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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (US 4,577,475) in view of Klingshirn et al. (US 20150323240).
Per claim 1, Herrera teaches an insulated container, comprising:
an outer housing having a plurality of outer walls configured as an outer thermal insulation layer (outer walls of 10);
an upper housing (26) positioned within the outer housing and having a first plurality of inner walls (inner walls of 26) and a bottom wall (27) that together define a main chamber (space inside 26) configured to receive a cooling agent therein (“In operation, a coolant such as ice is placed in the container 26”, col. 3, lines 7-8); and
a lower housing (12) positioned within the outer housing and having a second plurality of inner walls (inner walls of 12) that define a drawer chamber (22) configured to slidably receive a drawer (34) therein,
wherein the bottom wall of the upper housing (27) extends across a top of the drawer chamber (22) (see figures 1-2);
wherein each of the first and second pluralities of inner walls is configured as an inner thermal insulation layer (the walls are part of the insulated walls and are thus configured as thermal insulations layers) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the bottom wall further comprises a plurality of layers including at least one porous layer and at least one non-porous layer.
However, Klingshirn teaches an insulated container wherein a bottom wall (6, 15) (to clarify, 6 and 15 in combination form “a wall” between the space in 5 and the space above 15) comprises a plurality of layers including a porous layer (6) and a non-porous layer (15) for “improved storage conditions for fresh moisture-emitting chilled goods” (para. 0003). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a bottom wall comprising a plurality of layers including a porous layer and a non-porous layer, as taught by Klingshirn in the invention of Herrera, in order to advantageously provide improved storage conditions for fresh moisture-emitting chilled goods (para. 0003).
Per claim 2, Herrera, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Herrera, as modified, teaches the first plurality of inner walls (inner walls of 26) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first plurality of inner walls are monolithic.
However per MPEP 2144.02, section V, paragraph B, “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first plurality of inner walls and the bottom wall as monolithic in order to advantageously reduce the number of parts in the assembly, thereby reducing assembly time and assembly cost.
Per claim 3, Herrera, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Herrera, as modified, teaches the first plurality of inner walls (inner walls of 26), the plurality of outer walls (outer walls of 10), and the bottom wall (27) are each formed of a material (inherent) but fails to explicitly teach wherein each are formed of a single material.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to form insulated container walls of a single material in order to advantageously reduce material costs. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each wall of a single material in order to advantageously reduce material cost by procuring bulk quantities.
Per claim 4, Herrera, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Herrera, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the single material is polypropylene.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that polypropylene is an old and well known material used in insulated container due to the materials durability and insulative properties. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the single material as polypropylene in order to advantageously a durable and good insulative material.
Per claim 5, Herrera, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Herrera, as modified, teaches a layer of polyurethane foam positioned between the plurality of outer walls and at least one of the first and second pluralities of inner walls (“The cooler 10, in its insulated portions preferably comprises a high-density polyurethane-type foam insulation”, col. 3, lines 5-6).
Per claim 6, Herrera, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Herrera, as modified, teaches wherein each of the upper and lower housings is configured to be cooled to below 40°F by the cooling agent (“In operation, a coolant such as ice is placed in the container 26”, col. 3, lines 7-8) (to clarify, ice is below 40°F and will cool both the upper and lower housings) (“To further describe the operation and advantages of the cooler 10, items or beverages, such as volumes of liquid or in bottles, for example, may be placed in a bin 34 where they are separated from coolant in the container 26 but are yet kept cool because of the non-insulated top 20 of the base compartment 12 or bottom 27 of the container 26.”, col. 3, lines 15-20).
Per claim 8, Herrera, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Herrera, as modified, teaches a substantially planar divider wall positioned within the lower housing and configured to provide load-bearing support to the bottom wall (see divider between recess 22 in figure 1 dividing the two drawer chambers) (to clarify, the divider wall inherently is configured to provide a load-bearing support to 27 since the wall is directly below 27).
Per claim 9, Herrera, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 8. Further, Herrera, as modified, teaches wherein the substantially planar divider extends vertically (see figure 1).
Per claim 10, Herrera, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Herrera, as modified, teaches a lid (32) defining a top wall of the main chamber (26).
Per claim 11, Herrera, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Herrera, as modified, teaches the drawer having a handle (62) on a front surface thereof (see figures 1 and 2)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (US 4,577,475) in view of Klingshirn et al. (US 20150323240) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Morimoto et al. (US 2002/0168496).
Per claim 7, Herrera, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Herrera, as modified, teaches wherein each of the plurality of outer walls, the first plurality of inner walls, the bottom wall, and the second plurality of inner walls has a thickness (inherent; see figure 1 and 2) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the thickness is between 2.5mm and 3.5 mm.
However, Morimoto teaches an insulating panel for an insulated container wherein the inner and outer walls are 2 mm (“a cabinet whose outer side and inner side are made of polypropylene (2 mm)”, para. 0144) for excellent insulation efficiency (para. 0139). Per MPEP 2144.05, section I, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”. Further, there is no showing of unexpected results or criticality in the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the thickness between 2.5mm and 3.5mm in order to advantageously provide excellent insulation efficiency (para. 0139).
Claim(s) 12-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (US 4,577,475) in view of Henry et al. (US 2022/0154411).
Per claim 12, Herrera teaches an insulated container, comprising:
an upper housing having a main chamber (space formed by walls of 26) configured to receive a cooling agent therein (“In operation, a coolant such as ice is placed in the container 26”, col. 3, lines 7-8), an open upper end (end covered by 32), a first plurality of vertical walls (side walls of 26), and a horizontal wall (27);
a lower housing having a drawer chamber (22) configured to slidably receive a drawer (24) therein and a second plurality of vertical walls (sides walls of 12),
wherein the horizontal wall (27) extends across a top portion of the drawer chamber (22); and
an outer housing containing therein the upper housing (26) and the lower housing (12) and having a plurality of outer walls (outer walls of 10),
wherein each of the first and second plurality of vertical walls is configured as an inner thermal barrier layer and the plurality of outer walls is configured as an outer thermal barrier layer (the inner and outer walls are part of the insulated walls and are thus configured as inner and outer thermal barrier layers) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the horizontal wall including a plurality of ribs.
However, Henry teaches a wall that includes ribs for added strength (“one or more of the plurality of the support walls 220 includes a surface having features that provide additional rigidity and/or strength to the support wall, such as incorporating one or more of ribs”, para. 0034). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a wall with a plurality of ribs, as taught by Henry in the invention of Herrera in order to advantageously provide added strength (para. 0034).
Per claim 13, Henry, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, claim 13 recites similar limitations as claim 3 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 14, Henry, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, claim 13 recites similar limitations as claim 4 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 15, Henry, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 5 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 16, Henry, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, claim 16 recites similar limitations as claim 6 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 18, Henry, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, claim 18 recites similar limitations as claim 8 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 19, Henry, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 18. Further, claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 9 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 20, Henry, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 10 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (US 4,577,475) in view of Henry et al. (US 2022/0154411) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Morimoto et al. (US 2002/0168496).
Per claim 17, Henry, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 7 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (US 4,577,475) in view of Henry et al. (US 2022/0154411).
Per claim 12 and 21, Herrera teaches an insulated container, comprising: an upper housing having a main chamber (space formed by walls of 26) configured to receive a cooling agent therein (“In operation, a coolant such as ice is placed in the container 26”, col. 3, lines 7-8), an open upper end (end covered by 32), a first plurality of vertical walls (side walls of 26), and a horizontal wall (27);
a lower housing having a drawer chamber (22) configured to slidably receive a drawer (24) therein and a second plurality of vertical walls (sides walls of 12),
wherein the horizontal wall (27) extends across a top portion of the drawer chamber (22); and
an outer housing containing therein the upper housing (26) and the lower housing (12) and having a plurality of outer walls (outer walls of 10),
wherein each of the first and second plurality of vertical walls is configured as an inner thermal barrier layer and the plurality of outer walls is configured as an outer thermal barrier layer (the inner and outer walls are part of the insulated walls and are thus configured as inner and outer thermal barrier layers) but fails to explicitly teach the horizontal wall including a plurality of ribs (claim 1), wherein the plurality of ribs define a plurality of hexagonal pores extending through at least a portion of the horizontal wall (claim 21).
Regarding the wall and pores, Klingshirn teaches an insulated container including a horizontal wall (6) includes a plurality of ribs (structure between 13) (claim 1), wherein the plurality of ribs define pores (13) extending through a portion of the horizontal wall (see figure 1) for “improved storage conditions for fresh moisture-emitting chilled goods” (para. 0003). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a horizontal wall including a plurality of ribs (claim 1), wherein the plurality of ribs define pores extending through a portion of the horizontal wall (claim 21), as taught by Klingshirn in the invention of Herrera, in order to advantageously provide improved storage conditions for fresh moisture-emitting chilled goods (para. 0003).
Regarding the shape of the pores, it is noted that the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a change in shape. There is no evidence of record that this claimed shape is critical or produces any unexpended results. In fact, it appears that a device having the claimed shape would not operate differently than the shape of the device disclosed by Herrera, as modified, or other shapes (i.e. triangular, rectangular, pentagonal, heptagonal, etc.…). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide hexagonal shape in order to advantageously provide a six sided pore for stability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 6, that Herrera does not disclose “a substantially planar divider wall positioned within the lower housing and configured to provide load-bearing support to the bottom wall”; the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wall 42 is substantially planar. Wall 42 is dividing the space within bins 32. Wall 42 is positioned within the lower housing. Finally, wall 42 is configured to provide load-bearing support to the bottom wall because when the bottom wall is put under load and flexes the position of wall 42 will create an interfere with the bottom wall and provide load-bearing support to the bottom wall.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 8, second to last paragraph, that Henry does not disclose an upper housing that is contained within an outer housing and that includes a bottom wall; the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Henry was not cited to disclose an upper housing that is contained within an outer housing and that includes a bottom wall. Henry was cited to teaches adding ribs to a wall provides added strength. Herrera was cited to teach upper housing contained within an outer housing and includes a bottom wall. Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
In response to applicant's argument on page 9, second to last paragraph, that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references because Henry fails to teach or suggest “that other walls, such as interior housing walls, of Henry's body 200 could be reinforced with a plurality of ribs, such as the horizontal wall of the base 210 because Henry's disclosure does not include walls of housings positioned internally to the walls 220”, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, Henry was not cited to disclose “that other walls, such as interior housing walls, of Henry's body 200 could be reinforced with a plurality of ribs, such as the horizontal wall of the base 210 because Henry's disclosure does not include walls of housings positioned internally to the walls 220”. Henry was cited to teach that adding ribs (to a wall of an insulated cooler) improves added strength. Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
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 DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763