12, 14, 16 and 18; Rockom Abstract, Col. 2 ln. 13-68 and Figs. 1-2).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the packing system (of McMahon) with a similar shipping container (as taught by Rockom) to make transporting contents within the packing system much easier and also enhancing the insulative properties of the overall packing system (since there is now an additional exterior layer covering the overall packing system).
Claims 7-9, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claims 6 and 16 above) and further in view of Delafosse et al. (WO 2021151170 A1; hereinafter Delafosse).
Regarding claims 7, 9 and 17, McMahon teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 6 and 16 (respectively), except for wherein the base layer, the insulating layer (or the sealing layer) are derived from a renewable source, specifically recycled polyethylene.
Delafosse is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McMahon, which is an insulating packing system. Delafosse teaches a packing system embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a base layer (14);
an insulating layer (16) disposed on the base layer in or more areas; and
a sealing layer (12) covering the base layer and insulating layer;
wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of block-shaped pockets (i.e. in the form of hexagon-shaped recesses (18)) in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation; and
wherein the base layer, the insulating layer [or the sealing layer] are derived from a renewable resource, specifically recycled polyethylene (Delafosse [0018, 0036, 0045-0046, 0058, 0094, 0098, 00119-00121] and Figs. 1-4).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the base layer, insulating layer and the sealing layer (of McMahon) out of recycled polyethylene (as taught by Delafosse) in order to make the overall packing system (of McMahon) more eco-friendly while reducing waste.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claims 8 and 18, modified McMahon as above further teaches wherein the base (14) layer, the insulating layer (16) (or the sealing layer (12)) are derived from a waterproof biodegradable polymer (Delafosse [0014] and Figs. 1-4).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 14, 2024 have been fully considered but they ARE NOT persuasive for the following reason(s):
Applicant’s argument: the prior art structure, specifically the elongated flutes or corrugations (of McMahon) cannot be considered the same as the claimed pockets. Applicant to further support their assertion, applicant points out that McMahon has more structure than what is required (see Remarks pg. 6-7, specifically item V)
Examiner’s response: examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion, please refer to the “Claim interpretation section” above. In that section, examiner further clarifies as how the above claimed limitation (i.e. pockets) is being interpreted or construed and how the elongated flutes or corrugations (of McMahon) read on that interpretation; emphasis added.
Further, in response to Applicant's argument that McMahon includes additional structure not required by applicant's invention, it must be noted that McMahon discloses the invention as claimed. The fact that it discloses additional structure not claimed is irrelevant. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Applicant’s argument: applicant argues since McMahon fails to teach the claimed pockets, the respective 103 rejections (McMahon in view of Delafosse and Rockom) are improper (see Remarks pg. 7-8, specifically item VI)
Examiner’s response: examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion because it appears applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP §2145(IV)
Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2145(III)
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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 E. Avilés can be reached on 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736