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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2026 in response to Office Action 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 25, Applicant argues that secondary prior art NPL Ascot does not teach the left and right hand side walls folding toward each other as claimed (page 9 para 4). The argument specifies some order of operations declared in the NPL Ascot video. Examiner disagrees, there is no order of folding claimed as in “steps” or “first, then” language, just that “folding” of the walls occurs. So as long as the prior art has the claimed folding actions, it reads. Examiner points out that the analysis reads on the folding claimed at least in the following way: every folding move claimed is done by Ascot in that it has the structural relative positioning claimed as a result of folding. In other words, Applicant argues a particular order of operations, but that is not claimed.
Also examiner points out Applicant did not argue the obvious to try analysis, so the argument is moot. To elaborate for understanding then on what the obvious to try rationale at least reads on: First it reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation actually claimed. Second it reads on the order of operations of folding the walls argued per Applicant Figure 5. Third it will read on different orders of operation within the finite limits set forth since the whole analysis is about being obvious to try the claimed subset of folding operations within those limits. Meaning for example if one were to simply reverse which wall goes first or in or out (i.e. within the limits of the analysis) the same analysis would read on such changed wording because it’s obvious to try folding a soft-sided similar structured container that way too, since the structural result is evidenced. In other words, the exactly ordered steps of folding in Ascot are significant but less important than the analysis showing those steps can go in a different order and still be obvious.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant argues that primary prior art Mogil ‘937 folding as in Ascot would never be thought of by a POSITA, because Mogil folds like a grocery bag (page 9 para 5) and Ascot is wrong (above). However, the analysis below uses a different primary prior art.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant argues that a POSITA would never see an ice pack in the lid of Mogil ‘937 as a stiffener panel in the lid to make the “lid defining a rigid panel” as claimed (page 9 para 6). However, the analysis below uses a different primary prior art.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant argues that the amendments of lid to frame interference fit and body rim remaining unfolded are not taught by the prior art Mogil ‘937 or Ascot (page 10 para 1). However, the analysis below uses different prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 27, 31 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 31, lines last “the method of folding includes releasing said retainer and re-securing said retainer after folding” makes sense in light of the specification, but not grammatically. How can re-securing after folding be included during folding? The folding has ended, then the retainer is re-secured.
Also how does the method of folding include an after folding step?
Regarding claims 27 and 41, line 4 “wide walls” should read “side walls”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 25-38 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the new matter requirement. The new matter must be canceled. Claim 25, lines 6-7 from last on page 3, “inside face of said first wall… to lie against, said lid” is not supported. The inside face of the first wall lying against the lid is not in the written specification, nor able to be seen in any of the drawings. Though the first wall lies against the lid, the disclosure is silent about the first wall inside face more narrowly doing so. Also the amendment cannot logically occur given the drawings showing a space/distance between where a bottom/inside face of the lid in the closed position could be (Figs 1c, 1d and 3a, see strap placement through frame) and the first wall while the first wall is folded (Figs 4-5), wherein both are flat and separated from each other by a vertical extent of the frame. In other words, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “lie against” in this case given Applicant’s lack of definition of the phrase includes for example a person resting their back on a wall while having a coat on. The person is lying against the wall, but a wall supported portion of the person proximal to coat contact area is not contacting the wall, but lying against the wall through the coat (i.e. not the person’s skin/outer surface).
Claims 26-38 and 40-42 are also rejected for depending upon a rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 30, “in position” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 31 is also rejected for depending upon a rejected parent claim.
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, 30, 33 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220274737 by Richardson et al. (hereinafter “Richardson”) in view of US Pub 20050103044 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘044”) as evidenced by NPL fold soft cooler by Picnic At Ascot (hereinafter “Ascot”).
Regarding claim 25, Richardson teaches an insulated container assembly (Fig 4, “container system 400”; Abstract, “A portable, collapsible modular container system for transportation and storage is provided”), in which
the insulated container assembly has a body (Fig 1a, a body of the container assembly is container 401, insulated by existing as material) and a lid (Fig 4, 430), the body having an upstanding insulated wall structure (upstanding wall structure of insulated body shown forming walls of the body) that defines a receptacle therewithin (the body defines a receptacle), said receptacle having an opening (the receptacle wall forms an opening), and
the lid defining a panel (Fig 4, the lid 430 is shown as a panel shape), said lid being movable relative to said body to govern access to said receptacle through said opening ([0056] “the lid 430 to removably attach to the rim”);
said upstanding insulated wall structure including a bottom wall (bottom wall), a front wall (front wall), a rear wall (rear wall), a left-hand side wall (left wall), and a right-hand side wall (right wall), 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);
said front wall, rear wall, left-hand side wall and right-hand side wall each having an upper margin, those margins co-operating to define an upper rim of said body (an upper margin of each wall is shown defining one upper rim of the body),
said opening of said receptacle being defined within said rim (the opening is defined by the upper rim);
said body having a ring frame (405 is a ring frame) mounted to said rim ([0056] “the rim and rails 405 may removably attach to the container 401”, for example as in Fig 2), said lid being operable to co-operate in a fit with said ring frame in a closed position of said lid relative to said opening ([0056] “lid 430 to removably attach to the rim and rails 405”, for example as in Fig 2; and examiner notes that Richardson considers a lid for container 200 of Fig 2 being [0054] “airtight or watertight” attached – to the rim shown);
But Richardson Fig 4 embodiment does not explicitly teach the side walls are soft.
Richardson Fig 24 embodiment, however, discloses the insulated container assembly is soft-sided with upstanding soft-sided insulated wall structure ([0077] container system is in “collapsed or extended position” as in Fig 24, collapsed necessarily meaning the sides are soft in order to do so since the bottom is shown collapsed into the lid with the walls).
Therefore, 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 walls of Richardson to be soft as taught by Richardson in order to collapse the container for more advantageous storage of the container assembly by saving space versus deployed.
But Richardson Fig 4/24 embodiment does not explicitly teach the lid panel and ring frame are rigid.
Richardson Fig 2 embodiment, however, discloses the lid panel is rigid ([0054] “rigid lid”) and the ring frame is rigid ([0045] “rigid rim”).
Therefore, 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 lid panel and ring frame of Richardson to be rigid as taught by Richardson, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
But Richardson Fig 4/24/2 embodiment does not explicitly teach the lid to frame fit is interference type.
Mogil ‘044, however, discloses a lid interference fit to a ring frame ([0126] Lid “Internal structural member 34 has a peripherally extending seal member 210 for interferingly engaging the mouth of receptacle 30”, [0180] “interference fit”, wherein the mouth of 30 forms a ring frame; [0145] “30 is preferably rigid”).
Therefore, 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 fit of lid to rim of Richardson to be interference fit type as taught by Mogil ‘044 in order to advantageously increase the reliability of insulation of contents by the lid to rim joint from a general attachment fit to a seal, thereby upgrading the fit and mere consideration by Richardson of that fit to be airtight/watertight to actually being airtight/watertight from the force of the interference fit.
But Richardson/Mogil ‘044 does not explicitly teach a particular method of folding the soft-sided insulated container assembly, 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; said folding including moving said outside face of said first wall to face away from said lid and moving said inside face of said first wall to face toward, and to lie against, said lid;
folding the left-hand side wall and right-hand side wall towards each other, said respective upper margins of said left-hand side wall and said right-hand side wall remaining unfolded;
folding said bottom wall to orient said outside face of said bottom wall toward said outside face of said first wall; 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.
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 via pushing or pulling/tugging, as 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 achieve compactness/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 within the method limitations are met via folding Richardson as modified by Mogil ‘044 above as Ascot presents, in the way explained by the above Graham factors.
Regarding claim 30, Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot further teaches the container assembly has at least one retainer (Richardson, Fig 4 [0056] “removably attach”, wherein “attach” necessarily means securing by a retaining means/structure), and, after folding, said method (Ascot, method of folding from parent claim) includes securing said second wall in position relative to said lid with said retainer (Richardson, the retainer securing frame to container rim of Fig 4, like as shown in Fig 2, and its container body as modified by Ascot method of folding, results in the second wall remaining attached after folding. In other words, the second wall is secured in a position relative to the lid after folding, because the retainer secures the frame to the container – no matter the condition of the container body: folding, folded or not). See details in the parent claim 25 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 33, Richardson/Mogil ‘044/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 to a favorable three dimensional shape. (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 and finding the desired shape for storage.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed method via tugging the side walls apart during folding.
Regarding claim 39, Richardson teaches an insulated container assembly (Fig 4, “container system 400”; Abstract, “A portable, collapsible modular container system for transportation and storage is provided”), in which
the insulated container assembly has a body (Fig 1a, a body of the container assembly is container 401, insulated by existing as material) and a lid (Fig 4, 430),
the body having an upstanding insulated wall structure (upstanding wall structure of insulated body shown forming walls of the body) that defines a receptacle therewithin (the body defines a receptacle), said receptacle having an opening (the receptacle wall forms an opening), and
the lid defining a panel (Fig 4, the lid 430 is shown as a panel shape), said lid being movable relative to said body to govern access to said receptacle through said opening ([0056] “the lid 430 to removably attach to the rim”);
said upstanding insulated wall structure including a bottom wall (bottom wall), a front wall (front wall), a rear wall (rear wall), a left-hand side wall (left wall), and a right-hand side wall (right wall),
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);
said front wall, rear wall, left-hand side wall and right-hand side wall each having an upper margin, those margins co-operating to define an upper rim of said body, said opening of said receptacle being defined within said rim (an upper margin of each wall is shown defining one upper rim of the body);
said body having a ring frame (405 is a ring frame) mounted to said rim ([0056] “the rim and rails 405 may removably attach to the container 401”, for example as in Fig 2),
said lid being operable to co-operate in a fit with said ring frame in a closed position of said lid relative to said opening ([0056] “lid 430 to removably attach to the rim and rails 405”, for example as in Fig 2; and examiner notes that Richardson considers a lid for container 200 of Fig 2 being [0054] “airtight or watertight” attached – to the rim shown);
But Richardson Fig 4 embodiment does not explicitly teach the side walls are soft.
Richardson Fig 24 embodiment, however, discloses the insulated container assembly is soft-sided with upstanding soft-sided insulated wall structure ([0077] container system is in “collapsed or extended position” as in Fig 24, collapsed necessarily meaning the sides are soft in order to do so since the bottom is shown collapsed into the lid with the walls).
Therefore, 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 walls of Richardson to be soft as taught by Richardson in order to collapse the container for more advantageous storage of the container assembly by saving space versus deployed.
But Richardson Fig 4/24 embodiment does not explicitly teach the lid panel and ring frame are rigid.
Richardson Fig 2 embodiment, however, discloses the lid panel is rigid ([0054] “rigid lid”) and the ring frame is rigid ([0045] “rigid rim”).
Therefore, 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 lid panel and ring frame of Richardson to be rigid as taught by Richardson, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
But Richardson Fig 4/24/2 embodiment does not explicitly teach the lid to frame fit is interference type.
Mogil ‘044, however, discloses a lid interference fit to a ring frame ([0126] Lid “Internal structural member 34 has a peripherally extending seal member 210 for interferingly engaging the mouth of receptacle 30”, [0180] “interference fit”, wherein the mouth of 30 forms a ring frame; [0145] “30 is preferably rigid”).
Therefore, 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 fit of lid to rim of Richardson to be interference fit type as taught by Mogil ‘044 in order to advantageously increase the reliability of insulation of contents by the lid to rim joint from a general attachment fit to a seal, thereby upgrading the fit and mere consideration by Richardson of that fit to be airtight/watertight to actually being airtight/watertight from the force of the interference fit.
But Richardson/Mogil ‘044 does not explicitly teach a particular method of folding the soft-sided insulated container assembly, wherein the method comprises:
inverting the soft-sided insulated container assembly to sit upside down on said lid;
folding a first wall that is one of (a) the front wall; and (b) the rear wall to lie against said lid, said folding including moving said outside of face of said first wall to face away from said lid;
folding the left-hand side wall and right-hand side wall toward each other, folding said bottom wall to orient said outside face of said bottom wall toward said outside face of said first wall; and
folding a second wall 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.
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 via pushing or pulling/tugging with the container upright or inverted, as 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 achieve compactness/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 within the method limitations are met via folding Richardson as modified by Mogil ‘044 above as Ascot presents, in the way explained by the above Graham factors.
Claims 26-28, 32, 38 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220274737 by Richardson et al. (hereinafter “Richardson”) in view of US Pub 20050103044 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘044”) as evidenced by NPL fold soft cooler by Picnic At Ascot (hereinafter “Ascot”) in view of US Pub 20170280937 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘937”).
Regarding claims 26 and 40 (similar limitation, same dependency), Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot does not explicitly teach a particular stiffener panel board wall insert.
Mogil ‘937, however, teaches a method includes providing a first stiffener panel mounted in at least one of (a) said front wall; and (b) said rear wall; said first stiffener panel being a first board (Figs 1a & 3a, [0120] a first stiffener panel is “thermal storage member 60”, in either wall; wherein [0128] “Like member 60, accommodation 80 may be generally flat and thin” meaning 60 is flat and thin – like 80 – so is board shape as shown; and said “thermal storage member 60” is disclosed as [0135] “a single-slab rigid thermal storage element” and “a rigid single-piece thermal storage member that does not fold”; [0125] 60 “need not be bi-folding when installed”, wherein a 60 can go into an accommodation 80).
Therefore, 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 first wall whether rear or front of Richardson to have a first stiffener panel board as taught by Mogil ‘937 in order to advantageously decrease decay time of contained perishables by having the board cool the wall like an ice pack.
Regarding claims 27 and 41 (similar limitation, same dependency), Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot further teaches folding of that second wall includes pushing it toward said lid with said bottom wall and said left-hand and right-hand wide walls squeezed between said front wall panel and said rear wall panel (Richardson as modified by Ascot as obvious to try). See details in the parent claim 25 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot does not explicitly teach a particular stiffener panel board wall insert.
Mogil ‘937, however, discloses a folding method includes providing said second wall (rear wall 26) with a second stiffener panel, said second stiffener panel being a second board (Fig 3a, [0125] [0128], a second stiffener panel is “thermal storage member 60”, in the second wall, and is [0128] flat and thin, and [0135] “a single-slab rigid thermal storage element” and “a rigid single-piece thermal storage member that does not fold”), and
folding of that second wall includes pushing that second board (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 in between and are necessarily squeezed as a result of said folding).
Therefore, 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 second wall of Richardson to have a second stiffener panel board as taught by Mogil ‘937 in order to advantageously decrease decay time of contained perishables by having the board cool the wall like an ice pack. Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the stiffener board of Mogil ‘937 added into the wall of Richardson and pushed as taught by Ascot.
Regarding claim 28, Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot further teaches pushing said first wall to fold toward said lid (Richardson as modified by Ascot as obvious to try). See details in the parent claim 25 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot does not explicitly teach a particular stiffener panel board wall insert.
Mogil ‘937, however, discloses providing said first wall (front wall 24) with a first stiffener panel, said first stiffener panel being a board (Figs 1a & 3a, [0120] a first stiffener panel is “thermal storage member 60”, in either wall; wherein [0128] “Like member 60, accommodation 80 may be generally flat and thin” meaning 60 is flat and thin – like 80 – so is board shape as shown; and said “thermal storage member 60” is disclosed as [0135] “a single-slab rigid thermal storage element” and “a rigid single-piece thermal storage member that does not fold”).
Therefore, 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 first wall of Richardson to have a first stiffener panel board as taught by Mogil ‘937 in order to advantageously decrease decay time of contained perishables by having the board cool the wall like an ice pack. Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the stiffener board of Mogil ‘937 added into the wall of Richardson and pushed as taught by Ascot.
Regarding claim 32, Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot further teaches folding said first wall close to said lid, and folding said second wall further from said lid (Richardson as modified by Ascot as obvious to try). See details in the parent claim 25 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot does not explicitly teach particular stiffener panel board wall inserts.
Mogil ‘937, however, discloses providing said first wall with a first stiffener panel; providing said second wall with a second stiffener panel (Figs 1a & 3a, [0120] a stiffener panel is “thermal storage member 60”, in either wall; wherein [0128] “Like member 60, accommodation 80 may be generally flat and thin” meaning 60 is flat and thin – like 80 – so is board shape as shown; and said “thermal storage member 60” is disclosed as [0135] “a single-slab rigid thermal storage element” and “a rigid single-piece thermal storage member that does not fold”; [0125] 60 “need not be bi-folding when installed”, wherein a 60 can go into an accommodation 80, for each of the front and rear wall), said first stiffener panel being longer than said second stiffener panel (Fig 1a, [0111], “drawings to scale”, [0121] 60 is “rectangular”, such that a dimension L60 of the first stiffener is longer than W60 of the second stiffener), 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).
Therefore, 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 first wall and second wall of Richardson to each have a stiffener panel board as taught by Mogil ‘937 in order to advantageously decrease decay time of contained perishables by having the board cool the wall like an ice pack.
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one stiffener be longer than the other, having the Mogil ‘937 teachings above, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (i.e. having stiffened soft walls), the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the stiffener boards of Mogil ‘937 added into the walls of Richardson and folded closer/further from the lid of Richardson/Mogil ‘044 as taught by Ascot as obvious to try.
Regarding claim 38, Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot further teaches the body of the soft-sided insulated container (Richardson), when unfolded (Ascot), forms an open-topped five-sided box (Richardson, Fig 4, body shown as an open-topped five-sided box), the soft-sided insulated container assembly is movable to a folded position (Ascot),
But Richardson/Mogil ‘044/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.
Mogil ‘937, however, discloses 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,h, shows the container folded then secured in that position by 436 of the wall 26 holding the container assembly in folded position).
Therefore, 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 Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot with a retainer as taught by Mogil ‘937 in order to advantageously assist in handling during storing the assembly in compact form by allowing the container to be held in the folded position versus no retainer while being folded the container could be easily expanded to interfere.
Regarding claim 42, Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot does not explicitly teach stiffeners panel boards in the both the front and rear walls.
Mogil ‘937, however, teaches the front and rear walls have respective stiffeners (Figs 1a & 3a, [0120] a stiffener panel is “thermal storage member 60”, in each of both walls; wherein [0128] “Like member 60, accommodation 80 may be generally flat and thin” meaning 60 is flat and thin – like 80 – so is board shape as shown; and said “thermal storage member 60” is disclosed as [0135] “a single-slab rigid thermal storage element” and “a rigid single-piece thermal storage member that does not fold”; [0125] 60 “need not be bi-folding when installed”, wherein a 60 can go into an accommodation 80, for each of the front and rear wall), and the method includes providing the front wall with a longer stiffener than the rear wall (Fig 1a, [0111], “drawings to scale”, [0121] 60 is “rectangular”, such that a dimension L60 of the front stiffener is longer than W60 of the rear stiffener).
Therefore, 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 first wall whether rear or front of Richardson to have a first stiffener panel board as taught by Mogil ‘937 in order to advantageously decrease decay time of contained perishables by having the board cool the wall like an ice pack.
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one stiffener be longer than the other, having the Mogil ‘937 teachings above, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (i.e. having stiffened soft walls), the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the stiffener boards of Mogil ‘937 added into the walls of Richardson and folded as taught by Ascot as obvious to try.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220274737 by Richardson et al. (hereinafter “Richardson”) in view of US Pub 20050103044 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘044”) as evidenced by NPL fold soft cooler by Picnic At Ascot (hereinafter “Ascot”) in view of US Pub 20170280937 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘937”) in view of US Pub 20170119116 by Bradley (hereinafter “Bradley”).
Regarding claim 29, Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot/Mogil ‘937 further teaches the method includes at least one of (a) folding said first wall toward said lid by pushing; and (b) unfolding said first wall away from said lid by pulling ((a) and (b) as in Richardson as modified by Ascot as obvious to try). See details in the parent claim 25 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot/Mogil ‘937 does not explicitly teach a handle on the first wall such that: said first wall has a handle mounted thereto, and the method includes using said handle in at least one of (a) folding said first wall toward said lid by pushing with said handle; and (b) unfolding said first wall away from said lid by pulling on said handle.
Bradley, however, discloses pushing/pulling a handle on a front/rear wall (Fig 8, a handle 830 for user to adjust the opening of compartment 840; wherein [0147] “Handle 830 may provide the user with a device for adjusting the exposure of storage compartment 840, and further may provide a holder for transporting cooler”, wherein adjusting exposure means at least two directions: pulling open or pushing closed the opening to the compartment).
Therefore, 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 Richardson with a handle as taught by Bradley in order to advantageously ease adjustment of the wall via improved grip over just a wall to open or close the soft container including during folding and unfolding, and beneficially increase ease of carrying versus the wall without a handle.
But the claimed method using the handle is still not explicitly taught as modified by Bradley.
However, examiner submits it is obvious to try the claimed folding and unfolding 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: Increase ease of unfolding a wall of a container to access the container opening or folding for compact storage. (2) Examiner identifies a finite number of solutions to said problem: Use the handle (Bradley) or not (Ascot). (3) A POSITA would have reasonable expectation of success: Examiner submits that using a handle to do the wall pushing/pulling (as in the parent claim prior art combination) would still allow folding and unfolding the walls without disrupting the prior art. 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 within the method limitations are met via folding the wall of Richardson/Mogil ‘044 having a stiffener panel of Mogil ‘937 using the handle of Bradley on Richardson’s wall as Ascot presents, in the way explained by the above Graham factors.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220274737 by Richardson et al. (hereinafter “Richardson”) in view of US Pub 20050103044 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘044”) as evidenced by NPL fold soft cooler by Picnic At Ascot (hereinafter “Ascot”) in view of US Pub 20190193918 by Mitchell et al. (hereinafter “Mitchell”).
Regarding claim 31, Richardson further teaches said ring frame is releasably secured to said body, and said retainer is operable to secure said ring frame to said body (Fig 4, [0056] “the rim and rails 405 may removably attach to the container 401”, for example as in Fig 2, wherein “removably” means the frame is releasable from the container body and the retainer operable to do that, and “attach” means secure frame to body),
But Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot does not explicitly teach that the method of folding includes releasing said retainer and re-securing said retainer after folding.
Mitchell, however, discloses a method of folding includes releasing said retainer and re-securing said retainer after folding (Figs 1A-1B & 2A, a retainer 96 is shown secured (Fig 1A) then released for folding (Fig 1B) then re-secured after folding (Fig 2A); [0146] “Container assembly 20 may include securements, or securement fittings 94, which may be hook-and-eye fabric strips, that are engaged by mating fasteners such as found at the end of retaining straps 96, whereby the container assembly 20 is secured in the collapsed position”).
Therefore, 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 function of the retainer of Richardson to release during folding and re-secure after folding as taught by Mitchell in order to advantageously allow the retainer (Richardson) to secure the body after folding (Ascot) in its folded position (Mitchell).
In addition, since Richardson teaches a retainer at a container edge that removably attaches a frame to the container edge and a wall, and Mitchell teaches a retainer at a container edge of an analogous container that removably attaches to the container edge and a wall, therefore it would have been obvious to substitute one type of detachable fastening mechanism for another known detachable fastening mechanism to achieve the predictable results of removably attaching the retainer to the container. MPEP 2143 I-B.
Claims 34-35 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220274737 by Richardson et al. (hereinafter “Richardson”) in view of US Pub 20050103044 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘044”) 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 34, Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot further teaches the container assembly is a rear folding container assembly in which said second wall is said front wall; said first wall is said rear wall, and said method includes 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 (Richardson as modified by Ascot as obvious to try). See details in the parent claim 25 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot does not explicitly teach a handle on the first wall such that: said first wall is said rear wall and said rear wall has a handle mounted thereto, and said method includes grasping said handle and pushing said rear wall toward said lid.
Bradley, however, discloses pushing/pulling a handle on a front/rear wall (Fig 8, a handle 830 for user to adjust the opening of compartment 840; wherein [0147] “Handle 830 may provide the user with a device for adjusting the exposure of storage compartment 840, and further may provide a holder for transporting cooler”, wherein adjusting means at least the two directions to make the opening close or open of pushing and/or pulling).
Therefore, 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 Richardson with a handle as taught by Bradley in order to advantageously ease adjustment of the wall via improved grip over just a wall to open or close the soft container including during folding and unfolding, and beneficially increase ease of carrying versus the wall without a handle.
But the claimed method using the handle is still not explicitly taught as modified by Bradley.
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: Increase ease of folding for compact storage. (2) Examiner identifies a finite number of solutions to said problem: Grasp the handle (Bradley) or not (Ascot). (3) A POSITA would have reasonable expectation of success: Examiner submits that grasping a handle to do the wall pushing/pulling (as in the parent claim prior art combination) would still allow folding and unfolding the walls without disrupting the prior art. 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 within the method limitations are met via folding the wall of Richardson/Mogil ‘044 grasping the handle of Bradley on Richardson’s wall as Ascot presents, in the way explained by the above Graham factors.
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, Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot further teaches the container assembly is a front folding container assembly in which said second wall is said rear wall; said first wall is said front wall, and said method includes 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 (Richardson as modified by Ascot as obvious to try). See details in the parent claim 25 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot does not explicitly teach a handle on the first wall such that: said first wall is said front wall and said front wall has a handle mounted thereto, and said method includes grasping said handle and pushing said front wall toward said lid.
Bradley, however, discloses pushing/pulling a handle on a front/rear wall (Fig 8, a handle 830 for user to adjust the opening of compartment 840; wherein [0147] “Handle 830 may provide the user with a device for adjusting the exposure of storage compartment 840, and further may provide a holder for transporting cooler”, wherein adjusting means at least the two directions to make the opening close or open of pushing and/or pulling).
Therefore, 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 Richardson with a handle as taught by Bradley in order to advantageously ease adjustment of the wall via improved grip over just a wall to open or close the soft container including during folding and unfolding, and beneficially increase ease of carrying versus the wall without a handle.
But the claimed method using the handle is still not explicitly taught as modified by Bradley.
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: Increase ease of folding for compact storage. (2) Examiner identifies a finite number of solutions to said problem: Grasp the handle (Bradley) or not (Ascot). (3) A POSITA would have reasonable expectation of success: Examiner submits that grasping a handle to do the wall pushing/pulling (as in the parent claim prior art combination) would still allow folding and unfolding the walls without disrupting the prior art. 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 within the method limitations are met via folding the wall of Richardson/Mogil ‘044 grasping the handle of Bradley on Richardson’s wall as Ascot presents, in the way explained by the above Graham factors.
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 43, Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot further teaches the method includes at least one of (a) folding said first wall toward said lid by pushing; and (b) unfolding said first wall away from said lid by pulling ((a) and (b) as in Richardson as modified by Ascot as obvious to try). See details in the parent claim 25 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot does not explicitly teach a handle on the first wall such that: said first wall has a handle mounted thereto, and the method includes using said handle in at least one of (a) folding said first wall toward said lid by pushing with said handle; and (b) unfolding said first wall away from said lid by pulling on said handle.
Bradley, however, discloses pushing/pulling a handle on a front/rear wall (Fig 8, a handle 830 for user to adjust the opening of compartment 840; wherein [0147] “Handle 830 may provide the user with a device for adjusting the exposure of storage compartment 840, and further may provide a holder for transporting cooler”, wherein adjusting exposure means at least two directions: pulling open or pushing closed the opening to the compartment).
Therefore, 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 Richardson with a handle as taught by Bradley in order to advantageously ease adjustment of the wall via improved grip over just a wall to open or close the soft container including during folding and unfolding, and beneficially increase ease of carrying versus the wall without a handle.
But the claimed method using the handle is still not explicitly taught as modified by Bradley.
However, examiner submits it is obvious to try the claimed folding and unfolding 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: Increase ease of unfolding a wall of a container to access the container opening or folding for compact storage. (2) Examiner identifies a finite number of solutions to said problem: Use the handle (Bradley) or not (Ascot). (3) A POSITA would have reasonable expectation of success: Examiner submits that using a handle to do the wall pushing/pulling (as in the parent claim prior art combination) would still allow folding and unfolding the walls without disrupting the prior art. 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 within the method limitations are met via folding the wall of Richardson/Mogil ‘044 using the handle of Bradley on Richardson’s wall as Ascot presents, in the way explained by the above Graham factors.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220274737 by Richardson et al. (hereinafter “Richardson”) in view of US Pub 20050103044 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘044”) as evidenced by NPL fold soft cooler by Picnic At Ascot (hereinafter “Ascot”) in view of US Pub 20170119116 by Bradley (hereinafter “Bradley”) in view of US Pub 20050023282 by Murrer (hereinafter “Murrer”).
Regarding claim 36, Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot/Bradley 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.
Murrer, however, discloses a folding container assembly (Fig 5) comprising: a front wall has a flap and a method includes using said flap of said front wall to engage a rear wall and to retain the container assembly in a folded condition (Fig 5D, [0052] “fasteners such as hook-and-loop arrangements 138 can be used to secure the opposing longitudinal walls 131 to each other in the collapsed configuration”, wherein the method of folding securement is shown via engagement of a front wall flap 138 to a rear wall).
Therefore, 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 Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot/Bradley with a front wall flap as taught by Murrer in order to advantageously “be collapsed into a thin structure occupying very little of the valuable cargo space” (Murrer, [0052]) more securely versus without the prior art combination having the flap.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220274737 by Richardson et al. (hereinafter “Richardson”) in view of US Pub 20050103044 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘044”) as evidenced by NPL fold soft cooler by Picnic At Ascot (hereinafter “Ascot”) in view of US Pub 20170119116 by Bradley (hereinafter “Bradley”) in view of US Pub 20170280937 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil ‘937”).
Regarding claim 37, Richardson/Mogil ‘044/Ascot/Bradley does not explicitly teach stiffeners panel boards in the walls.
Mogil ‘937, however, teaches the front and rear walls have respective stiffeners (Figs 1a & 3a, [0120] a stiffener panel is “thermal storage member 60”, in each of both walls; wherein [0128] “Like member 60, accommodation 80 may be generally flat and thin” meaning 60 is flat and thin – like 80 – so is board shape as shown; and said “thermal storage member 60” is disclosed as [0135] “a single-slab rigid thermal storage element” and “a rigid single-piece thermal storage member that does not fold”; [0125] 60 “need not be bi-folding when installed”, wherein a 60 can go into an accommodation 80, for each of the front and rear wall), and the method includes providing the front wall with a longer stiffener than the rear wall (Fig 1a, [0111], “drawings to scale”, [0121] 60 is “rectangular”, such that a dimension L60 of the front stiffener is longer than W60 of the rear stiffener).
Therefore, 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 first wall whether rear or front of Richardson to have a first stiffener panel board as taught by Mogil ‘937 in order to advantageously decrease decay time of contained perishables by having the board cool the wall like an ice pack.
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one stiffener be longer than the other, having the Mogil ‘937 teachings above, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (i.e. having stiffened soft walls), the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the stiffener boards of Mogil ‘937 added into the walls of Richardson and folded as taught by Ascot as obvious to try.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights