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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 1 in the reply filed on November 26th, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 20-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups III and IV, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 26th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10, lines 1-2 recite, “further comprising the item rack disposed inside the inner void and supporting an item for cold storage” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the item of claim 10 relates to the previously claimed item of claim 1 from which claim 10 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the items of claims 1 and 10 to be the same component.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonai et al. (US Patent No. 12,013,177), hereinafter Yonai in view of Lu (CN 219601932), hereinafter Lu.
Regarding claim 1, Yonai discloses a storage container (Fig. 1, dry shipper 1A) comprising:
an external wall comprising a cylinder defining an outer periphery of the storage container (Fig. 1, thermal insulation container 2; Fig. 2, outer container 7); and
a void defined within the external wall (Fig. 1, housing space K; Col. 6, lines 52-57, housing space K for accommodating the storage tool 50 is provided inside the thermal insulation container 2. A plurality of cooling units 4 are held in the thermal insulation container 2 in a state of surrounding the housing space K, and are detachably provided into the thermal insulation container 2),
a temperature buffering material (Fig. 1, cooling units 4; Fig. 4, cooling portion 16, thermal insulation portion 17), and
an item rack to receive and secure an item in the item rack (Fig. 1, storage tool 50; Col. 5, lines 31-33, As shown in FIG. 1, the storage tool 50 is a rack for storing a plurality of objects to be frozen in the vertical direction (height direction)).
However, Yonai does not disclose the storage container to comprise:
a pair of inner walls, each comprising a planar chord extending between two locations on an inner surface of the external wall, the inner walls dividing the cylinder into sections,
wherein an outer void is defined between at least one of the inner walls and the external wall, the outer void configured to receive the temperature buffering material, and
wherein an inner void is defined between the inner walls, the inner void configured to receive the item rack to receive and secure the item in the item rack.
Lu teaches the storage container (Fig. 1) to comprise:
a pair of inner walls, each comprising a planar chord extending between two locations on an inner surface of the external wall, the inner walls dividing the cylinder into sections (Fig. 1, tank body 1, clapboard 3),
wherein an outer void is defined between at least one of the inner walls and the external wall, the outer void configured to receive the temperature buffering material (See annotated Fig. 1 of Lu below, outer voids A; Pg. 4, paragraph 5, When using, firstly the liquid nitrogen is placed in the cavity between the clapboard 3 and the tank body 1), and
wherein an inner void is defined between the inner walls, the inner void configured to receive the item rack to receive and secure the item in the item rack (See annotated Fig. 1 of Lu below, inner voids B; placing box 4, Pg. 4, paragraph 26, The surface of the storage plate 6 is provided with a storage hole, the cell specimen tube can be inserted into the storage hole, the size of the storage hole is matched with the structure of the cell specimen tube, which is the existing known technology, here will not be described in detail).
Yonai fails to teach a pair of inner walls, each comprising a planar chord extending between two locations on an inner surface of the external wall, the inner walls dividing the cylinder into sections, wherein an outer void is defined between at least one of the inner walls and the external wall, the outer void configured to receive the temperature buffering material, and wherein an inner void is defined between the inner walls, the inner void configured to receive the item rack to receive and secure the item in the item rack, however Lu teaches that it is a known method in the art of cold storage containers to include a pair of inner walls, each comprising a planar chord extending between two locations on an inner surface of the external wall, the inner walls dividing the cylinder into sections, wherein an outer void is defined between at least one of the inner walls and the external wall, the outer void configured to receive the temperature buffering material, and wherein an inner void is defined between the inner walls, the inner void configured to receive the item rack to receive and secure the item in the item rack. This is strong evidence that modifying Yonai as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing separation between the item and the temperature buffering material to achieve desired heat transfer characteristics within the storage container). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yonai by Lu and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing separation between the item and the temperature buffering material to achieve desired heat transfer characteristics within the storage container.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Lu
Regarding claim 2, Yonai as modified discloses the storage container of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the temperature buffering material comprises a scaffold exposed to a temperature modulating substance (Yonai, Fig. 1, cooling units 4; Fig. 4, cooling portion 16, thermal insulation portion 17; Col. 7, lines 1-7, As shown in FIG. 12, each cooling unit 4 includes a cooling portion 16 which is provided with an absorbent material that absorbs liquid nitrogen, a thermal insulation portion 17 which is located on the cooling portion 16, and provided with a thermal insulation material, and a positioning portion 18 which is located on the thermal insulation portion 17).
Regarding claim 3, Yonai as modified discloses the storage container of claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above), further comprising a liner configured to (1) receive and envelope the temperature buffering material and (2) configured to be inserted into the outer void (Yonai, Fig. 1, cooling units 4; Fig. 4, cooling portion 16, thermal insulation portion 17; Col. 7, lines 8-41, The cooling portion 16 is a case for storing the absorbent material. For example, the cooling portion 16 is made of metal such as an aluminum alloy, stainless steel, or copper, but other materials may be used. Further, on the side surface of the case, slits or holes through which liquid nitrogen passes are provided. As the absorbent material, for example, a resin, fiber, cloth or the like capable of absorbing liquid nitrogen can be used. The cooling portion 16 has a length (height) corresponding to that of the inner container 8, and has a substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape extending in the vertical direction as a whole. The thermal insulation portion 17 is made of a thermal insulation material using a foamed resin such as polystyrene, polyethylene, or polyurethane, and has a length (height) corresponding to that of the thermal insulation cylinder 9, and a substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape extending in the vertical direction as a whole. The positioning portion 18 is made of a metal such as an aluminum alloy or stainless steel, has a thickness corresponding to that of the guide member 5, and is formed in a substantially rectangular flat plate shape. Further, the positioning portion 18 is provided with a pair of positioning convex portions 18a protruding from both sides in the width direction. The cooling unit 4 has a shape in which the outer surface is curved as a whole in accordance with the shape of the thermal insulation container 2, and the inner surface is flat as a whole in accordance with the shape of the housing space K. Further, a handle 4a is provided at the upper portion of the positioning portion 18. The cooling unit 4 may have a shape in which only the outer surface of the cooling portion 16 is flat, as shown in FIG. 13, for example. This makes it possible to simplify the shape of the case of the cooling portion 16; Further, the teachings of Yonai at least imply a liner for the cooling modules 4 since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01); Further, the cooling modules 4 of Yonai have the same structure as the claimed liner and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed). Further, the limitations of claim 3 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, Yonai as modified discloses the storage container of claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above).
However, Yonai as modified does not disclose wherein the liner comprises a removable lid.
Regarding wherein the liner comprises a removable lid, the court has held that making components separable may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), the claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art' s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose." MPEP § 2144.04-V-C.
Regarding claim 6, Yonai as modified discloses the storage container of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the storage container further comprises a lid configured to cover the outer void while leaving the inner void uncovered (Fig. 1, pressing member 6; Further, the pressing member 6 of Yonai has the same structure as the claimed lid and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed). Further, the limitations of claim 6 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Yonai as modified discloses the storage container of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising the item rack disposed inside the inner void and supporting an item for cold storage (Yonai, Fig. 1, storage tool 50; Col. 5, lines 31-33, As shown in FIG. 1, the storage tool 50 is a rack for storing a plurality of objects to be frozen in the vertical direction (height direction)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonai as modified by Lu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Barthel (US Patent No. 4,481,779), hereinafter Barthel.
Regarding claim 5, Yonai as modified discloses the storage container of claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above),
However, Yonai as modified does not disclose wherein the scaffold comprises one or more of an aerogel, fiberglass, or cotton.
Barthel teaches the use of fiberglass for insulation in a cryogenic storage container (Col. 4, lines 56-63, However, to those skilled in the art it is apparent that an alternate micro-fibrous matrix configuration can be formed by cutting out a multiplicity of individual discs from a web of micro fiberglass, punching a hole in the center of each disk and stacking up the disks about the core into a relatively compact body having an external configuration as shown in FIG. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scaffold of the storage container of Yonai as modified to comprises fiberglass as taught by Barthel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because reasonably compacted webs of glass fibers possess high capacity for holding liquid nitrogen by adsorption and capillary suspension (Barthel, Col. 4, lines 44-63).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonai as modified by Lu as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 212667978), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 7, Yonai as modified discloses the storage container of claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above), wherein:
the external wall is non-porous (Yonai, Col. 5, lines 56-61, As shown in FIGS. 9 and 10, the thermal insulation container 2 is a double container having a vacuum insulation structure. Specifically, the container body 2 includes an outer container 7 and an inner container 8 which are bottomed cylindrical shaped, and made of a metal such as an aluminum alloy or stainless steel; Col. 6, lines 21-27, Further, a vacuum thermal insulation layer 12 is provided by the outer container 7, the upper wall plate 10, the inner container 8, and the thermal insulation cylinder 9. The vacuum thermal insulation layer 12 is formed in a high vacuum by degassing from the degassing port (not shown) provided at the upper wall plate 9 and then closing the degassing port with a plug 13; Further, the teachings of the outer container 7 being used to contain vacuum insulation at least implies the outer container 7 is non-porous since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)); and,
the inner wall is non-porous (Lu, Pg. 4, paragraph 5, When using, firstly the liquid nitrogen is placed in the cavity between the clapboard 3 and the tank body 1; Further, the teachings of Lu at least imply clapboard 3 to be non-porous as clapboard 3 defines a cavity for containing a liquid since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
However, Yonai as modified does not disclose the lid to be porous.
Zhang teaches the lid to be porous (Fig. 1, cryogen cover 22, vent hole 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid of the storage container of Yonai as modified to be porous as taught by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for the discharging of gas to prevent over pressurization (Zhang, Pg. 5, paragraph 40).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonai as modified by Lu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McCormick (US Patent No. 11,596,148), hereinafter McCormick.
Regarding claim 8, Yonai as modified discloses the storage container of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the item rack comprises a handle (Fig. 1, handle 50a).
However, Yonai as modified does not disclose a handle that extends out of the storage container when the item rack is inserted into the storage container.
McCormick teaches a handle that extends out of the storage container when the item rack is inserted into the storage container (Fig. 1, dry vapor cryogenic storage container 10, Fig. 8, handle 68; Col. 11, lines 55-59, The handle 68 is configured to allow manual removal of the inner core 58 and the contents containers 32 from the outer core 56 and container 10. The handle 68 may be configured to fold flat to fit beneath the container lid 14; Further, the teachings of McCormick at least imply the handle extends out of the storage container when the item rack is inserted into the storage container when it is not yet folded flat to fit beneath the lid since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Yonai as modified fails to teach a handle that extends out of the storage container when the item rack is inserted into the storage container, however McCormick teaches that it is a known method in the art of cold storage containers to include a handle that extends out of the storage container when the item rack is inserted into the storage container. This is strong evidence that modifying X as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. removal of item rack with minimal contact with potentially harmful cryogens to improve overall user safety). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yonai as modified by McCormick and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of removal of item rack with minimal contact with potentially harmful cryogens to improve overall user safety.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonai as modified by Lu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Romanos et al. (US Patent No. 7,299,650), hereinafter Romanos.
Regarding claim 9, Yonai as modified discloses the storage container of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Yonai as modified does not disclose wherein the storage container is received into a double-walled vacuum flask.
Romanos teaches wherein the storage container is received into a double-walled vacuum flask (Fig. 1, shipping container 10, shipper core 50; Col. 3, lines 12-13 and 15-22, In this configuration, the outer shell assembly 20 and the inner shell assembly 40 form a Dewar's flask… The shipper core 50 is a removable container sized to pass through the passage 30. The shipper core 50, preferably, has a length sufficient to extend between the bottom of the second, inner shell assembly body 42 and partially into the passage 30 so that the shipper core 50 does not fall into the inner space 44. The shipper core 50 further is structured to support a sample container 52, or a support structure 54 in999 which a sample container 52 may be stored).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage container of Yonai as modified to be received into a double-walled vacuum flask as taught by Romanos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide sufficient thermal storage for shipping a temperature sensitive item.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cracco (WO 2016156564) discloses a similar storage container.
Deane et al. (US Patent No. 8,887,944) discloses a similar storage container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 December 09th, 2025
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763