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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/464,318, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed application fails to provide support for the recitation of the frame having a first density and the shell having a second density less than first density. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/214002 to Rosell in view of US 2014/0131367 to Bordary et al. (Bordary).
Regarding claim 1, Rosell discloses an insulative container (10) comprising a container support frame (15) including an upper support (16) extending around a central axis of the container, a lower support (17) spaced apart vertically from the upper support and extending around the central axis, sidewall support (18) interconnecting upper and lower support and extending only partway around central axis, a container shell (20) including a bottom panel (25) coupled with lower support (17) and a side panel spaced (20) apart from bottom panel (25) and having an upper end coupled with upper support, lower end coupled with lower support, first circumferential end coupled with first portion of sidewall support, second circumferential end coupled with second portion of sidewall support (Fig 5), the frame includes a first polymeric formulation and first density (€0006) but does not teach the shell including a foamed sheet with a second polymeric formulation having a second density less than the first density. However, Bordary discloses a container made of insulating material comprising a sidewall (100) and bottom (435) (Fig 8) made of foam sheet with a polymeric formulation (expanded polystyrene, €0059). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the material of the Rosell shell to be foamed sheet as recited in order to facilitate insulation since it has been held that selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The modification would have resulted in the shell having a density less than the frame due to the difference in materials. Rosell further discloses first polymeric formulation and second polymeric formulation each include polypropylene (pg 1, ll. 16, pg 2, ll. 2-3).
Regarding claim 13, Rosell further discloses a frame (Fig 11) comprising three stack lugs (A, Fig 11 below) coupled to upper support and extending downwardly from upper support (Fig 11) and configured to engage upper support of second container (Fig 16). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate stack lugs to Shibata as suggested by Rosell in order to facilitate stacking.
Regarding claim 14, Rosell further discloses the stack lugs (A) equally spaced circumferentially and cantilevered to upper support (Fig 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Rosell further discloses sidewall support including a support rib (A, Fig 51a below) with first and second circumferential flanges (B, C, Fig 51a below) on opposite sides of the rib.
PNG
media_image2.png
438
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Rosell further discloses first circumferential end of sidewall panel coupled to outer surface of first support flange and second circumferential end coupled to outer surface of second circumferential sidewall panel (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 17, Rosell further teaches support rib located circumferentially between the end of the sidewall panel and provides a portion of exterior surface of the container (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 18, Rosell further teaches support rib with an outer end spaced from the outer surfaces of the support flange (Fig 51a) and sidewall panel (20) having a thickness about equal the distance (Fig 15).
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0011634 to Shibata in view of Bordary.
Regarding claim 1, Shibata discloses an insulative container (Fig 4) comprising a container support frame (1, Fig 1) including an upper support (2) extending around a central axis of the container, a lower support (3) spaced apart vertically from the upper support and extending around the central axis, sidewall support (4) interconnecting upper and lower support and extending only partway around central axis, a container shell (6) including a bottom panel (6a) coupled with lower support (3) and a side panel spaced (6) apart from bottom panel (6a) and having an upper end coupled with upper support, lower end coupled with lower support, first circumferential end coupled with first portion of sidewall support, second circumferential end coupled with second portion of sidewall support (Fig 4), the frame includes a first polymeric formulation and first density (€0025) but does not teach the shell including a foamed sheet with a second polymeric formulation having a second density less than the first density. However, Bordary discloses a container made of insulating material comprising a sidewall (100) and bottom (435) (Fig 8) made of foam sheet with a polymeric formulation (expanded polystyrene, €0059). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the material of the Shibata shell to be foamed sheet as recited in order to facilitate insulation since it has been held that selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The modification would have resulted in the shell having a density less than the frame due to the materials. Shibata further teaches first and second polymeric formulation include polypropylene (€0025-0026).
Regarding claim 3, Shibata further teaches upper support includes a brim (A, Fig 1 below) extending perpendicular to central axis and upper skirt (B, Fig 1 below) coupled to inner end of brim and extending downward away from brim to coupled with upper end of container shell (6).
PNG
media_image3.png
754
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Shibata further teaches upper skirt has inner surface facing toward central axis and outer surface facing away from central axis, upper end of the shell (6) is attached to outer surfaces of the upper skirt (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 5, Shibata further discloses lower support (3) includes a floor (C, Fig 2 below), lower skirt (3a) extending upwardly from the floor toward upper support and coupled to lower end of the side panel, a mount flange (D, Fig 2 below) extending inward toward central axis and coupled to bottom panel (Fig 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
751
527
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Shibata further teaches lower skirt (3a) has inner surface facing toward central axis and outer surface facing away from central axis, lower end of side panel (6c) attached to outer surface of lower skirt (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 7, Shibata further discloses mount flange (D, Fig 1 above) having an upper surface facing upper support, lower surface facing away from upper support, bottom panel (6a) is attached to lower surface of the mount flange (D, Fig 5).
Regarding claim 9, Shibata further discloses floor (C, Fig 2 above) spaced a first distance from upper end of lower skirt (3a) and mount flange (D, Fig 2 above) spaced a second distance from upper end of lower skirt, the second distance less than first distance.
Regarding claim 10, Shibata further teaches bottom panel (6a) having a thickness less than or equal to a third distance defined between mount flange and floor (Fig 5).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Bordary and US 2014/0353202 to Park.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Shibata teaches the container of claim 5 but does not teach floor having an outer perimeter spaced apart from lower skirt by first distance and side panel having thickness about equal to first distance. However, Park discloses a container (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a frame (Fig 2) with a floor (16) spaced apart from lower skirt (17) by a first distance and side panel (18) having a thickness about equal to first distance (Fig 7b). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to extend the floor of Shibata past the skirt such that the outer perimeter was spaced apart from the lower skirt in order to facilitate support for the container.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Bordary and Rosell.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Shibata teaches the container of claim 5 but does not teach bottom panel support. However, Rosell discloses a bottom panel support coupled to mount flange on lower support (Fig 11). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the mount flange of the modified Shibata with a functionally equivalent flange having a bottom panel support as taught by Rosell in order to facilitate connection with the shell.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Shibata teaches the bottom panel cantilevered on mount flange with lower surface facing away from upper support flush with lower surface of mount flange (Fig 11).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosell in view of Bordary and US Patent No. 9,688,456 to Euler et al. (Euler).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Rosell teaches the first and second polymeric formulations as recited but does not teach them non-aromatic. However, Euler discloses a container (Fig 1) made of non-aromatic polymeric materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the polymeric materials of the modified Rosell also be non-aromatic as suggested by Euler in order improve performance of the container.
Regarding claim 20, Rosell discloses an insulative container (10) comprising a container support frame (15) including an upper support (16) extending around a central axis of the container, a lower support (17) spaced apart vertically from the upper support and extending around the central axis, sidewall support (18) interconnecting upper and lower support and extending only partway around central axis, a container shell (20) including a bottom panel (25) coupled with lower support (17) and a side panel spaced (20) apart from bottom panel (25) and having an upper end coupled with upper support, lower end coupled with lower support, first circumferential end coupled with first portion of sidewall support, second circumferential end coupled with second portion of sidewall support (Fig 5), the frame includes a first polymeric formulation and first density (€0006) but does not teach the shell including a foamed sheet with a second polymeric formulation having a second density less than the first density. However, Bordary discloses a container made of insulating material comprising a sidewall (100) and bottom (435) (Fig 8) made of foam sheet with a polymeric formulation (expanded polystyrene, €0059). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the material of the Rosell shell to be foamed sheet as recited in order to facilitate insulation since it has been held that selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The modification would have resulted in the shell having a density less than the frame due to the difference in materials. The modified Rosell teaches the first and second polymeric formulations as recited but does not teach them non-aromatic. However, Euler discloses a container (Fig 1) made of non-aromatic polymeric materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the polymeric materials of the modified Rosell also be non-aromatic as suggested by Euler in order improve performance of the container. The modification would have resulted in the container shell (20) consisting of the foamed sheet (120, Bordary) and outer skin (110, Bordary) bonded to an outer surface of the foamed sheet.
Regarding claim 21, Rosell further discloses first polymeric formulation and second polymeric formulation each include polypropylene (pg 1, ll. 16, pg 2, ll. 2-3).
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 3/9/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3-21 based upon the rejection under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the last Office action because: the showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims and there is no nexus between the rebuttal evidence and the claimed invention. The declaration states applicant’s disagreement with examiner’s objection to the priority claim and does not address any of the rejections applied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues the objection to the priority claim. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the shell being foamed does not necessarily equate to the frame having a higher density than the shell. Applicant further argues that Bordary teaches foam sheets made of expanded polystyrene and not foamed polypropylene. However, the rejection is a one with a combination of references, and in the instant case, both Rosell and Shibata teach polypropylene material and Bordary teaches making foam sheets out of polymeric material. Taken as a whole, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to make the polypropylene material already disclosed by Rosell/Shibata out of foam as suggested by Bordary in order to facilitate insulation. Applicant further argues that Bordary does not include only two layers because there is insulating space (300) between the layers (110, 120). This is not persuasive because the insulating space is air and therefore would not be considered a layer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ROBERT POON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights