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 .
The amendments filed 9/12/2025 have been entered.
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, “wherein said fixed walls are inserted into adjacent walls” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). For example, in fig. 3, walls 7D and 7G are only “inserted” into one wall 7P, and not into other adjacent walls 7S, 7R. Walls 7P and 7R are not shown inserted into any adjacent wall, therefore “some” of the walls are shown inserted into at least one other of the walls, but the drawings do not show “[all] of said walls are inserted into adjacent walls” as claimed. The drawings also fail to show the detail “inserting the walls into each other”, as no two adjacent walls are shown inserted into “each other”. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: awkward grammar “some at least of the rails”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: awkward grammar “wherein the case outer dimensions: overall height…” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "horizontal rails attached to inner sides of some walls from said fixed walls". It is unclear what is meant by “from said fixed walls”, whether the limitation refers to relative positioning of the attachment of the rails, or is intended to reference the “set of fixed insulating walls”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “horizontal rails attached to inner sides of some of the walls of the set of fixed insulating walls”.
The term “plate-shaped” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “plate-shaped” 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "each side of the case". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "useful height”, “useful depth”, and “useful width". It is unclear what the scope of the term “useful” is in the claim, as it not clear if the term may or may not include the rails/blocks in the dimensions, or whether or a not a buffer area is required around a payload (i.e. the dimensions are claimed as tied to a use, and not necessarily the measured dimensions of the case itself).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the door is articulated to a first insulated wall opposed to a second insulated wall”. It is unclear whether these are walls of the set of fixed insulating walls of claim 1, or new and additional walls separate to that of the insulating walls of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the door is articulated to a first insulating wall of the set of fixed insulating walls opposed to second insulating wall of the set of fixed insulating walls”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 10,661,969 (Pranadi et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 21 and 22, Pranadi et al. discloses: A parallelipipedic transport case (511/611) comprising: a set of fixed insulating walls (619, 621, 623) forming a front opening (see Fig. 21), an insulating door (at 17) hinged with said fixed walls to close said opening (see Fig. 21) and horizontal rails (641 and 643) attached to inner sides of some walls (See Fig. 22) from said fixed walls, said rails being arranged in order to removably slide eutectic blocks (627-1, 629-1) therein and to hold the blocks along respective walls, said blocks being plate-shaped (See Fig. 22), wherein said fixed walls are inserted into adjacent walls and attached together to ensure that a thermal insulation provided by the case is uniform (see figs. 20a-20i, sidewalls are shown inserted into the adjacent floor and upper wall) (inasmuch as can be interpreted by Applicant’s original disclosure, wherein some walls are inserted into others, by not all walls are inserted into adjacent walls, see drawing objection above).
[AltContent: textbox (Front Opening)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
500
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
634
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pranadi et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the fixed walls have a substantially rectangular shape and comprise two vertical side walls (621, 623), a floor (615) and an upper wall (625), between which the opening is formed, and, opposite said opening, a rear vertical wall (619), some at least of the rails being attached to at least one of said side walls (See Fig. 22).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pranadi et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the rails are arranged to form three superimposed rows of blocks (see Fig. 24, blocks 715-2, 715-3, and 715-4 are arranged in rows).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pranadi et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein at least some of the rails are attached to the upper wall (See Fig. 9b).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pranadi et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein each rail has a U-shape having one upright attached to a respective wall, the other upright being designed to hold at least one block, two rails being arranged opposite each other to slide a row of at least one block therein (see figs. 8a-8b).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above and Figs. 7a-7b, Pranadi et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein at least one of the walls and the doors comprises insulating panels including an insulating layer (111) sandwiched between two skins (123, 125).
In re claim 7 with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pranadi et al. disclose the claimed invention including an angle (at pads 61/63 in Figs. 4c and 4d) to protect an edge formed by two adjacent panels (the pads protect the panel joint).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pranadi et al. discloses the claimed invention including a base (615, see Fig. 3b) arranged so that a lifting fork can be inserted on each side (e.g. left of center row of legs 33 and right of center row of legs 33) of the case (column 11, lines 10-23).
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pranadi et al.
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pranadi et al. discloses the claimed invention including substantially the following inner dimensions: useful height greater than or equal to 1300 mm (51.1 inches); useful depth greater than or equal to 1200 mm (47.2 inches); useful width greater than or equal to 800 mm (31.5 inches) (Prandini et al. discloses containment of a payload of 48” length by 40-42” width by 45-46” height, column 3, lines 55-58), but not the exact claimed dimensions.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to slightly modified the inner dimensions of the case of Prandini et al., since it has been held that the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pranadi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2015/0143818 (Eckhoff et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pranadi et al. discloses the claimed invention except a housing for a parameter recorder, formed in one of the walls, and a hole through said wall for a wire connecting the recorder to at least a temperature probe attached inside the case, the wire being sealed in the hole so that the hole does not create a thermal bridge.
However, with reference to Fig. 12, Eckhoff et al. discloses a temperature-controlled container system which utilizes a housing for a parameter recorder formed in one of the walls and a hole through said wall for a wire (1230) connecting the recorder to at least a temperature probe (1200) attached inside the case, the wire being sealed in the hole, so that the hole does not create a thermal bridge (i.e. no gap shown around wire, therefore the hole is considered sealed by the wire, and the only thermal bridge would be the wire and not the hole).
PNG
media_image3.png
716
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified a wall of Pranadi et al. to have included a parameter recorder, wire, sensor, and passed the wire through the wall as taught by Eckhoff et al. for the purposes of monitoring the internal environment of the container to determine if the contents are stored properly or require intervention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pranadi et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2018/0149191 (Spitzer hereinafter).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pranadi et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the insulating layer is made of a polyurethane foam, but wherein the foam having a shore A hardness of between 30 and 40.
However, Spitzer discloses a Shore A hardness of foam of 5 to approximately 100 rendering a plastic part well suited for thermal insulation (paragraph 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a desirable Shore A hardness value/range for thermal insulation foam, since 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. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0008, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, 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 arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733