DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
All previous 35 USC 112b rejections have been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 in response to Office Action 7/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following:
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Applicant argues improper combination of what appears to be field of endeavor, but examiner is not sure exactly since the arguments are just statements of how the Applicant views the prior art. Examiner disagrees, pointing out that while only one of two criteria only must be met: of the field of endeavor and problem solved. In this case the field of endeavor shared is containers with closures, and the secondary prior arts solve the same problems, respectively, by modifying existing primary prior art elements, thereby showing commonality as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. “according to claim 15” does not exist since claim 15 was canceled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20240076117 by Wallin et al. (hereinafter “Wallin”) in view of US Pub 20200039690 by Dziaba et al. (hereinafter “Dziaba”).
Regarding claim 1, Wallin teaches a shipper configured to retain a dewar for shipment (Abstract, Fig 5, dewar shipper 105), the shipper comprising:
a base (Fig 6, [0065], a base is the outer liner of liner compartment 115) comprising an inner compartment wall (an inner compartment wall is a wall of the base) defining an inner compartment to receive the dewar (Fig 6, 115 defines an inner compartment that receives the dewar); and
a lid selectably closable over the inner compartment to secure the dewar therein (Fig 5, 119), wherein
the lid comprises
a front registration boss (Fig 5, a ridge 133 (front from viewer perspective; right side in Fig 7)) to be received by an aspect of another shipper to permit stacking of shippers (Fig 7, front 133 is capable of being received in a bottom recess aspect labeled 143),
the front registration boss comprising:
a front primary ramp portion of increasing height away from the base in at least one dimension along a first direction (see examiner annotated Wallin Figure 7, hereinafter “EAFW7”; EAFW7, front primary ramp portion, increasing in height along a first direction); a front bend portion curving along a path of changing direction (EAFW7, front bend portion, curves along a changed direction path from the first direction); and a front secondary ramp portion of increasing height away from the base in at least the at least one dimension along a second direction (EAFW7, front secondary ramp portion, increasing in height along a second direction), wherein the front primary ramp portion extends from a front primary ramp portion terminus to the front bend portion (see examiner annotated Walling Figure 5, hereinafter “EAFW5”; EAFW5 & EAFW7, front primary ramp portion is shown extending from front primary terminus to front bend portion), wherein the front secondary ramp portion extends from a front secondary ramp portion terminus to the front bend portion (EAFW7, the front secondary ramp portion, EAFW5, extends from front secondary terminus to front bend portion),
PNG
media_image1.png
932
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
470
1179
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But Wallin does not explicitly teach a particular relative height of the front bend portion.
Dziaba, however, teaches similar stacking bosses comprising:
a height away from the base of a front bend portion is a greatest height of any portion of the front registration boss away from the base (Fig 1, [0027], an apex (a greatest height of the element) is raised central portion 52 of a front registration boss, because it tapers downwardly to end portions 54), and wherein the front registration boss causes the shipper to wobble in response to the shipper being rested on the lid rather than on the base (the apex structure is necessarily capable of causing wobble if the lid is upside-down).
The purpose of a raised bend portion is to improve securement in stacking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bosses of Wallin with a greatest height in a bend portion as taught by Dziaba in order to advantageously increase securement in stacking due to increased surface area of the increased height that also lowers the risk of tipping, and beneficially increases holding versus jostling.
(wherein Dziaba further teaches relevant elements in light of the dependent claims:
Fig 1, [0027], an apex (a greatest height of the element) is raised central portion 52 of a rear registration boss, because it tapers downwardly to end portions 54)
Regarding claim 2, Wallin/Dziaba further teaches the lid comprises a rear registration boss (Fig 5, a ridge 133 (rear from viewer perspective; left side in Fig 7)) spaced apart from the front registration boss (is spaced apart) and to be received by the aspect of the another shipper to permit stacking of shippers (Fig 7, rear 133 is capable of being received in the bottom recess aspect labeled 143),
the rear registration boss comprising:
a rear primary ramp portion of increasing height away from the base in the at least one dimension along the first direction (EAFW7, rear primary ramp portion, increasing in height along the first direction); a rear bend portion curving along a path of changing direction (EAFW7, rear bend portion, curves along a changed direction path from the first direction); and a rear secondary ramp portion of increasing height away from the base in at least the at least one dimension along the second direction (EAFW7, rear secondary ramp portion, increasing in height along the second direction), wherein the rear primary ramp portion extends from a rear primary ramp portion terminus to the rear bend portion (EAFW5 & EAFW7, rear primary ramp portion is shown extending from rear primary terminus to rear bend portion), wherein the rear secondary ramp portion extends from a rear secondary ramp portion terminus to the rear bend portion (EAFW7, the rear secondary ramp portion, EAFW5, extends from rear secondary terminus to rear bend portion), wherein the height away from the base of the rear bend portion is the greatest height of any portion of the rear registration boss away from the base, and wherein the rear registration boss causes the shipper to wobble in response to the shipper being rested on the lid rather than on the base (Fig 1, [0027], an apex (a greatest height of the element) is raised central portion 52 of the rear registration boss, because it tapers downwardly to end portions 54). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 3, Wallin further teaches the rear primary ramp portion and the front primary ramp portion are parallel (EAFW5 & EAFW7, the portions, having thickness, are shown parallel to each other along their elongate length).
Regarding claim 4, Wallin further teaches the rear secondary ramp portion and the front secondary ramp portion are parallel (EAFW5 & EAFW7, the portions, having thickness, are shown parallel to each other along their elongate length).
Regarding claim 5, Wallin further teaches the rear bend portion and the front bend portion are a same size (Fig 5, since 133 is the same label for each the front and rear, the portions thereof are necessarily a same size too, EAFW5 & EAFW7 (e.g. bend to bend; because a bend of 133 is the bend of 133)).
Regarding claim 6, Wallin further teaches the rear secondary ramp portion is smaller than the rear primary ramp portion (EAFW5 shows a rear secondary ramp portion length (i.e. terminus to rear bend, see claim 2) is smaller than a rear primary ramp portion length (i.e. terminus to rear bend, see claim 2)).
Regarding claim 7, Wallin further teaches the rear primary ramp portion and the front primary ramp portion are of a first same size (EAFW5 & EAFW7, the portions are shown to be a first same length; wherein since 133 is the same label for each the front and rear, the portions thereof are necessarily a same size too (e.g. primary ramp to primary ramp; because a primary ramp of 133 is the primary ramp of 133)) and wherein the rear secondary ramp portion and the front secondary ramp portion are of a second same size, the second same size being smaller than the first same size (repeat the above for secondary ramp).
Regarding claim 8, Wallin further teaches the base further comprises a document compartment wall defining a document compartment within the inner compartment, the document compartment defining a subsection of the inner compartment (Fig 6, [0072], a document compartment is slot 139 that holds a “document”, and is within the inner compartment 115).
Regarding claim 9, Wallin further teaches a foam stabilization block system comprising a plurality of foam blocks inserted into the inner compartment ([0065] lining 117 is a “foam” block absorbing shock, and there is a [0073] “removable bottom foam piece”; EAFW7 shows foam blocks), each foam block of the plurality of foam blocks having an outer profile edge corresponding in shape to at least a portion of the inner compartment wall and having an inner profile edge corresponding in shape to at least a portion of the dewar (EAFW7, each block is shown corresponding in shape to at least a portion of the liner wall of compartment 115, and corresponding in shape to at least a portion of the dewar 103).
Claims 10-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20240076117 by Wallin et al. (hereinafter “Wallin”) in view of US Pat 3854582 issued to Martinelli by (hereinafter “Martinelli”).
Regarding claim 10, Wallin teaches a shipper configured to retain a dewar for shipment (Abstract, Fig 5, dewar shipper 105), the shipper comprising:
a base (Fig 6, [0065], a base is the liner of liner compartment 115) comprising an inner compartment wall (an inner compartment wall is a wall of the base) defining an inner compartment to receive the dewar (Fig 6, 115 defines an inner compartment that receives the dewar); and
a lid selectably closable over the inner compartment to secure the dewar therein (Fig 5, 119), wherein
the base comprises a strengthening face opposite the lid (EAFW7, strengthening face, being in the base is necessarily opposite the lid),
But Wallin does not explicitly teach a particular shape of the strengthening face including an annular channel.
Martinelli, however, teaches a stackable container bottom to lid top comprising:
a strengthening face (see examiner annotated Martinelli Figures 5-6, hereinafter “EAFM56”; EAFM56, strengthening face) having a base floor parallel to the lid when the lid is closed (EAFM56, base floor) and comprising an annular channel defining an annular bead of the base floor (EAFM56, annular channel and bead),
the annular channel comprising:
an inward bend face (EAFM56, inward bend face) comprising a first curved bend of the strengthening face inwardly away from the base floor and into the inner compartment (EAFM56, first curve).
PNG
media_image3.png
541
923
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The purpose of an annular channel in the base is to increase stiffness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base of Wallin with an expanded strengthening face with annular channel incorporating boss receiving aspects as taught by Martinelli in order to advantageously prevent warping or breaking by stiffening the shipper base versus harder falls and heavier loads with ribs/channels.
Regarding claim 11, Wallin/Martinelli further teaches the annular channel further comprises a basin face (EAFM56, basin face) comprising an inwardmost floor of the annular channel, a tangent of the basin face parallel to at least a portion of the base floor (EAFM56, basin face, shown as an inwardmost floor of the annular channel, and shown having an imaginary tangent line that is parallel to a portion of the base floor). See details in the parent claim 10 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 12, Wallin/Martinelli further teaches the annular channel further comprises an outward bend face comprising a second curved bend of the strengthening face outwardly from the basin face and away from the inner compartment and toward the base floor (EAFM56, second curve, defines an outward bend face, which faces outwardly from the basin face and the inner compartment, and toward the base floor). See details in the parent claim 10 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 13, Wallin/Martinelli further teaches the strengthening face further comprises a central recess (EAFM56, central recess), the central recess comprising a joining plane joining all outermost points of the second curved bend (EAFM56, joining plane, shown joining all points of second curve to the central recess). In addition and in the alternative, if plane is flat… See details in the parent claim 10 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 14, Wallin/Martinelli further teaches the joining plane is a circle (EAFM56, joining plane, shown as a circle). See details in the parent claim 10 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 16, Wallin/Martinelli further teaches wherein (i) the base floor, (ii) the inward bend face, (iii) the basin face, (iv) the outward bend face, and (v) the central recess are all inset toward the lid by a inset wall surrounding the base floor and extending normal to each of the lid, the base floor, and the joining plane (EAFM56, inset wall, surrounds base floor, inward bend face, basin face, second curve/outward bend face, and central recess), the surrounding inset wall defining a closed perimeter of the base floor (EAFM56, inset wall, is also a closed perimeter of the base floor), the base floor defining a closed perimeter of the annular channel (EAFM56, base floor defines a closed perimeter of annular channel), and the annular channel defining a closed perimeter of the central recess (EAFM56, annular channel defines a closed perimeter of central recess). See details in the parent claim 10 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 17, Wallin/Martinelli further teaches the dewar is nestable against at least a portion of the strengthening face inside the inner compartment (EAFW7, the dewar is shown capable of nesting in the inner compartment contacting against the strengthening face, because it [0073] “may include” the bottom removable foam block).
But Wallin/Martinelli does not explicitly teach a particular arrangement of the bottom shape to the dewar shape, because Wallin teaches the dewar and Martinelli teaches the first curve.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to make the bend shape proportional to the dewar profile to have “the first curved bend has a profile corresponding to a profile of a portion of the dewar”, since it has been 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 (i.e. the bend supports the dewar), the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Examiner notes that the term “corresponding” is broad like “along”, and not to be narrowly interpreted as “equivalent” or “matching shape”, for example.
Regarding claim 18, Wallin/Martinelli further teaches a distance between the dewar and the strengthening face measured in a direction normal to the strengthening face is a constant distance (EAFW7, a distance between the strengthening face and dewar is shown. Since it is one distance, it is constant relative to itself).
But Wallin/Martinelli does not explicitly teach a particular arrangement of the bottom shape to the dewar shape, because Wallin teaches the dewar and Martinelli teaches the first curve.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to make the bend shape proportional to the dewar profile to have “the first curved bend has a profile corresponding to a profile of a portion of the dewar” thereby making the strengthening face the bend is in a “constant distance” along the bend, since it has been 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 (i.e. the bend supports the dewar), the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Examiner notes that the term “corresponding” is broad like “along”, and not to be narrowly interpreted as “equivalent” or “matching shape”, for example.
Regarding claim 19, Wallin/Martinelli further teaches a foam block (EAFW7, bottom foam block) is received into the constant distance, and wherein the strengthening face supports the foam block and wherein the foam block supports the dewar (EAFW7, strengthening face, shown supporting the foam block, which is shown supporting the dewar). See details in the parent claim 18 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733