DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on April 14, 2026, the claim objections and the 112(b) in the previous office action (dated 11/26/2025) are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 6, 10-12 and 14 have been amended,
Claims 2-4 and 7-9 were previously presented,
Claims 13 and 16-18 have been cancelled, and
Claims 5 and 15 were and still are withdrawn from further consideration.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-4 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, ln. 8, the phrase, “...substantially...” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As for claims 2-4, due to their dependencies from claim 1, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 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, 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon et al. (US 9604750 B2 – art of record; hereinafter McMahon) in view of Veiseh (US 20190375193 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Veiseh).
Regarding claim 1, McMahon teaches a packing system embodiment (i.e. in the form of a blank (100); as shown in Figs. 2-4, 6-14, 21 and 28) comprising:
a base layer (104);
an insulating layer disposed on the base layer in one or more areas;
a sealing layer (102);
wherein the insulating layer comprises a sealed plurality of block-shaped pockets taking a substantially rectangular form (i.e. in the form of elongated flutes (106) – in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation);
and further wherein the base layer is folded to join the substantially rectangular or cube forms in each of the one or more areas to align with the inner surface area of all or part of a shipping container (McMahon Col. 12 ln. 53 – Col. 17 ln. 40).
Examiner’s note: McMahon discloses or teaches the following, “…As evident in FIG. 28, prior to entering the dies 220, 222, the edge of the blank 100 has open sides and exposed flutes 106. After passing through the dies 220, 222, a smooth sealed edge (e.g., 122) is formed and the interior of the blank as well as the flutes are not exposed…” (see McMahon Col. 13 ln. 65 – Col. 14 ln. 2). Examiner construed or interpreted the above disclosure or teaching to mean that the open ends of the channels/flutes (i.e. the claimed blocked-shaped pockets) are sealed after going through the respective dies. Therefore, the resultant channels/flutes ARE sealed AND have entrapped some amount of air between the sealed edges of the respective channels/flutes (much like the claimed plurality of sealed block-shaped pockets); emphasis added. Therefore, McMahon discloses or teaches a plurality of sealed block-shaped pockets – as claimed; emphasis added.
However, McMahon fails to teach a reflective layer.
Veiseh is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McMahon, which is an insulating material. Veiseh teaches an insulating bubble wrap and a metallized polyethylene (PE hereinafter) film layer attached to the insulating bubble wrap (Veiseh Abstract, [0023-0075] and Figs. 1-4).
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 packing system (of McMahon) with a similar reflective metallized PE film layer (as taught by Veiseh) as an ADDITIONAL LAYER to enhance the overall thermal insulation properties or capabilities of the overall packing system (of McMahon).
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 claims 10 and 14, McMahon teaches a packing system embodiment (i.e. in the form of a blank (100); as shown in Figs. 2-4, 6-14, 21 and 28) comprising:
a base layer (104);
an insulating layer disposed on the base layer in one or more areas, and;
a sealing layer (102) covering the base layer and insulating layer;
wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of sealed block-shaped pockets (see Examiner’s note above after the rejection of claim 1) taking a rectangular form (i.e. in the form of elongated flutes (106) - in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation);
and further wherein the base layer is folded to join the substantially rectangular or cube forms in each of the one or more areas to align with the inner surface area of all or part of a shipping container (McMahon Col. 12 ln. 53 – Col. 17 ln. 40).
However, McMahon fails to teach a reflective layer, wherein the reflective layer is metallized polyethylene (PE hereinafter) film.
Veiseh is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McMahon, which is an insulating material. Veiseh teaches an insulating bubble wrap and a metallized polyethylene (PE hereinafter) film layer attached to the insulating bubble wrap (Veiseh Abstract, [0023-0075] and Figs. 1-4).
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 packing system (of McMahon) with a similar reflective metallized PE film layer (as taught by Veiseh) as an ADDITIONAL LAYER (which covers the sealing layer of McMahon) to enhance the overall thermal insulation properties or capabilities of the overall packing system (of McMahon).
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
Claims 2-4 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claims 1 and 10 above) and further in view of Delafosse et al. (WO 2021151170 A1 – art of record ; hereinafter Delafosse).
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 11, McMahon as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 10 (respectively), except for wherein the base layer and the insulating layer (or the sealing layer) are derived from a renewable resource, specifically [recycled] polyethylene.
Delafosse is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McMahon, which is an insulating packing system. Delafosse teaches a packing system embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a base layer (14);
an insulating layer (16) disposed on the base layer in or more areas; and
a sealing layer (12) covering the base layer and insulating layer;
wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of block-shaped pockets (i.e. in the form of hexagon-shaped recesses (18)) in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation; and
wherein the base layer, the insulating layer (or the sealing layer) are derived from a renewable resource, specifically [recycled] polyethylene (Delafosse [0018, 0036, 0045-0046, 0058, 0094, 0098, 00119-00121] and Figs. 1-4).
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 base layer, insulating layer and the sealing layer (of McMahon) out of recycled polyethylene (as taught by Delafosse) in order to make the overall packing system (of McMahon) more eco-friendly while reducing waste.
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 claims 3 and 12, modified McMahon as above further teaches wherein the base (14) layer, the insulating layer (16) (or the sealing layer (12)) are derived from a waterproof biodegradable polymer (Delafosse [0014] and Figs. 1-4).
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
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon et al. (US 9604750 B2 – art of record; hereinafter McMahon) and further in view of Veiseh (US 20190375193 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Veiseh) and Rockom et al. (US 4889252 A – art of record; hereinafter Rockom).
Regarding claim 6, McMahon teaches a packing system embodiment (i.e. in the form of a blank (100); as shown in Figs. 2-4, 6-14, 21 and 28) comprising:
a base layer (104); an insulating layer disposed on the base layer in one or more areas;
a sealing layer (102);
wherein the insulating layer comprises a sealed plurality of block-shaped pockets (see Examiner’s note above after the rejection of claim 1) taking a rectangular form (i.e. in the form of elongated flutes (106) – in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation),
wherein the base layer is folded to join the rectangular forms in each of the one or more areas to align with the inner surface area of all or part of the containers (McMahon Col. 12 ln. 53 – Col. 17 ln. 40).
However, McMahon fails to teach a reflective layer.
Veiseh is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McMahon, which is an insulating material. Veiseh teaches an insulating bubble wrap and a metallized polyethylene (PE hereinafter) film layer attached to the insulating bubble wrap (Veiseh Abstract, [0023-0075] and Figs. 1-4).
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 packing system (of McMahon) with a similar reflective metallized PE film layer (as taught by Veiseh) as an ADDITIONAL LAYER to enhance the overall thermal insulation properties or capabilities of the overall packing system (of McMahon).
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, McMahon further fails to teach a shipping container with the packing system placed in the [shipping] container.
Rockom is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McMahon, which is an insulating packing system. Rockom teaches a packing system (32) comprising:
a base layer (i.e. outer layer (40) that is adhered to an inner surface of the corrugated cardboard (12) as shown in Rockom Fig. 2); and
an insulating layer (46) disposed on the base layer in one or more areas; and
a sealing layer (i.e. the inner layer (40) opposite the adhered layer (40) as shown in Rockom Fig. 2) covering the base layer and insulating layer;
wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of block-shaped pockets (i.e. in the form of air bubbles (46)) in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation;
further wherein the base layer is folded to join each of the one or more areas to align with the inner surface area of all or part of a shipping container (10, 12, 14, 16 and 18; Rockom Abstract, Col. 2 ln. 13-68 and Figs. 1-2).
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 packing system (of McMahon) with a similar shipping container (as taught by Rockom) to make transporting contents within the packing system much easier and also enhancing the insulative properties of the overall packing system (since there is now an additional exterior layer covering the overall packing system).
Claims 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 6 above) and further in view of Delafosse et al. (WO 2021151170 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Delafosse).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, McMahon teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 6, except for wherein the base layer, the insulating layer (or the sealing layer) are derived from a renewable source, specifically recycled polyethylene.
Delafosse is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McMahon, which is an insulating packing system. Delafosse teaches a packing system embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a base layer (14);
an insulating layer (16) disposed on the base layer in or more areas; and
a sealing layer (12) covering the base layer and insulating layer;
wherein the insulating layer comprises a plurality of block-shaped pockets (i.e. in the form of hexagon-shaped recesses (18)) in each of the one or more areas and creates air traps for insulation; and
wherein the base layer, the insulating layer [and/or the sealing layer] are derived from a renewable resource, specifically recycled polyethylene (Delafosse [0018, 0036, 0045-0046, 0058, 0094, 0098, 00119-00121] and Figs. 1-4).
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 base layer, insulating layer and the sealing layer (of McMahon) out of recycled polyethylene (as taught by Delafosse) in order to make the overall packing system (of McMahon) more eco-friendly while reducing waste.
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 8, modified McMahon as above further teaches wherein the base (14) layer, the insulating layer (16) (or the sealing layer (12)) are derived from a waterproof biodegradable polymer (Delafosse [0014] and Figs. 1-4).
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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026 with respect to the pending claim(s) have been fully considered but they ARE NOT persuasive for the following reason(s):
Applicant’s argument: Applicant argues the claim amendments address all the previous 112(b) mentioned in the last office action (see Remarks pg. 5, specifically item III).
Examiner’s response: Upon further review, applicant fail to address all of the previously mentioned 112(b) issues. Those remaining 112(b) issues are outlined above; emphasis added.
Applicant’s argument: Applicant argues that the prior art structure, specifically the elongated flutes or corrugations (of McMahon) CANNOT be considered the same as the claimed sealed pockets because they ARE “open channel(s)” (see Remarks pg. 5-6, specifically items II and IV)
Examiner’s response: examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion, please refer to the examiner’s note above after the rejection of claim 1 – to see how the elongated flutes or corrugations (of McMahon) ARE IN FACT SEALED as claimed; emphasis added.
Applicant’s argument: Applicant further argues since McMahon fails to teach the claimed sealed pockets, the respective 103 rejections (McMahon in view of Delafosse, Rockom and Veiseh or any combination thereof) are improper (see Remarks pg. 7, specifically item IV)
Examiner’s response: examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion because it appears applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP §2145(IV)
Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2145(III)
Conclusion
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 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights