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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 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.
The term “high aspect ratio” in claims 1 and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. For purposes of examination “said first slot being an high aspect ratio slot sized to admit” in claim 1 will be considered - - said first slot having an aspect ratio sized to admit - - and “said second slot being a second high aspect ratio slot sized to admit” in claim 6 will be considered - - said second slot having an aspect ratio sized to admit - - .
Claim 6 recites “said second wafer of said second thermal storage member”. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the second thermal storage member are because claim 6 recites “said second thermal storage member being a second wafer”. To clarify, it is unclear if the second thermal storage member has multiple wafers or if the second wafer is the second thermal storage member. For purposes of examination “said second wafer of said second thermal storage member” will be considered - - said second wafer - - .
Claims 2-18 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nahon (FR2851035).
Per claim 1, Nahon teaches a soft-sided insulated container assembly (1), the soft-sided insulated container assembly having a height, a width and a depth (see figure 1), the soft-sided insulated container comprising:
a soft-sided insulated wall structure that includes an insulated front wall (right most side of 1 as shown in figure 1), an insulated rear wall (left most side as shown in figure 1), an insulated bottom wall (lower most side as show in figure 1), an insulated left hand side wall (see figure 1), an insulated right hand side wall (see figure 1) and a top wall (11) defining a lid thereof; said bottom wall being rectangular and extending width-wise and depth-wise (see figure 1);
said bottom wall having a periphery (lower edge of bottom wall);
said insulated front wall, rear wall, left hand side wall and right hand side wall being arranged about said periphery of said bottom wall and standing upwardly therefrom such that said bottom wall, front wall, left hand side wall, rear wall and right hand side wall co-operate to define five sides of a box;
said lid defining a sixth wall of said box (see figure 1);
said box having a chamber (9) defined therewithin;
said insulated front wall, rear wall, left hand side wall and right had side wall have respective upper margins (upper region of walls) distant from said bottom wall, those margins co-operating to define an opening (10) of said chamber (9);
said lid (11) having a front margin, a rear margin, a left hand side margin and a right hand side margin (see figure 1);
said rear margin of said lid being hingedly mounted to said upper margin of said rear wall (see figure 1);
said lid (11) defining a closure member (12) of said box;
said lid (11) being movable between a first, open, position and a second, closed, position to govern access to said chamber (see figure 1);
said front margin, left hand side margin and right hand side margin of said lid being releasably co-operable with said respective upper margins of said front wall, left hand side wall and right hand side wall (see figure 1);
said insulated front wall having an outer skin (3), an inner skin (14), and a layer of insulation (6) captured between said outer skin (3) and said inner skin (14) (to clarify, a “wall” is considered all elements that constitute the barrier between an inner chamber/room and the outside environment, thus 14 is considered part of the front “wall”);
said insulated front wall, said inner skin, said outer skin and said layer of insulation all being substantially planar and extending the directions of said height and said breadth of said container assembly (see figure 1 and 2)
said insulated front wall having a first accommodation (15) defined within said front wall;
said first accommodation being defined between said insulation (6) and said inner skin (14) of said insulated front wall;
said first accommodation (15) being segregated from said chamber (10) by said inner skin (14) of said front wall whereby said first accommodation is part of said front wall and is separated from said chamber (see figure 1 and 2);
said insulated front wall having a first slot (17) defined in said outer skin (3) thereof, said first slot providing sideways sliding access to said first accommodation (see figure 1);
said first slot (17) being accessible from outside said soft-sided insulated container assembly when said lid is in said second, closed, position and said chamber is closed to access from outside (pg. 3, seventh paragraph);
said container assembly has a first thermal storage member (16);
said first thermal storage member (16) being a wafer that has a width, a breadth, and a through-thickness, said through thickness being the smallest thereof (see figure 1);
said first slot having an aspect ratio slot sized to admit a small face of said wafer defined by said through thickness and one of (a) said width; and (b) said breadth (see figure 1);
said first thermal storage member (16) having a largest face defined by said width and said breadth of said wafer (see figure 2);
upon installation said largest face of said wafer (16) lies next to said inner skin (14) of said insulated front wall and, in use, exchanges heat through said inner skin to said chamber (see figure 1);
said wafer (16) being sideways slidable through said first slot into said first accommodation;
whereby said first accommodation is accessible through said first slot in said front wall from outside said insulated front wall when said lid of said soft-sided insulated container is in said second, closed, position and said chamber is inaccessible from outside independent of access to said chamber (see figure 1).
Per claim 2, Nahon meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nahon teaches wherein said soft-sided insulated container assembly has a tracked fastener (13) mounted about the front, left hand side and right had side margins of said lid (11), and said tracked fastener is operable releasably to secure said lid in said second, closed, position thereof relative to said chamber (see figure 1).
Per claim 3, Nahon meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nahon teaches wherein said slot (17) has a tracked fastener (18) that is operable to govern access to said accommodation defined within said front wall (see figure 1).
Per claim 6, Nahon meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nahon teaches wherein said soft-sided insulated container assembly has a second said accommodation in said lid (11) (space where 35 is shown in figure 3 is considered an “accommodation defined in said lid” as the lid accommodates 35), there being a second slot defined in an outside skin of said lid (via slide 33), said second slot having an aspect ratio (inherent), said second accommodation being accessible from outside said lid when said lid is closed (via slide 33).
Further, it is understood claim 6 includes the recitation “said second accommodation is sized to receive a second thermal storage member; said thermal storage member being a wafer,” “sized to admit a small face of said second wafer defined by said through thickness and one of (a) said width; and (b) said breadth,” and “said second wafer of said second thermal storage member being sideways slidable through said second slot into said second accommodation”, are considered to be statements of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here (MPEP 2114, section II). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
To clarify, the second accommodation is fully capable of accommodating a second thermal storage member that is a wafer, admit a small face of the second wafer defined by the through thickness and said width, and being sideways slidable through the second slot into the second accommodation chamber when the zipper is open on the side of the lid.
Per claim 12, Nahon meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nahon, as modified, teaches wherein the wafer is substantially flat (see figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahon (FR2851035) in view of Ramundi (US 2010/0089929).
Per claim 4, Nahon meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further Nahon fails to explicitly teach wherein said container assembly has a shoulder strap, said shoulder strap being mounted to said left hand side wall and said right hand side wall.
However, Ramundi teaches soft cooler wherein a container assembly (20) has a shoulder strap (48), said shoulder strap (48) being mounted to a left hand side wall and a right hand side wall (see figure 1C) for spreading a load during when being carried (para. 0044). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a container assembly having a shoulder strap, said shoulder strap being mounted to a left hand side wall and a right hand side wall, as taught by Ramundi in the invention of Nahon, in order to advantageously spread the load when being carried (para. 0044), thereby easing the load when being carried.
Per claim 11, Nahon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 below). Further, Nahon, as modified, teaches wherein the first and second thermal storage element wafers are substantially flat (see figure 2) but fails to explicitly teach said soft-sided insulated container assembly has a shoulder strap mounted to said left hand side wall and said right hand side wall.
However, Ramundi teaches soft cooler wherein a container assembly (20) has a shoulder strap (48), said shoulder strap (48) being mounted to a left hand side wall and a right hand side wall (see figure 1C) for spreading a load during when being carried (para. 0044). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a container assembly having a shoulder strap, said shoulder strap being mounted to a left hand side wall and a right hand side wall, as taught by Ramundi in the invention of , as modified, in order to advantageously spread the load when being carried (para. 0044), thereby easing the load when being carried.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahon (FR2851035) in view of Mogil (US 2002/0126920).
Per claim 5, Nahon meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nahon fails to explicitly teach wherein said soft-sided insulated container assembly is foldable to a collapsed position.
However, Mogil teaches a soft sided insulated container assembly being foldable to a collapsed position (see figure 9) for storing the container when not in use (para. 0060). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a soft sided insulated container assembly being foldable to a collapsed position, as taught by Mogil in the invention of Nahon, in order to advantageously allow for easier storing of the container (para. 0060).
Claim(s) 7-10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahon (FR2851035).
Per claim 7, Nahon meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nahon teaches
wherein: said rear wall has an outer skin, an inner skin and a layer of insulation (the rear wall is composed of the same structure as the front wall, thus the rear wall includes an outer skin, an inner skin, and a layer of insulation).
Nahon fails to explicitly teach
said rear wall has a second accommodation defined therein between said inner skin of said rear wall and said layer of insulation of said rear wall; said second accommodation being segregated from said chamber by said inner skin of said rear wall, and being separate from said chamber; said outer skin of said rear wall having a second slot defined therein, said second slot providing sideways sliding access to said second accommodation; said soft-sided insulated container assembly having a second thermal storage element, said second thermal storage element being a wafer; said second thermal storage element wafer being sideways slidable through said second slot into said second accommodation so that a largest face of said second thermal storage element wafer lies against said inner skin of said rear wall; said second accommodation being accessible from outside said soft-sided insulated container assembly when said lid is in said second, closed, position and said chamber is closed to access from outside independent of access to said chamber.
However, this is considered a rearrangement and/or duplication of the system of Nahon which is an obvious mechanical expedient. Nahon discloses a wall having an accommodation defined therein between an inner skin of said wall and a layer of insulation of said wall; said accommodation being segregated from a chamber by said inner skin of said wall, and being separate from said chamber; said outer skin of said wall having a slot defined therein, said slot providing sideways sliding access to said accommodation; said soft-sided insulated container assembly having a thermal storage element, said thermal storage element being a wafer; said thermal storage element wafer being sideways slidable through said slot into said accommodation so that a largest face of said thermal storage element wafer lies against said inner skin of said wall; said accommodation being accessible from outside said soft-sided insulated container assembly when said lid is in said second, closed, position and said chamber is closed to access from outside independent of access to said chamber (see rejection of claim 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide said rear wall having a second accommodation defined therein between said inner skin of said rear wall and said layer of insulation of said rear wall; said second accommodation being segregated from said chamber by said inner skin of said rear wall, and being separate from said chamber; said outer skin of said rear wall having a second slot defined therein, said second slot providing sideways sliding access to said second accommodation; said soft-sided insulated container assembly having a second thermal storage element, said second thermal storage element being a wafer; said second thermal storage element wafer being sideways slidable through said second slot into said second accommodation so that a largest face of said second thermal storage element wafer lies against said inner skin of said rear wall; said second accommodation being accessible from outside said soft-sided insulated container assembly when said lid is in said second, closed, position and said chamber is closed to access from outside independent of access to said chamber in order to advantageously increase the cooling capacity of the system and as well as to optimize cooling for a specific side a of payload.
Per claim 8, Nahon meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nahon teaches said chamber (9) but fails to explicitly teach wherein said chamber has a volume sufficient to hold 12 drink cans.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that having a cooler volume be sufficient to hold 12 drink cans is old and well known because 12 drink cans is a common pack size for drink cans (i.e. cans commonly come in packs of 12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a volume sufficient to hold 12 drink cans in order to advantageously be accommodating for a common quantity of drink cans.
In the Office Action dated 5/20/2025, the Examiner took Official Notice that coolers having a volume sufficient to hold 12 drink cans is old and well known in the cooler art. Applicant has failed to traverse the(se) statement(s). As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art.
Per claim 9, Nahon meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nahon teaches wherein said container assembly (1) height is from bottom wall to said lid (see figure 1), said breadth is from left hand side wall to said right hand side wall (see figure 1), and said depth is measured from said front wall to said rear wall but fails to explicitly teach wherein said height is greater than said depth and said breadth is greater than said depth.
However this is considered a change in shape which is an obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide said height being greater than said depth and said breadth being greater than said depth in order to advantageously optimize for a payload having a height and a breadth greater than a depth.
Claim 10 recites similar limitations as claims 2, 7-9 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Per claim 14, Nahon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Nahon, as modified, teaches said first accommodation, second accommodation, first wafer, second wafter, and the first and second wafer usable in the first and second accommodations but fails to explicitly teach wherein said first accommodation and said second accommodation are the same size and said first wafer and said second wafer are interchangeably usable in said first and second accommodations.
However this is considered a change of size/shape which is an obvious mechanical expedient (MPEP 2144.04, section IV). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have said first accommodation and said second accommodation be the same size and said first wafer and said second wafer be interchangeably usable in said first and second accommodations in order to advantageously reduce the tooling costs of fabricating wafers.
Per claim 15, Nahon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 14. Further, Nahon, as modified, teaches wherein the first and second thermal storage members (16) are substantially flat panels (see figure 2).
Per claim 16, Nahon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Nahon, as modified, teaches wherein said first (17) and second slots (via 31) each have a respective tracked fastener movable between open and closed positions (pg. 3, second to last paragraph; pg. 4, last two paragraphs).
Per claim 18, Nahon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nahon, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein said inner skin of said front wall is one of (a) transparent; and (b) translucent.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to have material be translucent and/or transparent for allowing a user to see through the material for any needed maintenance, repairs, or replacements of parts and/or materials. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the inner skin of said front wall be transparent and/or translucent in order to advantageously allow a user to determine if any maintenance, repair, or replacement of parts and/or materials is needed.
In the Office Action dated 11/4/2024, the Examiner took Official Notice that having material be translucent and/or transparent is old and well known in the art. Applicant has failed to traverse the(se) statement(s). As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahon (FR2851035) in view of Mogil (US 6,238,091).
Per claim 13, Nahon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nahon, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein said chamber is at least partially one of (a) collapsible; and (b) expandable.
However, Mogil teaches a soft sided insulated container assembly wherein a chamber is collapsible (see figure 9) for storing the container when not in use (para. 0060). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a soft sided insulated container assembly wherein said chamber is collapsible; and (b) expandable, as taught by Mogil in the invention of Nahon, as modified, in order to advantageously allow for easier storing of the container (para. 0060).
Per claim 17, Nahon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nahon, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein said container is foldable.
However, Mogil teaches a soft sided insulated container assembly wherein said container is foldable (see figure 9) for storing the container when not in use (para. 0060). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a container that is foldable, as taught by Mogil in the invention of Nahon, as modified, in order to advantageously allow for easier storing of the container (para. 0060).
Response to Arguments
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 14, fourth paragraph, that the interpretation of 14 as the internal skin of the insulation wall is not correct and falls outside of BRI; the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The insulation wall as defined by the claim includes an outer skin, an inner skin, and a layer of insulation (as annotated below from figure 3b of the instant application). Nahon discloses the same structure of an insulated container wall. Further, the applicants instant application claims the wall as a multi-layered, multi-component structure. For example, the outer skin and insulation of the “wall” are separated from the inner skin of the “wall” by a cooling pack. In view of that, it is considered reasonable to interpret the multi-layer, multi-component structure of Nahon as “an insulated front wall” having the outer skin and insulation separated from the inner skin by a cooling pack (see annotated figure below of figure 2 of Nahon compared with Figure 3B of the instant application showing the similar layered structure). Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
589
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 19, that the lid does not have a sideways sliding slot as required in claim 6; the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Slide 33 (zipper) slides sideways, thus when the slide is opened along an edge of the container a sideways slot is formed by the two sides of the slide (zipper). Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. 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.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights