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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 27 August 2025. These drawings are unacceptable. Figures 6 and 8A are not entered because they contain new matter. The specific dimensions of the PLA-based film and location of the PLA-based film in figure 6 do not find support in the original disclosure. The arrangement of the stand-offs in figure 8A, particularly the right two most stand-offs, does not find support in the original disclosure. Showing the stand-offs identically to those originally disclosed in original figure 8A will obtain entry of figure 8A upon resubmission.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(h)(3) because the hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. MPEP 608.02 V. See figure 1.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(b)(1) because photographs are not ordinarily permitted in utility patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. MPEP 608.02 V. See figure 8A.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 602, 604, 606, 608, 610.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the interface sealed by a PLA-based film of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava (US 20210237953) further in view of Kontz (US 4645480) or in the alternative further in view of Matsumoto (JP 2004181820).
Claim 4: Bhargava discloses a biodegradable insulating structure 100 (container) comprising: biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) joined together, wherein the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) are initially separate until joined together, wherein the joined biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) are configured for use as a thermal shipper for shipping thermally sensitive goods without the use of adhesive, and wherein each biodegradable foam panel 102 (at least two portions) consists of biobased polymer foam beads including polylactic acid (polylactic acid-based molded bead foam), wherein at least one biodegradable foam panel 102 (portion) of the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) has a thickness of 3 inches which is a specific example within the claimed range of 3 inches which anticipates the range of 3 inches or greater (see P. 0049-0050 and fig. 1-2).
Bhargava does not disclose wherein the at least two portions are joined together using a heat-seal to form a heat-sealed interface.
Kontz teaches fabricating cylindrical sleeves from rectangular blanks of an expanded polymeric material, wherein a seam sealing device seals overlapping leading and trailing edges of the blank to one another in a lapped seam, wherein, preferably the seal sealing device is a heat sealing device, and a hot air heat sealing device is preferred for expanded polystyrene and other popular types of expanded thermoplastic materials, resulting in an interface between the leading edge and trailing edge being heat-sealed (see C. 2 L. 30-33 and C. 3 L. 3-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have held the biodegradable insulating structure 100 (container) together by heat sealing the interfaces between the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions), as taught by Kontz, in order to provide a strong durable bond that can withstand a wide range of temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions such that the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) do not get displaced in relation to each other.
In the alternative, Matsumoto teaches a concrete form made by foamed sheets of polylactic acid-based resin (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) using an inorganic inert gas-based blowing agent laminated upon one another and heat-fused/heat-sealed to produce a panel (see P. 0007, 0020, 0033, & 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have held the biodegradable insulating structure 100 (container) together by heat sealing the interfaces between the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions), as taught by Matsumoto, in order to provide a strong durable bond that can withstand a wide range of temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions such that the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) do not get displaced in relation to each other.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava (US 20210237953) further in view of Kontz (US 4645480) or in the alternative further in view of Matsumoto (JP 2004181820).
Claim 2: Bhargava discloses a biodegradable insulating structure 100 (container) comprising: biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) joined together, wherein the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) are initially separate until joined together, wherein the joined biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) are configured for use as a thermal shipper for shipping thermally sensitive goods without the use of adhesive, and wherein each biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) consists of biobased polymer foam beads including polylactic acid (polylactic acid-based molded bead foam), wherein the biodegradable insulating structure 100 (container) comprises an inner surface formed by the joined biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) (see P. 0049-0050 and fig. 1-2).
Bhargava does not disclose wherein the at least two portions are joined together using a heat-seal to form a heat-sealed interface, wherein the container further comprises at least one stand-off attached to the inner surface, or the at least one stand-off consisting of polylactic acid-based molded bead foam.
Derifield discloses an insulated container 10 of polyurethane foam with sides 12 having protrusions (at least one stand-off) between grooves 12d molded at an inner surface therein (see fig. 2 and P. 0021 & 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the inner surface of the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) to have protrusions (at least one stand-off) between grooves 12d molded therein, as taught by Derifield, in order to provide a downward air flow in the grooves around a product load via thermal convection to minimize temperature gradient within the product load. As the protrusions (at least one stand-off) are molded with the biodegradable foam panel 102 (at least two portions) both consist of biobased polymer foam beads including polylactic acid (polylactic acid-based molded bead foam).
Kontz teaches fabricating cylindrical sleeves from rectangular blanks of an expanded polymeric material, wherein a seam sealing device seals overlapping leading and trailing edges of the blank to one another in a lapped seam, wherein, preferably the seal sealing device is a heat sealing device, and a hot air heat sealing device is preferred for expanded polystyrene and other popular types of expanded thermoplastic materials, resulting in an interface between the leading edge and trailing edge being heat-sealed (see C. 2 L. 30-33 and C. 3 L. 3-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have held the biodegradable insulating structure 100 (container) together by heat sealing the interfaces between the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions), as taught by Kontz, in order to provide a strong durable bond that can withstand a wide range of temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions such that the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) do not get displaced in relation to each other.
In the alternative, Matsumoto teaches a concrete form made by foamed sheets of polylactic acid-based resin (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) using an inorganic inert gas-based blowing agent laminated upon one another and heat-fused/heat-sealed to produce a panel (see P. 0007, 0020, 0033, & 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have held the biodegradable insulating structure 100 (container) together by heat sealing the interfaces between the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions), as taught by Matsumoto, in order to provide a strong durable bond that can withstand a wide range of temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions such that the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) do not get displaced in relation to each other.
Claim 7: The combination discloses wherein the protrusions (at least one stand-off) is a molded feature of the inner surface (see fig. 2 & P. 0009 ‘272).
Claim 8: The combination discloses protrusions (at least one stand-off and one or more additional stand-offs) each attached to the inner surface (see fig. 2 ‘009). As the protrusions (at least one stand-off and one or more additional stand-offs) are molded with the biodegradable foam panels 102 (at least two portions) both consist of biobased polymer foam beads including polylactic acid (polylactic acid-based molded bead foam).
Claim 11: The combination discloses wherein the biodegradable insulating structure 100 (container) is configured to hold at least one phase change material within the biodegradable insulating structure 100 (container) and in contact with the protrusion (stand-off) so that the at least one phase change material, when present, is separated from the inner surface (see fig. 2 ‘272).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumber (US 20180282049) further in view of Witt (US 20100029793) and further in view of Kontz (US 4645480) or in the alternative further in view of Matsumoto (JP 2004181820).
Tumber discloses an insulated container [fig. 1] comprising: corner angle pieces 110 (at least two portions) joined together, wherein the corner angle pieces 110 (at least two portions) are initially separate until joined together, wherein the joined corner angle pieces 110 (at least two portions) are configured for use as a thermal shipper for shipping thermally sensitive goods without the use of adhesive, and wherein each corner angle piece 110 (at least two portions) consists of foamed polystyrene and/or foamed polyurethane and/or foamed polyethylene and/or foamed polyisocyurinate and/or vacuum insulated panels and/or blistered films and laminates and/or a variety of cellulous-based, starch-based or mycological-based insulating materials and the like (see fig. 1 and P. 0033).
Tumber does not disclose wherein the at least two portions are joined together using a heat-seal to form a heat-sealed interface or wherein each of the at least two portions consists of polylactic acid-based molded bead foam
Witt teaches using expanded polylactic acid resin beads (polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) to form moulded products to form packing material (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the joined corner angle pieces 110 (at least two portions) out of moulded expanded polylactic acid resin beads (polylactic acid-based molded bead foam), as taught by Witt, in order to reduce reliance on petroleum derived products and to be biodegradable at a good price ratio and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Kontz teaches fabricating cylindrical sleeves from rectangular blanks of an expanded polymeric material, wherein a seam sealing device seals overlapping leading and trailing edges of the blank to one another in a lapped seam, wherein, preferably the seal sealing device is a heat sealing device, and a hot air heat sealing device is preferred for expanded polystyrene and other popular types of expanded thermoplastic materials, resulting in an interface between the leading edge and trailing edge being heat-sealed (see C. 2 L. 30-33 and C. 3 L. 3-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have joined the corner angle pieces 110 (at least two portions) together at the intersections 112 by heat sealing, as taught by Kontz, in order to provide a strong durable bond that can withstand a wide range of temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions such that the corner angle pieces 110 (at least two portions) do not get displaced in relation to each other.
In the alternative, Matsumoto teaches a concrete form made by foamed sheets of polylactic acid-based resin (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) using an inorganic inert gas-based blowing agent laminated upon one another and heat-fused/heat-sealed to produce a panel (see P. 0007, 0020, 0033, & 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have joined the corner angle pieces 110 (at least two portions) together at the intersections 112 by heat sealing, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to provide a strong durable bond that can withstand a wide range of temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions such that the corner angle pieces 110 (at least two portions) do not get displaced in relation to each other.
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein the container comprises an inner surface formed by the joined corner angle pieces 110 (at least two portions), and wherein the container further comprises at least one ridge (stand-off) attached to the inner surface, the at least one stand-off consisting of polylactic acid resin beads (polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) (see P. 0073-0074 which discloses that the outer set of walls may be ridged).
Claim 3: The combination discloses a corner angle piece 106 (panel), which can be smooth, positioned within the container adjacent to an innermost surface of the at least one ridge (stand-off) so that an advection space 108 (gap) is formed between the corner angle piece 106 (panel) and the inner surface, wherein the corner angle piece 106 (panel) consists of foamed polystyrene and/or foamed polyurethane and/or foamed polyethylene and/or foamed polyisocyurinate and/or vacuum insulated panels and/or blistered films and laminates and/or a variety of cellulous-based, starch-based or mycological-based insulating materials and the like (see fig. 1 and P. 0033).
The combination does not disclose wherein the foam panel consists of polylactic acid-based molded bead foam.
Witt teaches using expanded polylactic acid resin beads (polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) to form moulded products to form packing material (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the corner angle piece 106 (panel) a foam panel consisting of moulded expanded polylactic acid resin beads (polylactic acid-based molded bead foam), as taught by Witt, in order to reduce reliance on petroleum derived products and to be biodegradable at a good price ratio and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 5: The heat-sealed interface of the combination inherently or in the alternative obviously comprises a tamper-evident seal as the prior art combination discloses a structurally identical container to the inventions claimed container and as the material of the prior art container of expanded polylactic acid resin beads is identical to the claimed material of polylactic acid-based molded bead foam. If there is any difference, the difference must be minor and obvious. The burden is shifted to applicants to show the heat-sealed interface does not comprise a tamper-evident seal. Otherwise a prima facie case of anticipation, or in the alternative, of obviousness has been established.
Claim 6: The combination discloses that the at least one ridge (stand-off) can be attached to the joined corner angle pieces 110 (at least two portions) (see P. 0043 and 0073-0074).
The combination does not disclose the at least one stand-off being heat-sealed to the inner surface.
Kontz teaches fabricating cylindrical sleeves from rectangular blanks of an expanded polymeric material, wherein a seam sealing device seals overlapping leading and trailing edges of the blank to one another in a lapped seam, wherein, preferably the seal sealing device is a heat sealing device, and a hot air heat sealing device is preferred for expanded polystyrene and other popular types of expanded thermoplastic materials, resulting in an interface between the leading edge and trailing edge being heat-sealed (see C. 2 L. 30-33 and C. 3 L. 3-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have heat sealed the ridges (stand-offs) to the inner surface, as taught by Kontz, in order to provide a strong durable bond that can withstand a wide range of temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions such that the ridges (stand-offs) do not get displaced.
In the alternative, Matsumoto teaches a concrete form made by foamed sheets of polylactic acid-based resin (expandable polylactic acid-based molded bead foam) using an inorganic inert gas-based blowing agent laminated upon one another and heat-fused/heat-sealed to produce a panel (see P. 0007, 0020, 0033, & 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have heat sealed the ridges (stand-offs) to the inner surface, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to provide a strong durable bond that can withstand a wide range of temperature, pressure, and environmental conditions such that the ridges (stand-offs) do not get displaced.
Claim 7: The combination discloses the ridges (at least one stand-off) being a molded feature of the inner surface (see P. 0073-0074).
Claim 8: The combination discloses ridges (at least one stand-off and one or more additional stand-offs) each attached to the inner surface and being molded features of the inner surface (see P. 0073-0074). As the ridges (at least one stand-off and one or more additional stand-offs) are molded with the corner angle pieces 110 (at least two portions) both consist of moulded expanded polylactic acid resin beads (polylactic acid-based molded bead foam).
Claim 10: The combination discloses the insulated container being configured to be composted without undergoing separation of any component part of the container (see fig. 1).
Claim 11: The combination discloses wherein the container is configured to hold at least one phase change material within the container and in contact with the ridge (stand-off) so that the at least one phase change material, when present, is separated from the inner surface (see fig. 1 and P. 0073-0074).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumber (US 20180282049), Witt (US 20100029793) and Kontz (US 4645480) or in the alternative Matsumoto (JP 2004181820) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inagaki (JP 2005170417).
Claim 9: The combination does not disclose wherein the heat sealed interface is further secured by a PLA-based film.
Inagaki teaches a container body 1, lid 2, and opening tape 3, where an interface exists between the container body 1 and lid 2 and the interface is sealed by the opening tape 3, wherein the container body 1 and lid 2 are made of a polylactic acid based resin and the opening tape 3 is made of a polylactic acid based stretch film (PLA-based film) (see fig. 1, abstract, and tech-solution).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the opening tape 3 made of a polylactic acid based stretch film (PLA-based film) over the interfaces 112, as taught by Inagaki, in order to further secure the corner angle pieces 110 (at least two portions) together.
Response to Arguments
The specification objections in paragraphs 10-11 of office action dated 27 February 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 27 August 2025.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraph 12-21 of office action dated 27 February 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 27 August 2025.
In response to applicant’s argument that figure 1 has been amended to properly depict section portions with hatching, the Examiner responds that figure 1 fails to comply with C.F.R 1.84(h)(3) because the hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way.
In response to applicant’s argument that support for the amendment to figure 6 can be found throughout the specification, for example in P. 0040, the Examiner replies that the specific dimensions of the PLA-based film and location of the PLA-based film in figure 6 do not find support in the original disclosure.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 27 August 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 4 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bhargava (US 20210237953) further in view of Kontz (US 4645480) or in the alternative further in view of Matsumoto (JP 2004181820).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 27 August 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bhargava (US 20210237953) further in view of Kontz (US 4645480) or in the alternative further in view of Matsumoto (JP 2004181820).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13 third full paragraph lines 1-7, filed 27 August 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tumber (US 20180282049) further in view of Witt (US 20100029793) and further in view of Kontz (US 4645480) or in the alternative further in view of Matsumoto (JP 2004181820).
In response to applicant’s argument that the alleged “polymeric layer” of Gary is non-analogous to the “molded bead foam” of Applicant’s claim as the “polymeric foam” of Gary is a flexible foam most commonly associated with “cozies” and even “injection molded” variations of these foams are distinguishable from bead foams which involve pelletizing a polymer melt, pre-expanding polymer beads, injecting disparate beads into a mold, and subjecting the mold to heat and vacuum to expand the beads into a desired shape, where “injection molding” is furthermore distinguishable from bead foam molding, and due to this distinction, which would have been apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art, Gary would not have been relied upon to modify Bhargava in view of Derifield as alleged,
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the omission of an adhesive) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736