DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on October 27, 2025, the objections to the claims, drawings and specification in the previous office action (dated 04/25/2025), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 12, 14, 16 and 17 have been amended,
Claims 2, 4, 8,10-11, 13, 15, 19 and 20 were previously presented, and
Claim 18 has been cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1-17, 19 and 20 are currently pending.
Drawings
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
“outer enclosure layer” and “inner enclosure layer” as in claims 1 and 12 (respectively).
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: as noted in the drawing objections above. Appropriate correction is required.
Furthermore, the specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“outer enclosure layer” and “inner enclosure layer” in claims 1 and 12 (respectively).
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandberg (US 8511846 B1 – art of record; hereinafter) and further in view of Abbate (US 20150300727 A1; hereinafter Abbate) and Doucette et al. (US 4871079 A; hereinafter Doucette).
Regarding claim 1, Sandberg teaches a multifunctional cooler apparatus (20) comprising:
an insulated compartment (i.e. in the form an interior cavity (21) of a main body (22));
a lid (24);
the insulated compartment comprising a base, a lateral wall, and an opening;
the insulated compartment being externally shaped to coextensively retrofit within a frunk of an automotive vehicle;
Examiner’s note: with respect to “…being externally shaped to coextensively retrofit within a frunk of an automotive vehicle…” which is considered to be functional or intended-use limitation(s) to which no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Applicant is reminded of the following with regards to functional or intended-use limitation(s):
Applicant has set forth product or apparatus claims, which include functional language or terminology reciting the use, operation, or employment of the apparatus. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, emphasis added. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In other words, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. The Sandberg of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the Sandberg 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. See MPEP §2114(II)
the lateral wall being perimetrically connected around the base;
the opening being delineated by the lateral wall, opposite of the base;
the lid being perimetrically attached to the lateral wall about the opening (via hinges (25));
the insulated compartment and the lid forming an outer enclosure layer (i.e. the outer liner (26) of the body AND outer surface of the lid) and an inner enclosure layer (i.e. inner liner (34) of the body);
the outer enclosure layer being made of a high-density polymer (i.e. HDPE; Sandberg Col. 4 ln. 10 – Col. 6 ln. 64 and Figs. 1-19).
However, Sandberg fails to teach a rechargeable battery; the rechargeable battery being mounted within the lid; at least one speaker system; the at least one speaker system being integrated into the lid from the top surface of the lid; and the at least one speaker system being electrically connected to the rechargeable battery.
Abbate is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Sandberg, which is an insulated container (i.e. cooler). Abbate teaches a multifunctional cooler apparatus (100) comprising:
an insulated compartment (102);
a lid (104);
a rechargeable battery;
Examiner’s note: In [0014], Abbate teaches the following “…The portable cooler and sound system may also comprise one or more photovoltaic cells (i.e. solar cells) affixed to a lid of the cooler for charging an internal battery…” Examiner construed the above disclosure to mean that the cooler is provided with solar cells that RECHARGES an internal battery. Therefore, the internal battery (of Abbate) is considered rechargeable much like the claimed rechargeable battery; emphasis added.
at least one speaker system (i.e. in the form of a bass speaker (112) that is provided on the top surface of the lid OR speakers (202a-b) provided on the front wall of the cooler);
the at least one speaker system (specifically the bass speaker (112)) being integrated into the lid from the top surface of the lid; and
the at least one speaker system being electrically connected to the rechargeable battery (Abbate [0033-0079] and Figs. 1-7).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to applying teachings of at least one speaker system on the top surface of the lid AND a rechargeable battery (as taught by Abbate) onto the overall insulated cooler (of Sandberg) to provide “…an efficient compact, portable cooler with an integrated performance audio system be provided which meets or exceeds the performance expectations of music enthusiasts while also keeping perishables cool during recreational activities..” (see Abbate [0006]).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rechargeable battery (of Abbate) mounted within the lid (of Sandberg) to provide more storage space in the insulated compartment, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(C)
Lastly, Sandberg fails to teach the inner enclosure layer being made of low-density polymer.
Doucette is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Sandberg and Abbate, which is an insulated container (i.e. cooler). Doucette teaches a multifunctional insulated cooler embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-6 and 13-19) comprising:
an insulated compartment (12, 14, 16, 20 and 22);
a lid (18);
the insulated compartment comprising a base, a lateral wall, and an opening;
the lateral wall being perimetrically connected around the base;
the opening being delineated by the lateral wall, opposite of the base;
the lid being perimetrically attached to the lateral wall about the opening;
a top surface of the lid being positioned parallel and offset from the opening;
the insulated compartment and the lid forming an outer enclosure layer (i.e. in the form of outer skin (36) – see Doucette Fig. 8) and an inner enclosure layer (i.e. in the form of low-density foam core (42) – see Doucette Fig. 8);
the outer enclosure layer being made of a high-density polymer (i.e. PVC); and
the inner enclosure layer being made of a lower-density polymer (i.e. PP; Doucette Col. 2 ln. 67 – Col. 4 ln. 17).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inner enclosure layer (of Sandberg) out of a similar low-density polymer (as taught by Doucette) to adjust the overall insulative properties of the overall insulated cooler (of Sandberg).
Further, 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. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 2, modified Sandberg as above further teaches the lateral wall comprising a left wall, a right wall, a front wall, a rear wall, and a top edge;
the left wall being terminally connected to the base;
the right wall being terminally connected to the base;
the left wall and the right wall being oppositely positioned of each other about the base;
the front wall being terminally connected to the base, the left wall, and the right wall;
the rear wall being terminally connected to the base, the left wall, and the right wall;
the front wall and the rear wall being oppositely positioned of each other about the base;
the top edge being delimited by the left wall, the right wall, the front wall, and
the rear wall; and
the lid being positioned atop the top edge (see Sandberg Figs. 1-19).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sandberg as above further teaches a power input (i.e. in the form of photovoltaic cells OR a power inverter (of Abbate));
a power output (i.e. in the form of DC converters (of Abbate));
the power input being integrated into the lid;
the power output being integrated into the lid;
the power input being electrically connected to the rechargeable battery; and
the power output being electrically connected to the rechargeable battery (Abbate [0061-0066] and Figs. 5a-6).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sandberg as above further teaches a left handle (30);
a right handle (30);
the left handle being integrated into a left wall of the lateral wall; and
the right handle being integrated into a right wall of the lateral wall (see Sandberg Figs. 1-19).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sandberg as above further teaches at least one beverage holder;
the at least one beverage holder being a plurality of beverage holders;
each of the plurality of beverage holders being integrated into the lid from the top surface of the lid (see annotated Sandberg Figs. 12-13 below);
the plurality of beverage being distributed around the at least one speaker system; and
each of the plurality of beverage holder being oriented away from the insulated compartment.
Examiner’s note: By doing so, the resultant structure will be in a similar arrangement as claimed, in which the plurality of beverage holders being distributed around the least one speaker system; emphasis added.
PNG
media_image1.png
649
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 5, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 1 above) and further in view of Tang (US 20170314845 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Tang).
Regarding claim 5, Sandberg as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for a short-range wireless data exchanging unit; the short-range wireless data exchanging unit being mounted within the lid; the short-range wireless data exchanging unit being electrically connected to the rechargeable battery; and the at least one speaker system being electronically connected to the short- range wireless data exchanging unit.
Tang is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Sandberg, Abbate and Doucette, which is a multifunctional insulated cooler. Tang teaches a multifunctional cooler apparatus embodiment (as shown in Figs. 1-7) having a short-range wireless data exchanging unit (i.e. Bluetooth) which is electrically integrated with a speaker system and a rechargeable battery (Tang [0018]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall cooler apparatus (of Sandberg) with a similar short-range wireless data exchanging unit (i.e. Bluetooth; as taught by Tang) to allow the user to easily control the overall speaker system via a cellphone or any other mobile devices.
Regarding claim 7, modified Sandberg as above further teaches wherein the at least one speaker system is a subwoofer speaker system (Abbate [0013]).
Regarding claim 10, Sandberg as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in clam 1, except for a divider plate; the lateral wall comprising a front wall and a rear wall; the divider plate being positioned within the insulated compartment; and the divider plate being removably engaged with the front wall and the rear wall.
Tang is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Sandberg, Abbate and Doucette, which is a multifunctional insulated cooler. Tang teaches the overall multifunctional cooler apparatus comprising a lateral wall having a front wall and a rear wall; a divider plate (11); the divider plate being positioned within the insulated compartment; and the divider plate being removably engaged with the front wall and the rear wall via guidance slot (10; Tang [0048] and see Figs. 6-7).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall cooler apparatus (of Sandberg) with a similar divider plate (as taught by Tang) to separate the insulated compartment into two independent chambers and also to prevent certain content stored therein from moving around.
Claims 12-13, 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandberg (US 8511846 B1 – art of record; hereinafter) and further in view of Abbate (US 20150300727 A1; hereinafter Abbate), Doucette et al. (US 4871079 A; hereinafter Doucette) and Tang (US 20170314845 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Tang).
Regarding claim 12, Sandberg teaches a multifunctional cooler apparatus (20) comprising:
an insulated compartment (i.e. in the form an interior cavity (21) of a main body (22));
a lid (24);
a left handle (30);
a right handle (30);
at least one beverage holder;
the insulated compartment comprising a base, a lateral wall, and an opening;
the insulated compartment being externally shaped to coextensively retrofit within a frunk of an automotive vehicle;
Examiner’s note: with respect to “…being externally shaped to coextensively retrofit within a frunk of an automotive vehicle…” which is considered to be functional or intended-use limitation(s) to which no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Applicant is reminded of the following with regards to functional or intended-use limitation(s):
Applicant has set forth product or apparatus claims, which include functional language or terminology reciting the use, operation, or employment of the apparatus. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, emphasis added. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In other words, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. The Sandberg of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the Sandberg 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. See MPEP §2114(II)
the lateral wall being perimetrically connected around the base;
the opening being delineated by the lateral wall, opposite of the base;
the lid being perimetrically attached to the lateral wall about the opening (via hinges (25));
a top surface of the lid being positioned parallel and offset from the opening;
the insulated compartment and the lid forming an outer enclosure layer (i.e. the outer liner (26) of the body AND outer surface of the lid) and an inner enclosure layer (i.e. inner liner (34) of the body);
the outer enclosure layer being made of a high-density polymer (i.e. HDPE);
the left handle being integrated into a left wall of the lateral wall;
the right handle being integrated into a right wall of the lateral wall;
the at least one beverage holder being a plurality of beverage holders;
each of the plurality of beverage holders being integrated into the lid from the top surface of the lid (see annotated Sandberg Figs. 12-13 above); and
each of the plurality of beverage holders being oriented away from the insulated compartment (Sandberg Col. 4 ln. 10 – Col. 6 ln. 64 and Figs. 1-19).
However, Sandberg fails to teach a rechargeable battery; the rechargeable battery being mounted within the lid; at least one speaker system; the at least one speaker system being integrated into the lid from the top surface of the lid; and the at least one speaker system being electrically connected to the rechargeable battery.
Abbate is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Sandberg, which is an insulated container (i.e. cooler). Abbate teaches a multifunctional cooler apparatus (100) comprising:
an insulated compartment (102);
a lid (104);
a rechargeable battery;
Examiner’s note: In [0014], Abbate teaches the following “…The portable cooler and sound system may also comprise one or more photovoltaic cells (i.e. solar cells) affixed to a lid of the cooler for charging an internal battery…” Examiner construed the above disclosure to mean that the cooler is provided with solar cells that RECHARGES an internal battery. Therefore, the internal battery (of Abbate) is considered rechargeable much like the claimed rechargeable battery; emphasis added.
at least one speaker system (i.e. in the form of a bass speaker (112) that is provided on the top surface of the lid OR speakers (202a-b) provided on the front wall of the cooler);
the at least one speaker system (specifically the bass speaker (112)) being integrated into the lid from the top surface of the lid; and
the at least one speaker system being electrically connected to the rechargeable battery (Abbate [0033-0079] and Figs. 1-7).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to applying teachings of at least one speaker system on the top surface of the lid AND a rechargeable battery (as taught by Abbate) onto the overall insulated cooler (of Sandberg) to provide “…an efficient compact, portable cooler with an integrated performance audio system be provided which meets or exceeds the performance expectations of music enthusiasts while also keeping perishables cool during recreational activities..” (see Abbate [0006]).
By doing so, the resultant structure will be in a similar arrangement as claimed, in which the plurality of beverage holders being distributed around the least one speaker system; emphasis added.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rechargeable battery (of Abbate) mounted within the lid (of Sandberg) to provide more storage space in the insulated compartment, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(C)
Further, Sandberg fails to teach the inner enclosure layer being made of low-density polymer.
Doucette is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Sandberg and Abbate, which is an insulated container (i.e. cooler). Doucette teaches a multifunctional insulated cooler embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-6 and 13-19) comprising:
an insulated compartment (12, 14, 16, 20 and 22);
a lid (18);
the insulated compartment comprising a base, a lateral wall, and an opening;
the lateral wall being perimetrically connected around the base;
the opening being delineated by the lateral wall, opposite of the base;
the lid being perimetrically attached to the lateral wall about the opening;
a top surface of the lid being positioned parallel and offset from the opening;
the insulated compartment and the lid forming an outer enclosure layer (i.e. in the form of outer skin (36) – see Doucette Fig. 8) and an inner enclosure layer (i.e. in the form of low-density foam core (42) – see Doucette Fig. 8);
the outer enclosure layer being made of a high-density polymer (i.e. PVC); and
the inner enclosure layer being made of a lower-density polymer (i.e. PP; Doucette Col. 2 ln. 67 – Col. 4 ln. 17).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inner enclosure layer (of Sandberg) out of a similar low-density polymer (as taught by Doucette) to adjust the overall insulative properties of the overall insulated cooler (of Sandberg).
Further, 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. See MPEP §2144.07
Lastly, Sandberg fails to teach a short-range wireless data exchanging unit; the short-range wireless data exchanging unit being mounted within the lid; the short-range wireless data exchanging unit being electrically connected to the rechargeable battery; and the at least one speaker system being electronically connected to the short- range wireless data exchanging unit.
Tang is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Sandberg, Abbate and Doucette, which is a multifunctional insulated cooler. Tang teaches a multifunctional cooler apparatus embodiment (as shown in Figs. 1-7) having a short-range wireless data exchanging unit (i.e. Bluetooth) which is electrically integrated with a speaker system and a rechargeable battery (Tang [0018]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall cooler apparatus (of Sandberg) with a similar short-range wireless data exchanging unit (i.e. Bluetooth; as taught by Tang) to allow the user to easily control the overall speaker system via a cellphone or any other mobile devices.
Regarding claim 13, modified Sandberg as above further teaches the lateral wall comprising a left wall, a right wall, a front wall, a rear wall, and a top edge;
the left wall being terminally connected to the base;
the right wall being terminally connected to the base;
the left wall and the right wall being oppositely positioned of each other about the base;
the front wall being terminally connected to the base, the left wall, and the right wall;
the rear wall being terminally connected to the base, the left wall, and the right wall;
the front wall and the rear wall being oppositely positioned of each other about the base;
the top edge being delimited by the left wall, the right wall, the front wall, and
the rear wall; and
the lid being positioned atop the top edge (see Sandberg Figs. 1-19).
Regarding claim 15, modified Sandberg as above further teaches a power input (i.e. in the form of photovoltaic cells OR a power inverter (of Abbate));
a power output (i.e. in the form of DC converters (of Abbate));
the power input being integrated into the lid;
the power output being integrated into the lid;
the power input being electrically connected to the rechargeable battery; and
the power output being electrically connected to the rechargeable battery (Abbate [0061-0066] and Figs. 5a-6).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sandberg as above further teaches wherein the at least one speaker system is a subwoofer speaker system (Abbate [0013]).
Regarding claim 19, Sandberg as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in clam 12, except for a divider plate; the lateral wall comprising a front wall and a rear wall; the divider plate being positioned within the insulated compartment; and the divider plate being removably engaged with the front wall and the rear wall.
Tang is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Sandberg, Abbate and Doucette, which is a multifunctional insulated cooler. Tang teaches the overall multifunctional cooler apparatus comprising a lateral wall having a front wall and a rear wall; a divider plate (11); the divider plate being positioned within the insulated compartment; and the divider plate being removably engaged with the front wall and the rear wall via guidance slot (10; Tang [0048] and see Figs. 6-7).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall cooler apparatus (of Sandberg) with a similar divider plate (as taught by Tang) to separate the insulated compartment into two independent chambers and also to prevent certain content stored therein from moving around.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 1 above) and further in view of Long (US 4700395 A – art of record; hereinafter Long).
Regarding claim 6, Sandberg as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 5 (respectively), except for wherein the [at least one] speaker system is a full-range speaker system.
Long is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention Sandberg, Abbate and Doucette, which is a multifunctional insulated cooler. Long teaches a multifunctional insulated cooler apparatus embodiment (11; as shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising: an insulated compartment (13); a lid (23); a rechargeable battery (79); at least one speaker system (29, 31, 37 and 39), the [at least one] speaker system being electrically connected to the rechargeable battery via an amplifier (77); and the [at least one] speaker system uses full-range speakers (specifically 29 and 31 in Fig. 1) (Long Col. 2 ln. 32 – Col. 3 ln. 48).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the [at least one] speaker system (of Sandberg) to have a similar full-range speaker (as taught by Long) to enhance to overall listening experience for the user.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 12 above) and further in view of Long (US 4700395 A – art of record; hereinafter Long).
Regarding claim 16, Sandberg as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 12, except for wherein the [at least one] speaker system is a full-range speaker system.
Long is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention Sandberg, Abbate Doucette and Tang, which is a multifunctional insulated cooler. Long teaches a multifunctional insulated cooler apparatus embodiment (11; as shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising: an insulated compartment (13); a lid (23); a rechargeable battery (79); at least one speaker system (29, 31, 37 and 39), the [at least one] speaker system being electrically connected to the rechargeable battery via an amplifier (77); and the [at least one] speaker system uses full-range speakers (specifically 29 and 31 in Fig. 1) (Long Col. 2 ln. 32 – Col. 3 ln. 48).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the [at least one] speaker system (of Sandberg) to have a similar full-range speaker (as taught by Long) to enhance to overall listening experience for the user.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 1 above) and further in view of Lustig (US 6253570 B1 – art of record; hereinafter Lustig).
Regarding claim 11, Sandberg as above fails to teach all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for a thermometer; the thermometer being positioned with the insulated compartment; and the thermometer being adjacently connected onto the lateral wall.
Lustig is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Sandberg, Abbate and Doucette, which is a multifunctional insulated cooler. Lustig teaches an insulated cooler apparatus embodiment (i.e. in the form of a traveling bag (10) – as shown in Figs. 1-3) having an insulated compartment with a base wall, a lateral wall and an opening, and a thermometer (i.e. in the form of a temperature-sensing element or probe (72) which is connected to an external LCD display outside the insulated compartment), the thermometer being positioned with the insulated compartment; and the thermometer being adjacently connected onto the lateral wall (Lustig Col. 5 ln. 56 – Col. 6 ln. 56).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lateral wall (of Sandberg) with a similar thermometer (as taught by Lustig) to allow the user to see any temperature variations within the insulated compartment without opening the overall cooler.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 12 above) and further in view of Lustig (US 6253570 B1 – art of record; hereinafter Lustig).
Regarding claim 20, Sandberg as above fails to teach all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 12, except for a thermometer; the thermometer being positioned with the insulated compartment; and the thermometer being adjacently connected onto the lateral wall.
Lustig is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Sandberg, Abbate, Doucette and Tang, which is a multifunctional insulated cooler. Lustig teaches an insulated cooler apparatus embodiment (i.e. in the form of a traveling bag (10) – as shown in Figs. 1-3) having an insulated compartment with a base wall, a lateral wall and an opening, and a thermometer (i.e. in the form of a temperature-sensing element or probe (72) which is connected to an external LCD display outside the insulated compartment), the thermometer being positioned with the insulated compartment; and the thermometer being adjacently connected onto the lateral wall (Lustig Col. 5 ln. 56 – Col. 6 ln. 56).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lateral wall (of Sandberg) with a similar thermometer (as taught by Lustig) to allow the user to see any temperature variations within the insulated compartment without opening the overall cooler.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 14 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (in particular claims 1-2, 12 and 13 (respectively)), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims (i.e. claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-17, 19 and 20) have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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. Avilés can be reached on 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736