DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on October 2, 2025, the objections to the claims, drawings, specification, and the 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 06/11/2025), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 6-10 and 18 have been amended,
Claims 2-4, 11-12, and 14 were previously presented,
Claims 5 and 15 were and still withdrawn from further consideration,
Claims 13, 16 and 17 have been cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-12, 14 and 18 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 2, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12, 14 and 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, ln. 2, the phrase, “…and/or…” could read “…[[and/]]or…”
In claim 12, ln. 2, the phrase, “…and/or…” could read “…[[and/]]or…”
In claim 14, ln. 1, the preamble currently reads, “The packing system of Claim 13…’ which is improper because a claim CANNOT depend from a cancelled claim (i.e. claim 13). Therefore, examiner suggests the following change, “The packing system of Claim [[13]]10…”
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 14. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP §608.01(M)
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 1, 6 and 10 (respectively), the limitation in each claim, “…pocket(s)…” is very broad [emphasis added] and where there are more than one meaning or interpretation of the term, it is incumbent upon the patentee or applicant to make clear which meaning is being relied upon to claim the invention. See MPEP §2173.05(A)(I) or §2173.05(A)(III)
With that in mind, there are multiple meaning or interpretations of the noted limitation above. For instance,
The first interpretation could be a small bag carried by a person (i.e. purse)
The second interpretation could be receptacle or container
The third interpretation could be a small often isolated area or group (i.e. air pocket OR a cavity containing a deposit such as gold, water or gas)
For the purpose of examination, examiner will rely on the third interpretation (specifically “air pocket” or “a cavity containing gas”) in the art rejection below; emphasis added.
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 and 6-9 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. 6-8, the phrase in each instance, “...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.
In claim 6, ln. 4, 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 and 7-9, due to their dependencies form claims 1 and 6 (respectively), 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 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, 14 and 18 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 and 21) 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 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; essentially air pocket(s) or cavities filled with air or gas);
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.
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, 14 and 18, McMahon teaches a packing system embodiment (i.e. in the form of a blank (100); as shown in Figs. 2-4, 6-14 and 21) 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 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; essentially air pocket(s) or cavities filled with air or gas);
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; 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 and 21) 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 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; ; essentially air pocket(s) or cavities filled with air or gas),
wherein the base layer is folded to join the substantially 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 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. 6, specifically item IV).
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: the prior art structure, specifically the elongated flutes or corrugations (of McMahon) cannot be considered the same as the claimed pockets. Applicant to further support their assertion, applicant points out that McMahon has more structure than what is required (see Remarks pg. 7-8, specifically item V)
Examiner’s response: examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion, please refer to the “Claim interpretation section” above. In that section, examiner further clarifies as how the above claimed limitation (i.e. pockets) is being interpreted or construed and how the elongated flutes or corrugations (of McMahon) read on that interpretation; emphasis added.
Further, in response to Applicant's argument that McMahon includes additional structure not required by applicant's invention, it must be noted that McMahon discloses the invention as claimed. The fact that it discloses additional structure not claimed is irrelevant. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Applicant’s argument: applicant argues since McMahon fails to teach the claimed pockets, the respective 103 rejections (McMahon in view of Delafosse, Rockom and Veiseh or any combination thereof) are improper (see Remarks pg. 8-9, specifically item VI)
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
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.
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