DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 in response to Office Action 7/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that primary prior art Mogil ‘937 first embodiment does not teach the amendment left and right side walls folding towards each other (page 7 first two lines). Examiner disagrees. Please see Fig 1C where both walls fold inward toward each other, as now cited along with the amendment in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the cited rigid panel of the soft-sided container assembly being a panel that is rigid is merely an assertion (page 7 para 2). Examiner disagrees, pointing out that 60 is “frozen” [0120] meaning the material inside and therefore the whole panel is rigid. In addition, the same named “thermal storage member [60]” is later disclosed as “rigid” ([0135] “a rigid single-piece thermal storage member”).
Regarding claim 29, Applicant argues that the zipper of Mogil ‘937 (Fig 3a, closure member 84 which is zipper 100, [0127]) is not a handle (page 7, #5). Possibly because it does not look like their handle. However, the zipper at 84 clearly shows a handle for handling to open and close the zipper. Examiner submits that most zippers, including at least the prior art’s, cannot function without being handled by a structure, which would make the structure a handle.
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 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, 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 25-28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20170280937 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘937”) as evidenced by NPL fold soft cooler by Picnic At Ascot (hereinafter “Ascot”).
Regarding claim 25, Mogil ‘937 teaches a method of folding a soft-sided insulated container assembly (Figs 1-3, [0115], “folding” a “container assembly 20” of a “collapsible soft-sided insulated container”), in which
the insulated container assembly has a body (Fig 1a, a body of the container is wall structure 22) and a lid (Fig 1a, 34), the body having an upstanding soft-sided insulated wall structure (shown having upstanding wall structure of a soft-sided insulation) that defines a receptacle therewithin (the body defines a receptacle), said receptacle having an opening (the receptacle wall forms an opening covered by the lid), and the lid defining a rigid panel (Fig 1a, a rigid panel is rigid thermal storage member 60 inserted into thereby defined by lid 34), said lid being movable relative to said body to govern access to said receptacle through said opening (lid moves relative to body to access opening of body); said upstanding soft-sided insulated wall structure including a bottom wall (28), a front wall (24), a rear wall (26), a left-hand side wall (30), and a right-hand side wall (32), each of said bottom wall, front wall, rear wall, left-hand side wall and right-hand side wall having an inside face and an outside face (all walls have an inside face and an outside face shown); wherein
the method comprises:
folding a first wall that is one of (a) the front wall; and (b) the rear wall to lie against the lid (Fig 1e shows folding the front wall 24 (a first wall) to lie against lid 34);
folding the left-hand side wall and right-hand side wall towards each other (Fig 1c shows folding left wall 30 inward toward right wall 32 (i.e. toward each other)); and
folding a second wall that is one of (a) said rear wall and (b) said front wall so that the as-folded left-hand side wall, right-hand side wall, and bottom wall lie between said first wall and said second wall (Fig 1e shows folding the front wall 24 (a first wall) and rear wall 26 (a second wall) folded with 30, 32, and 28 lying in between them).
But Mogil ‘937 does not explicitly teach a particular folding sequence: wherein
said folding including moving said outside face of said first wall to face away from said lid; folding said bottom wall to orient said outside face of said bottom wall toward said outside face of said first wall.
However, examiner submits it is obvious to try the claimed folding method, since it has been held that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense via all applicable "Graham factors". MPEP 2143 I-E. Graham factors: (1) Examiner identifies a problem in the art at the time of invention: Folding the container for most convenience/compactness for storing. (2) Examiner identifies a finite number of solutions to said problem: Only four soft walls each that can only fold in or out, as in Mogil and as another example evidenced by Ascot. (3) A POSITA would have reasonable expectation of success: Examiner submits that a soft cooler easily allows any of those finite options to utilize the straps and achieve compactness/most folded/minimized state. In addition, it has been held that 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. MPEP 2114 II. Examiner submits that all the structural limitations are cited.
Regarding claim 26, Mogil ‘937 further teaches the method includes providing a stiffener panel mounted in at least one of (a) said front wall; and (b) said rear wall (Fig 3a, [0125] [0128], a stiffener panel is rigid thermal storage member 60, in either or both walls).
Regarding claim 27, Mogil ‘937 further teaches said method includes providing said second wall (rear wall 26) with a stiffening panel (Fig 3a, [0125] [0128], a stiffener panel is rigid thermal storage member 60, in either or both walls), and
folding of that panel includes
pushing that panel (Fig 1e, either or both 24 and 26 are necessarily pushed to cause the folding) toward said lid (Fig 1e, both walls are shown pushed toward the lid 34) with said bottom wall and said left-hand and right-hand wide walls squeezed between said front wall panel and said rear wall panel (these walls are already in between (see claim 25), and are necessarily squeezed as a result of said folding).
Regarding claim 28, Mogil ‘937 further teaches providing said first wall (front wall 24) with a stiffener panel (Fig 3a, [0125] [0128], a stiffener panel is rigid thermal storage member 60), and pushing said first wall panel (Fig 1e, 24 is necessarily pushed to cause the folding) to fold toward said lid (Fig 1e, 24 is shown pushed toward the lid 34).
Regarding claim 32, Mogil ‘937 further teaches providing said first wall with a first stiffener panel; providing said second wall with a second stiffener panel (Fig 3a, [0125] [0128], a stiffener panel is rigid thermal storage member 60, in both walls), said first stiffener panel being longer than said second stiffener panel (Fig 1a, [0111], “drawings to scale”, W60 of the first panel is a different length than L60 of the second panel), and
the method of folding includes
folding said first wall (24) with said longer stiffener panel close to said lid (Fig 1e, 24 with its panel is close to lid 34), and folding said second wall (26) with said second stiffener panel thereover, further from said lid (Fig 1e, 26 with its panel is further from lid 34 than 24 is).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20170280937 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘937”) as evidenced by NPL fold soft cooler by Picnic At Ascot (hereinafter “Ascot”) in view of US Pub 20170119116 by Bradley (hereinafter “Bradley”).
Regarding claim 29, Mogil ‘937 further teaches said first wall (24) has a handle mounted thereto (Fig 3a, a handle is zipper 100),
But the first embodiment does not explicitly teach that the handle of the first wall is used in folding or unfolding the first wall.
Bradley, however, teaches using a handle (Fig 8, [0147], a handle 830 for user to adjust the opening of compartment 840).
The purpose of a handle is to adjust the container opening (Bradley, [0147]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first wall of Mogil ‘937 with a handle as taught by Bradley in order to advantageously ease adjustment of the wall during folding and unfolding, and beneficially allow easier carrying.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via Bradly’s handle being used during Mogil ‘937/Ascot folding method. In other words, the handle of Bradley once modified onto the wall of Mogil ‘937 would be used as in Bradley during Mogil ‘937 folding (i.e. Bradley Fig 8 shows expanding/unfolding the wall it is on by using/pulling the wall handle as disclosed [0147], and necessarily the reverse in closing/folding the wall it is on by using/pushing the wall handle). Thereby the handle of Bradley is used “in at least one of (a) folding said first wall toward said lid (see parent claim 27, for “toward”) by pushing with said handle (Bradley, handle 830 is adjusted, necessarily pushed during said folding); and (b) unfolding said first wall away from said lid by pulling on said handle (Bradley, handle 830 is adjusted, necessarily pulled during an unfolding of Mogil ‘937 (e.g. to Fig 2a state))”.
Claims 30, 33-35 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20170280937 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘937”) as evidenced by NPL fold soft cooler by Picnic At Ascot (hereinafter “Ascot”) in view of another embodiment of Mogil ‘937.
Regarding claim 30, Mogil ‘937/Ascot does not explicitly teach that the container assembly has at least one retainer, and, after folding, said method includes securing said second wall in position relative to said lid with said retainer.
Another embodiment (Fig 13f), however, teaches the container assembly has at least one retainer (Fig 13f, 436), and, after folding, said method includes securing said second wall (26) in position relative to said lid with said retainer (Fig 13f shows the container folded then secured in that position by 436 of the second wall 26 securing to the lid 34).
The purpose of a retainer is to increase securement in the folded position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container assembly of Mogil ‘937 first embodiment with a retainer as taught by another embodiment (Fig 13f) in order to advantageously improve efficiency of storing the compact form of the container by allowing the container to be secured in the folded position.
Regarding claim 33, Mogil ‘937/Ascot does not explicitly teach tugging on said left-hand wall panel and on said right-hand wall panel to draw them apart.
However, examiner submits it is obvious to try the claimed method tugging on said left-hand wall panel and on said right-hand wall panel to draw them apart, since it has been held that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense via all applicable “Graham factors”. MPEP 2143 I-E. Graham factors: (1) Examiner identifies a problem in the art at the time of invention: Improved ease of folding. (2) Examiner identifies a finite number of solutions to said problem: The walls can only go inward or outward/apart. (3) A POSITA would have reasonable expectation of success: Examiner submits that either inward or outward would succeed in further easing folding.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed method via tugging the side walls apart.
Regarding claim 34, Mogil ‘937 further teaches the container assembly is a rear folding container assembly (Figs 1-3, the assembly can fold from the rear) in which said second wall is said front wall (24); said first wall is said rear wall (26) and said rear wall has a handle mounted thereto (Fig 3a, [0127], a handle of 26 is member 84).
But Mogil ’937/Ascot does not explicitly teach grasping said handle and pushing said rear wall toward said lid; and said folding of said second wall is folding of said front wall after the folding of said rear wall
However, examiner submits it is obvious to try the claimed method grasping said handle and pushing said rear wall toward said lid; and said folding of said second wall is folding of said front wall after the folding of said rear wall, since it has been held that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense via all applicable “Graham factors”. MPEP 2143 I-E. Graham factors: (1) Examiner identifies a problem in the art at the time of invention: Folding the container the easiest way possible as with a handle. (2) Examiner identifies a finite number of solutions to said problem: The only wall options are the rear or front. (3) A POSITA would have reasonable expectation of success: Examiner submits that a handle on either the rear of front wall would succeed in further easing folding.
Examiner notes that the resultant method tried yields the claimed method including order of folding with Ascot. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation’s order of operation (i.e. rear or front wall folding first; page 17, lines 24-25, front or rear is “arbitrary”; page 4, line 2, wherein the lid is always hinged to the “back wall” (e.g. rear or front)).
Regarding claim 35, Mogil ‘937 further teaches the container assembly is a front folding container assembly (Figs 1-3, the assembly can fold from the front) in which said second wall is said rear wall (26); said first wall is said front wall (24) and said front wall has a handle mounted thereto (Fig 3a, a handle of 24 is zipper 100),
But Mogil ’937/Ascot does not explicitly teach grasping said handle and pushing said front wall toward said lid; and said folding of said second wall is folding of said rear wall after the folding of said front wall
However, examiner submits it is obvious to try the claimed method grasping said handle and pushing said front wall toward said lid; and said folding of said second wall is folding of said rear wall after the folding of said front wall, since it has been held that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense via all applicable “Graham factors”. MPEP 2143 I-E. Graham factors: (1) Examiner identifies a problem in the art at the time of invention: Folding the container the easiest way possible as with a handle. (2) Examiner identifies a finite number of solutions to said problem: The only wall options are the rear or front. (3) A POSITA would have reasonable expectation of success: Examiner submits that a handle on either the rear of front wall would succeed in further easing folding.
Examiner notes that the resultant method tried yields the claimed method including order of folding with Ascot. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation’s order of operation (i.e. rear or front wall folding first; page 17, lines 24-25, front or rear is “arbitrary”; page 4, line 2, wherein the lid is always hinged to the “back wall” (e.g. rear or front); and previous claim 34 is mutually exclusive due to reversed order).
Regarding claim 37, Mogil ‘937 further teaches the front and rear walls have respective stiffeners (Fig 3a, [0125] [0128], a stiffener panel is rigid thermal storage member 60, in both walls), and the method includes providing the front wall with a longer stiffener than the rear wall (Fig 1a, [0111], “drawings to scale”, W60 of the first panel is a different length than L60 of the second panel).
Regarding claim 38, Mogil ‘937 further teaches the body of the soft-sided insulated container (Fig 2a, the container is wall structure 22), when unfolded, forms an open-topped five-sided box (Fig 2a, 22 is an open topped five-sided box when unfolded), the soft-sided insulated container assembly (20) is movable to a folded position (Fig 1e, folded position),
But Mogil ‘937/Ascot does not explicitly teach using a retainer of the soft-sided insulated container assembly to hold the soft-sided insulated container assembly in the folded position.
Another embodiment (Fig 13f), however, teaches the container assembly in said folded position, includes using a retainer (Fig 13f, 436) of the soft-sided insulated container assembly to hold the soft-sided insulated container assembly in the folded position (Fig 13f shows the container folded then secured in that position by 436 of the wall 26 securing to the lid 34).
The purpose of a retainer is to increase securement in the folded position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container assembly of Mogil ‘937 first embodiment with a retainer as taught by another embodiment (Fig 13f) in order to advantageously improve efficiency of storing the compact form of the container by allowing the container to be secured in the folded position.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20170280937 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘937”) as evidenced by NPL fold soft cooler by Picnic At Ascot (hereinafter “Ascot”) in view of US Pub 20050103044 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘044”) in view of KR 20150106552 by Park (hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 31, Mogil ‘937/Ascot does not explicitly teach that the container assembly includes
a rigid frame surround that is releasably secured to said body and that co-operates with said lid, and
said retainer is operable to secure the rigid frame surround to said body, and
the method of folding includes releasing said retainer and re-securing said retainer after folding.
Mogil ‘044, however, teaches a container assembly comprising: a rigid frame surround is releasably secured to a container body and co-operates with a lid (Fig 1a, a rigid frame surround is receptacle 30 shown releasably secured to a container body which is wall structure 28, and 30 cooperates with lid 32).
The purpose of a rigid frame is to improve lid sealing and contents protection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the soft body of Mogil ‘937 with a rigid frame as taught by Mogil ‘044 in order to advantageously improve lid to body sealing (Mogil ‘044 [0126], interference fit) and beneficially improve protection of the contents versus the soft body walls.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the frame of Mogil ‘044 mounted on the container body of Mogil ‘937.
But Mogil ‘937/Ascot/Mogil ‘044 does not explicitly teach a retainer is operable to secure the frame to the body.
Park, however, teaches a container assembly comprising: a retainer operable to secure a frame to a body (Figs 1-2, a retainer is removable band 21, shown securing a frame which is panel 10, to a body which is bag 2).
The purpose of a frame retainer is to retain the frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Mogil ‘044 and container body of Mogil ‘937 with a retainer as taught by Park in order to advantageously secure the frame versus jostling or falling out from tipping over while the lid is open.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the retainer of Park on the container body of Mogil ‘937 releasably securing the frame of Mogil ‘044 through an aperture of a frame of Park modified into the frame of Mogil ‘044.
But Mogil ‘937/Ascot/Mogil ‘044/Park does not explicitly teach the method of folding includes releasing said retainer and re-securing said retainer after folding.
However, examiner submits it is obvious to try the claimed method releasing the retainer before folding the container and re-securing the retainer after folding the container, since it has been held that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense via all applicable “Graham factors”. MPEP 2143 I-E. Graham factors: (1) Examiner identifies a problem in the art at the time of invention: Improved ease of folding without the retainer and improved stability when containers are stacked with the retainer resecured. (2) Examiner identifies a finite number of solutions to said problem: Releasing for resecure or not. (3) A POSITA would have reasonable expectation of success: Examiner submits that resecuring the retainer to itself would be expected to secure the retainer.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed method via having a secure retainer release then resecure.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20170280937 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘937”) as evidenced by NPL fold soft cooler by Picnic At Ascot (hereinafter “Ascot”) in view of another embodiment of Mogil ‘937 in view of US Pat 5904230 issued to Peterson (hereinafter “Peterson”).
Regarding claim 36, Mogil ‘937/Ascot does not explicitly teach that said front wall has a flap and said method includes using said flap of said front wall to engage said rear wall and to retain the container assembly in a folded condition.
Peterson, however, teaches a folding container assembly comprising: a front wall has a flap and a method includes using said flap of said front wall (Fig 1, a front wall is panel 120 to the right from viewer perspective, having a flap which is strap 126) to engage a rear wall and to retain the container assembly in a folded condition (Fig 13, 126 is shown engaging a rear wall (Fig 2, which is panel 120 to the left from viewer perspective) retaining a container body in a folded position).
The purpose of a flap is to increase securement in the folded position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container assembly of Mogil ‘937 with a front wall flap as taught by Peterson in order to advantageously improve efficiency of storing the compact form of the container by allowing the container to be secured more completely in the folded position (i.e. reinforced hold of folding).
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 ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733