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 Status
The Final rejection submitted 05/08/2025 has been withdrawn in place of the Non-Final rejection contained herein.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-7 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett et al. (USP 3628347) in view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2012/0318808) hereinafter referred to as Puckett and McCormick.
Regarding Claim 1, Puckett discloses a closure (4) for a cryogenic storage container (2) having a storage cavity (shown in figure 1) and a neck extending from the storage cavity to an open end (shown in figure 1),
the closure (4) comprising:
a body (shown in figure 1, being the member (4) that closes the neck of the container (2)) including a top wall (shown in figure 1, being the top wall of the member adjacent the top of the container (2)), a bottom surface (shown in figure 1, being the bottom surface of the member opposing the top of the container (2)), and a side surface connecting the top wall and the bottom surface (shown in figure 1);
an insulation material forming the body (shown in figure 1);
an outer perimeter that forms a fluid-tight seal with the neck of the container when the closure is in an installed position in the neck of the storage container (as shown in figure 1, wherein the member (4) forms a seal in the neck (“a partial vacuum may be applied to container 2 in order to achieve an even lower temperature with a particular liquid”, col. 2 ll. 59-61)) forms a seal against the inner wall (shown in figure 1)), and
the fluid-tight seal being continuous about an entirety of the outer perimeter to form a closed circumscription about the entirety of the outer perimeter (shown in figure 1); and
a fluid passage (8) extending through the top wall (shown in figure 1), the insulation material (shown in figure 1), and the bottom surface (shown in figure 1), the fluid passage being spaced from the outer perimeter of the closure (shown in figure 1).
Although Puckett discloses a solid member (4) being formed from a material that comprises a degree of insulation, Puckett fails to disclose a hollow body including a top wall, a bottom wall, and a side wall connecting the top wall and the bottom wall and the insulation material being a plurality of super-insulating panels stacked within the hollow body.
McCormick, also drawn to a thermally insulated storage container, teaches
a hollow body (“Each lining may be one continuous layer along all of the walls other than the access wall (top wall 12 in this example)” ¶ [34]) including a top wall (shown in figures 3-4, being the top portion of lining (34)), a bottom wall (shown in figures 3-4, being the bottom portion of lining (34)), and a side wall (shown in figures 3-4, being the portion of the lining (34) connecting the top and bottom portions) connecting the top wall and the bottom wall (shown in figures 3-4) and the insulation material being a plurality of super-insulating panels (“Some examples of materials and elements that may be super-insulating include aerogel materials” ¶ [30]) stacked within the hollow body (shown in figures 3-4). It is noted that Puckett discloses the shape of the plug member, whereas McCormick teaches it is known to form a member with super-insulating panels with an exterior wall. Also, a modified Puckett having the insulating panels and walls of McCormick teaches the fluid passage of Puckett passing through the walls and insulating panels in order to reach the ambient environment as put forth in Puckett. Further, McCormick explicitly discloses it is old and well known to form one insulating panel in multiple layers, “Each panel may comprise multiple layers of different insulating or super-insulating materials or elements” (¶39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Puckett with a hollow body including a top wall, a bottom wall, and a side wall connecting the top wall and the bottom wall and the insulation material being a plurality of super-insulating panels stacked within the hollow body, as taught by McCormick, the motivation for providing a hollow body with walls is “to sufficiently maintain the desired wall shapes” of the contained structure, to protect the internal insulation, to provide “water-resistance, reflectivity, etc” or to provide a layer that emits very low levels of radiant energy into the storage area, the motivation for providing super-insulating panels stacked within the hollow body is drawn to providing super insulation for a minimum heat loss, wherein “any number may be included depending on the thermal requirements of the particular storage container application” (¶39) or customizing a thermal insulation with “multiple layers of different insulating or super-insulating materials or elements… such that the overall panel is super-insulating” (¶39) to maintain a desired temperature within a container.
Alternately, Puckett discloses the claimed invention except for utilizing a super insulating material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a super insulating material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known materials on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “for a cryogenic storage container having a storage cavity and a neck extending from the storage cavity to an open end”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Regarding Claim 2, a modified Puckett further teaches wherein the plurality of super-insulating panels (the super-insulating material being in panel form is previously taught in the rejection of Claim 1 by McCormick) is located within the hollow body (see rejection of Claim 1) and between the storage cavity (shown in figure 1 of Puckett being the interior of the container (2)) and an exterior of the storage container when the closure is in the installed position (shown in figure 1 of Puckett).
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Puckett further teaches the one or more super-insulating panels comprises an aerogel material (see McCormick, “Some examples of materials and elements that may be super-insulating include aerogel materials” ¶ [30]).
Regarding Claim 4, a modified Puckett further teaches the one or more super-insulating panels comprises a plurality of overlapping panels made from an aerogel material (the overlapping panels are shown in figure 1 of McCormick).
Regarding Claims 5-6, although Puckett discloses a ratio of a maximum cross-sectional area of the fluid passage to a minimum cross-sectional area of the neck (shown in figure 2, wherein a passage through the plug containing a relief valve (7) is provided to allow for the expulsion of working fluid, wherein the dimensions of the passage forms a ratio with minimum cross sectional area of the container), Puckett fails to disclose the ratio is less than 0.20 or less than 0.01. Since Puckett teaches that a relief passage dimension forms a ratio with a container for the purpose of ventilating the container, the ratio of a maximum cross-sectional area of the fluid passage to a minimum cross-sectional area of the neck is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a larger passage or a larger ratio allows for an increased venting rate at the expense of less insulation being located within the cover, greater heat infiltration and less resistance to the vapor leaving the container that may lead to increased cryogen loss, and vice versa. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a maximum cross-sectional area of the fluid passage to a minimum cross-sectional area of the neck is disclosed in the prior art by Puckett, which teaches forming a passage through a cover that has a ratio with a storage container for venting the working fluid, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the plug of Puckett with having a maximum cross-sectional area of the fluid passage to a minimum cross-sectional area of the neck is less than 0.20 or less than 0.01. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 7, a modified Puckett further teaches a heat sink (top wall of the member, as previously taught by McCormick in the rejection of Claim 1) at an end of the fluid passage (8 of Puckett), the heat sink (“each lining is a metallic material, metal foil, or metalized” ¶ [34]) being configured to prevent blockage of the fluid passage at said end due to ice formation (as shown in figure 1, the wall allows for the dissipating of heat to some degree).
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “configured to prevent blockage of the fluid passage at said end due to ice formation”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Regarding Claim 28, a modified Puckett further teaches the fluid passage is spaced from side wall (as taught by a modified Puckett in the rejection of Claim 1, wherein the sidewall is taught by McCormick and the passageway (8) of Puckett is spaced from a side).
Claim 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett et al. (USP 3628347) in view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2012/0318808) as applied in Claims 1-7 and 28 above and in further view of Ovchinnikov et al. (USP 3938346) hereinafter referred to as Ovchinnikov.
Regarding Claims 5-6, in addition to Puckett, Ovchinnikov, also drawn to a plug for a low temperature container, teaches a ratio of the a ratio of a maximum cross-sectional area of the fluid passage to a minimum cross-sectional area of the neck (“The geometrical dimensions of the channel 4 were determined from the following requirements: firstly, the vapor of the cryogenic product should not build up excess pressure inside the vessel 1, in other words, the hydraulic resistance of the channel (which depends on the cross-section of the channel and its length should correspond to the evolution rate of vapor of the cryogenic product, which in turn depends on the amount of heat that comes in contact with the cryogenic product”(col. 3 ll. 26-33), wherein the dimensions of the channel provided by Ovchinnikov forms a ratio with minimum cross sectional area of the neck).
Ovchinnikov teaches that the channel dimensions directly correlate with the amount of ventilation required that is generated by the amount of cryogen located within the container and the ratio of a maximum cross-sectional area of the fluid passage to a minimum cross-sectional area of the neck is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a larger hole or a larger ratio allows for an increased venting rate at the expense of less insulation being located within the cap, greater heat infiltration and less resistance to the vapor leaving the container that may lead to increased cryogen loss, and vice versa. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a maximum cross-sectional area of the fluid passage to a minimum cross-sectional area of the neck is disclosed in the prior art by Puckett, and Ovchinnikov teaches that forming a desired ratio or hole size relative to a storage container directly correlates with the venting rate and heat infiltration, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the plug of Puckett with having a maximum cross-sectional area of the fluid passage to a minimum cross-sectional area of the neck is less than 0.20 or less than 0.01. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claims 7-8 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett et al. (USP 3628347) in view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2012/0318808) as applied in Claims 1-7 and 28 above and in further view of Klipping et al. (USP 3538714) hereinafter referred to as Klipping.
Regarding Claim 7, in addition to a modified Puckett, Klipping also drawn to a cryogenic storage container, teaches a heat sink (15) at an end of the fluid passage (4), the heat sink being configured to prevent blockage of the fluid passage at said opposite end due to ice formation (as shown in figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Puckett with the above limitations, as taught by Klipping, the motivation being to provide cooling to the exterior of the container therefore minimizing any heat infiltration.
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “configured to prevent blockage of the fluid passage at said opposite end due to ice formation”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Regarding Claim 8, a modified Puckett further teaches the top wall has a first thermal conductivity and the heat sink (exterior lining as taught by McCormick, “each lining is a metallic material, metal foil, or metalized” ¶ [34]) has a second thermal conductivity and is in contact with the top wall, the first thermal conductivity less than the second thermal conductivity (see intended use analysis below).
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “the first thermal conductivity less than the second thermal conductivity”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
[AltContent: textbox (Heat Sink)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
195
291
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Klipping Figure 3
Regarding Claim 29, a modified Puckett further teaches the heat sink is spaced from the top wall (shown in annotated figure 3 above).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett et al. (USP 3628347) in view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2012/0318808) as applied in Claims 1-7 and 28 above and in further view of Kriss et al (US PG Pub. 20100299278) hereinafter referred to as Kriss.
Regarding Claim 9, Puckett fails to disclose an electronic device configured to provide information pertinent to a condition of the storage container in which the closure is installed; and an electrical power source configured to power the electronic device.
Kriss teaches an electronic device (151, 152) configured to provide information pertinent to a condition of the storage container in which the closure is installed; and an electrical power source configured to power the electronic device (“temperature monitor be a wireless temperature sensor that can be combined with the wireless location sensor”, Para. 101, wherein the devices are operating and therefore are powered and “a data logger on board the shipping container to monitor and periodically record temperature in the shipping container during transit. The data logger can be accessed and a data log removed during shipment of the shipping container and/or once the shipping container is returned to reprocessing facility”, Para. 99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Puckett with an electronic device configured to provide information pertinent to a condition of the storage container in which the closure is installed; and an electrical power source configured to power the electronic device, as taught by Kriss, the motivation being to monitor the health of the shipping container, to negate misplacement of the package during shipping and to monitor loss of shipments.
Regarding Claim 10, Kriss further teaches the electronic device comprises a wireless transmitter configured to transmit said information to an external receiver, a data-logger configured to record said information (see Para. 99), or a global positioning system component (“wireless location sensor”, see abstract).
Regarding Claim 11, Kriss further teaches a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the storage cavity when the closure is in the installed position (see Para. 101).
Regarding Claim 12, Kriss further teaches a sensor configured to produce a signal when the closure is moved away from the installed position (Kriss teaches a temperature sensor that measures the interior of the chamber, wherein when the closure is removed the temperature sensor indicates a rapid temperature gradient indicating the container has been opened).
Regarding Claim 13, Kriss further teaches a sensor configured to produce a signal when an orientation of the closure is changed (“In some of these embodiments, remaining life can also include an assessment of one or more of the following: the amount of time a container, flask and/or Dewar is in a tilted orientation”, Para. 118, wherein the orientation of the container is decided).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett et al. (USP 3628347) in view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2012/0318808) as applied in Claims 1-7 and 28 above and in further view of Albert et al (US PG Pub. 20020114937) hereinafter referred to as Albert.
Regarding Claims 14-15, although Puckett teaches a member configured to be inserted through the open end and into the neck of the storage container when moved from an uninstalled position to the installed position (shown in figure 1), wherein the body partly defines the storage cavity and faces an inner perimeter of the neck when the closure is in the installed position (shown in figure 2), Puckett fails to disclose the body is thermoplastic body comprising a polyester copolymer.
Albert teaches a housing being insulated and said housing having a thermoplastic body comprising a polyester copolymer (“low molded box-like polyethylene terephthalate glycol (Eastar 6763 PETG Copolymer) containers”, Para. 135)
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 body of Puckett with a thermoplastic body comprising a polyester copolymer, as taught by Albert, the motivation being that the insulation configuration of Albert is inexpensive, easily fabricated into complex shapes, has high impact resistance and can be easily sealed.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett et al. (USP 3628347) in view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2012/0318808) as applied in Claims 1-7 and 28 above and in further view of Folkerts et al (USP 3489311) hereinafter referred to as Folkerts.
Regarding Claims 14 and 16, although Puckett teaches a body configured to be inserted through the open end and into the neck of the storage container when moved from an uninstalled position to the installed position (shown in figure 1), wherein the body partly defines the storage cavity and faces an inner perimeter of the neck when the closure is in the installed position (shown in figure 1), Puckett fails to disclose the body is thermoplastic comprising a layer of thermoplastic foam between layers of thermoplastic film.
Folkerts, also drawn to a low temperature container, teaches a housing made from thermoplastic, wherein the thermoplastic comprises a layer of thermoplastic foam (19a, see col. 3 ll. 57-65) between layers of thermoplastic film (17a and 22a, see figures 3-4, “By way of example, the barrier panels may be constructed from a polyester film such as Mylar or Tedlar, or other equivalent plastic material which is not subject to deterioration by liquids in the tank or insulation layers”, col. 3 ll. 30-35)
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 body of Puckett with a layer of thermoplastic foam between layers of thermoplastic film, as taught by Folkerts, the motivation being that the insulation configuration of Folkerts is fabricated in a minimum period of time, uniformly supports thermal stresses and provides superior insulation to complex shapes.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett et al. (USP 3628347) in view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2012/0318808) as applied in Claims 1-7 and 28 above and in further view of Hagen et al (USP 3460740) hereinafter referred to as Hagen.
Regarding Claims 14 and 16, although Puckett teaches a body configured to be inserted through the open end and into the neck of the storage container when moved from an uninstalled position to the installed position (shown in figure 1), wherein the body partly defines the storage cavity and faces an inner perimeter of the neck when the closure is in the installed position (shown in figure 1), Puckett fails to disclose the body is thermoplastic comprising a layer of thermoplastic foam between layers of thermoplastic film.
Hagan teaches a housing made from thermoplastic, wherein the thermoplastic comprises a layer of thermoplastic foam (12) between layers of thermoplastic film (11)
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 body of Puckett with a layer of thermoplastic foam between layers of thermoplastic film, as taught by Hagan, the motivation being to fabricate the housing as being “waterproof, watertight, greaseproof, flexible, resilient, visually attractive, and heat-sealable after being filled” (col. 5 ll. 11-13).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett et al. (USP 3628347) in view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2012/0318808) as applied in Claims 1-7 and 28 above and in further view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 20120325826) hereinafter referred to as McCormick’826.
Regarding Claim 17, Puckett fails to disclose a sealing element defining the outer perimeter, wherein the sealing element forms the fluid-tight seal with the neck of the container when the closure is in the installed position.
McCormick’826, also drawn to a plug for a cryogenic container, teaches a sealing element (32) defining the outer perimeter (shown in figure 1), wherein the sealing element forms the fluid-tight seal with the neck of the container when the closure is in the installed position (as shown in figure 1).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” See MPEP 2143
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a friction fit seal between a neck of a container and a plugging member and a gasket seal between a neck of a container and a plugging member; further the prior art to McCormick’826 teaches that a gasket seal is known for sealing the inner space of a cryogenic container. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Puckett with having a gasket seal can easily be made without any change in the operation of the container regarding sealing the inner space of the container from the neck and there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Puckett by having a gasket seal in order to minimize fabrication complexity in forming the plug, wherein a gasket seal allows for irregularities in both the plug and the neck of the container.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett et al. (USP 3628347) in view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2012/0318808) as applied in Claims 1-7 and 28 above and in further view of Griswold et al. (USP 5488831) hereinafter referred to as Griswold.
Regarding Claim 17, Puckett fails to disclose a sealing element defining the outer perimeter, wherein the sealing element forms the fluid-tight seal with the neck of the container when the closure is in the installed position.
Griswold, also drawn to a plug for a cryogenic container, teaches a sealing element (42) defining the outer perimeter (shown in figure 3), wherein the sealing element forms the fluid-tight seal with the neck of the container when the closure is in the installed position (as shown in figure 3, “The plug 14 has a peripheral lip formed therein which retains a gasket 42 which assists in making a gas-tight seal between the plug 14 and the interior of the neck 11 of the dewar 10”, col. 4 ll. 7-40).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” See MPEP 2143
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a friction fit seal between a neck of a container and a plugging member and a gasket seal between a neck of a container and a plugging member; further the prior art to Griswold teaches that a gasket seal is known for sealing the inner space of a cryogenic container. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Puckett with having a gasket seal can easily be made without any change in the operation of the container regarding sealing the inner space of the container from the neck and there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Puckett by having a gasket seal in order to minimize fabrication complexity in forming the plug, wherein a gasket seal allows for irregularities in both the plug and the neck of the container.
Claims 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett et al. (USP 3628347) in view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2012/0318808) as applied in Claims 1-7 and 28 above and in further view of Ladd (USP 1580613A) hereinafter referred to as Ladd.
Regarding Claim 18, Puckett fails to disclose a shell coupled to the top wall, the fluid passage extending through the shell.
Ladd, also drawn to a cryogen container, teaches a shell (shown in figure 1, being the hinged lid of the container (9)) coupled to the top wall (shown in figure 1, wherein the top wall of the insulated closing member (20) is coupled to the base of the dome), the fluid passage extending through the shell (shown in figure 1, wherein the passage for evaporated gas travels through the wicking member (21) and the dome).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a shell coupled to the top wall, the fluid passage extending through the shell, as taught by Ladd, the motivation being to conserve the working fluid being preserved within the container.
Regarding Claim 19, a modified Puckett further teaches the shell is in the shape of a dome (shown in figure 1 of Ladd).
Regarding Claim 20, a modified Puckett further teaches a heat sink (21 of Ladd) coupled with an outer surface of the shell (shown in figure 1 of Ladd), the fluid passage extending through an aperture of the heat sink (21, wherein the working fluid travels through the wick (21 of Ladd) to the exterior environment).
Regarding Claim 21, a modified Puckett further teaches the heat sink (21 of Ladd) has a first thermal conductivity (shown in figure 1, wherein a thermal conductivity value is associated with the heat sink) and the shell has a second thermal conductivity (shown in figure 1, wherein a thermal conductivity value is associated with the shell), the first thermal conductivity greater than the second thermal conductivity (see intended use analysis below).
Regarding limitations “the first thermal conductivity greater than the second thermal conductivity” recited in Claim 21, which are directed to an intended environment or atmospheric conditions of the heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. The thermal conductivity associated with components of the heat exchanger is directly influenced by the surrounding temperatures, wherein atmospheric conditions determine which components produce a higher thermal conductivity. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 22, a modified Puckett further teaches the heat sink (21) has an exposed surface area and a thickness (shown in figure 1), the ratio (shown in figure 1) between the exposed surface area and the thickness being greater than 25000 mm2/mm.
Regarding Claim 22, Puckett fails to disclose the ratio between the exposed surface area and the thickness being greater than 25000 mm2/mm. Puckett does, however, teach that a heat sink is capable of protruding from the container at different heights, thereby regulating the heat exchange capability. Therefore, the surface area to thickness ratio is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that with an increased surface area with a lesser thickness the thermal resistance is reduced allowing for a greater amount of heat exchange, and vice versa, other parameters remaining constant. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heat exchanger has a ratio between the exposed surface area and the thickness, was disclosed in the prior art by Puckett, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the ratio disclose by Puckett being greater than 25000 mm2/mm. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 23, a modified Puckett further teaches the shell (shown in figure 1 of Ladd, being the hinged lid of the container (9)) is removably coupled to the top wall and is configured to be removed from the closure without removing the closure from the installed position (shown in figure 1).
Regarding Claim 24, a modified Puckett further teaches a cavity between the shell and the top wall (shown in figure 1), wherein removing the shell from the closure exposes the cavity for access (shown in figure 1, wherein the shell is removed from the container (9) by rotating along a hinged connection).
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Recess)]
PNG
media_image2.png
317
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ladd Figure 1
Regarding Claim 25, a modified Puckett further teaches the shell comprises an outer exposed surface and a recess on the outer, exposed surface, the recess (shown in annotated figure 1 of Ladd) configured to allow handling of the shell and closure (see intended use analysis below).
Regarding limitations “configured to allow handling of the shell and closure” recited in Claim 25, which are directed to how a recess is utilized, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett et al. (USP 3628347) in view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2012/0318808) as applied in Claims 1-7 and 28 above and in further view of Brown (USP 2195077A) hereinafter referred to as Brown.
Regarding Claim 18, Puckett fails to disclose a shell coupled to the top wall, the fluid passage extending through the shell.
Brown, also drawn to a container for a low temperature fluid, teaches a shell (41-42) coupled to a top wall (shown in figure 1, wherein the top wall of the dome (37) is coupled to the shell (41-42)), a fluid passage (shown in figure 1 having the neck (21)) extending through the shell (shown in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a shell coupled to the top wall, the fluid passage extending through the shell, as taught by Brown, the motivation being to provide an additional insulation layer for the low temperature container.
Regarding Claim 19, a modified Puckett further teaches the shell is in the shape of a dome (shown in figure 1 of Brown).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puckett et al. (USP 3628347) in view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2012/0318808) as applied in Claims 1-7 and 28 above and in further view of McCormick (US PG Pub. 2017/0343264A1) hereinafter referred to as McCormick’264.
Regarding Claim 25, Puckett fails to disclose a shell coupled to the top wall, the fluid passage extending through the shell and the shell comprises an outer exposed surface and a recess on the outer, exposed surface, the recess configured to allow handling of the shell and closure
McCormick’264, also drawn to a cryogen container, teaches a shell (shown in figure 5, being the lid) coupled to the top wall (shown in figure 5), the fluid passage extending through the shell (“The illustrated container 10 also includes a vent 68. The vent 68 fluidly connects the storage cavity 22 to the external environment of the container 10 and may include one or more gas flow channels formed in or through any of the material layers of the container 10”, ¶47), the shell comprises an outer exposed surface and a recess on the outer, exposed surface, the recess (shown in figure 1, being the space provided for installing the handle) configured to allow handling of the shell and closure (see intended use analysis below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Puckett the aforementioned limitations, as taught by McCormick’264, the motivation being to allow a user to move the container with ease thereby limiting degradation or damage caused by dropping or striking said container.
Regarding limitations “configured to allow handling of the shell and closure” recited in Claim 25, which are directed to how a recess is utilized, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5 of the Appeal Brief, filed 10/21/2025, with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Final Rejection of 05/08/2025 has been withdrawn in place of the Non-Final Rejection contained herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763