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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
All previous 35 USC 112b rejections have been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 in response to Office Action 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amendments (page 7). Examiner disagrees, pointing out the prior art does teach the amendments. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amendment “at all positions” (page 7). Examiner agrees, pointing out the new prior art necessitated by the amendments. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
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 19 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 18” does not exist since claim 18 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 first registration boss (Fig 5, a ridge 133 (first from viewer perspective; right side in Fig 7)) to be received by an aspect of another shipper to permit stacking of shippers (Fig 7, first 133 is capable of being received in a bottom recess aspect labeled 143),
the first registration boss comprising:
a first primary ramp portion of increasing height away from the base in at least one dimension along a first direction parallel to a first edge of the lid (see examiner annotated Wallin Figure 7, hereinafter “EAFW7” and the second annotated “EAFW72”; EAFW7, first primary ramp portion, increasing in height along a first direction; EAFW72, the right dashed line shows a first edge of the lid to be parallel to the right arrow); a first bend portion curving along a path of changing direction (EAFW7, first bend portion, curves along a changed direction path from the first direction), wherein the second direction is different from the first direction (EAFW72, the two arrows for first and second direction are shown pointing in different directions); and a first secondary ramp portion of increasing height away from the base in at least the at least one dimension along a second direction (EAFW7, first secondary ramp portion, increasing in height along a second direction), wherein the first primary ramp portion extends from a first primary ramp portion terminus to the first bend portion (see examiner annotated Walling Figure 5, hereinafter “EAFW5”; EAFW5 & EAFW7, first primary ramp portion is shown extending from first primary terminus to first bend portion), wherein the first secondary ramp portion extends from a first secondary ramp portion terminus to the first bend portion (EAFW7, the first secondary ramp portion, EAFW5, extends from first secondary terminus to first bend portion),
[AltContent: textbox (cross section example)][AltContent: textbox (cross section example)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inset wall)][AltContent: textbox (Base wall)][AltContent: textbox (Front is “first”
Rear is “second”)]
PNG
media_image1.png
932
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
321
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (front secondary ramp portion)][AltContent: textbox (location)][AltContent: textbox (location)][AltContent: textbox (Front is “first”
Rear is “second”)]
PNG
media_image3.png
470
1179
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But Wallin does not explicitly teach a particular relative height of the first bend portion.
Dziaba, however, teaches similar stacking bosses comprising:
a height away from the base of a first bend portion is a greatest height of any portion of the first registration boss away from the base (Fig 1, [0027], an apex (a greatest height of the element) is raised central portion 52 of a first registration boss, because it tapers downwardly to end portions 54), and wherein the first 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 second registration boss, because it tapers downwardly to end portions 54)
Regarding claim 2, Wallin/Dziaba further teaches the lid comprises a second registration boss (Wallin, Fig 5, a ridge 133 (second from viewer perspective; left side in Fig 7)) spaced apart from the first registration boss (Wallin, is spaced apart) and to be received by the aspect of the another shipper to permit stacking of shippers (Wallin, Fig 7, second 133 is capable of being received in the bottom recess aspect labeled 143),
the second registration boss comprising:
a second primary ramp portion of increasing height away from the base in the at least one dimension along the first direction (EAFW7, second primary ramp portion, increasing in height along the first direction); a second bend portion curving along a path of changing direction (EAFW7, second bend portion, curves along a changed direction path from the first direction); and a second secondary ramp portion of increasing height away from the base in at least the at least one dimension along the second direction (EAFW7, second secondary ramp portion, increasing in height along the second direction), wherein the second primary ramp portion extends from a second primary ramp portion terminus to the second bend portion (EAFW5 & EAFW7, second primary ramp portion is shown extending from second primary terminus to second bend portion), wherein the second secondary ramp portion extends from a second secondary ramp portion terminus to the second bend portion (EAFW7, the second secondary ramp portion, EAFW5, extends from second secondary terminus to second bend portion), wherein the height away from the base of the second bend portion is the greatest height of any portion of the second registration boss away from the base, and wherein the second registration boss causes the shipper to wobble in response to the shipper being rested on the lid rather than on the base (Dziaba, Fig 1, [0027], an apex (a greatest height of the element) is raised central portion 52 of the second 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 second primary ramp portion and the first 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 second secondary ramp portion and the first 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 second bend portion and the first bend portion are a same size (Fig 5, since 133 is the same label for each the first and second, 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 second secondary ramp portion is smaller than the second primary ramp portion (EAFW5 shows a second secondary ramp portion length (i.e. length from second secondary terminus to second bend, as in parent claim 2) is smaller than a second primary ramp portion length (i.e. length from second primary terminus to second bend, as in parent claim 2)).
Regarding claim 7, Wallin further teaches the second primary ramp portion and the first primary ramp portion are of a first same size (EAFW5 & EAFW7, the primary portions are shown to be a first same length (of respective primary terminus to bend, as in claim 2); wherein since 133 is the same label for each the first and second, 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 second secondary ramp portion and the first secondary ramp portion are of a second same size (repeat the above for secondary ramp, wherein the secondary portions are shown to be a second same length (of respective secondary terminus to bend, as in claim 2)), the second same size being smaller than the first same size (EAFW5, the second same size/length of the secondary ramp portions (secondary terminus to bend) is shown smaller than the first same size/length (primary terminus to bend)).
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 as a subsection thereof).
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 stabilizing the dewar), 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 outer profile is shown corresponding in shape to at least a portion of the liner wall of compartment 115 to fit, and corresponding in shape to at least a portion of the dewar 103).
Claims 10-14, 16-17 and 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”) in view of DE 10355998 issued to Zucker by (hereinafter “Zucker”).
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 first region opposite the lid (EAFW7, strengthening face first region, being in the base is necessarily opposite the lid),
a distance between the dewar and the first region between the bottom of the dewar and the first region (EAFW7, a distance between the strengthening face and dewar is shown),
But Wallin does not explicitly teach a particular shape of the first region including an annular channel.
Martinelli, however, teaches a stackable container bottom to lid top comprising:
a first region (see examiner annotated Martinelli Figures 5-6, hereinafter “EAFM56”; EAFM56, strengthening face first region) 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 first region inwardly away from the base floor and into the inner compartment (EAFM56, first curve),
PNG
media_image4.png
541
923
media_image4.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.
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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 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 can support the dewar, both curve profiles strengthen the faces they occupy), 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 under broadest reasonable interpretation as “equivalent” or “matching shape”, for example.
But Wallin/Martinelli does not explicitly teach that the distance between the dewar and the first region between the bottom of the dewar and the first region is a same and constant distance at all positions in the first region.
Zucker, however, teaches all positions in a first region are at a constant same distance from one another between bottom and dewar-type container because they are both flat (Fig 1, bottom plate 17’ of container 2 is a middle first region shown flat, and the bottom of latent memory container 5 that contains the source of cryogenic cold is shown flat, so their whole faces (all points) are one (same constant) distance from each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make “a distance between the dewar and the first region between the bottom of the dewar and the first region is a same and constant distance at all positions in the first region”, having Wallin/Martinelli modified by Zucker teaching that capability via similarly defined yet flat surfaces, 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 first region 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.
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 first region 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 first region 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 outermost 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 first region inside the inner compartment (EAFW7, the dewar is shown capable of nesting in the inner compartment contacting against the first region, because it [0073] “may include” the bottom removable foam block for resting on).
Regarding claim 19, Wallin/Martinelli further teaches a foam block (EAFW7, bottom foam block) is received into the constant distance, and wherein the first region supports the foam block and wherein the foam block supports the dewar (EAFW7, strengthening face first region, 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20240076117 by Wallin et al. (hereinafter “Wallin”) in view of Official Notice MPEP 2144.03 in view of US Pat 5417073 issued to James et al. (hereinafter “James”).
Regarding claim 21, Wallin teaches a shipper configured to retain a container for secure shipment (Abstract, Fig 5, dewar container 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 container (Fig 6, 115 defines an inner compartment that receives the dewar container); and
a lid (Fig 5, 119) attached to a first side of the base (shown attached to the base including at a first side, at least by the disclosed latches) and selectably closable over the inner compartment to secure the dewar therein (Figs 6-7, [0068] lid is reversibly closeable over the inner compartment securing the dewar container within as disclosed and shown),
a handle extendable from the base from a side of the base opposite the first side of the base (Figs 5-7 show a handle on a side opposite the first side, and extendable outward, unobstructed by the lid), and wherein
the base comprises a base wall parallel to the lid when the lid is closed (EAFW7 shows a base wall extending along an axis as to be parallel to the lid) and comprising an inset wall comprising a central region of the base surrounded by the base wall and inset toward the lid relative to the base wall (EAFW7, an inset wall is in a central region and inset toward the lid and surrounded by the base wall), and wherein
the inset wall spaces the container received in the inner compartment away from the base wall so that the base elevates the container away from the base wall (EAFW7 the inset wall is shown spacing the dewar container away from the base wall because it is higher than it (i.e. closer to the dewar container than the base wall)); wherein
the lid comprises a registration boss (EAFW7, shows at least one registration boss for stacking, as defined by a ramp portion) to be received by an aspect of another shipper to permit stacking of shippers (EAFW7, at least one boss receiving aspect shown),
the registration boss comprising:
a first primary ramp portion of increasing height away from the base in at least one dimension along a first direction (EAFW7, first primary ramp portion, increasing in height along a first direction);
a first bend portion curving along a path of changing direction (EAFW7, first bend portion, curves along a changed direction path from the first direction); and
a first secondary ramp portion of increasing height away from the base in at least the at least one dimension along a second direction (EAFW7, first secondary ramp portion, increasing in height along a second direction), wherein the second direction is different from the first direction (EAFW72, the two arrows for first and second direction are different directions as shown), wherein
the first registration boss causes the shipper to wobble in response to the shipper being rested on the lid rather than on the base (EAFW5 shows that the first boss is capable of causing shipper wobble in response to the shipper being rested upside down on the lid, at least when being rested in a non-perfectly flat manner (e.g. if the user does not rest the closed shipper on its lid at a perfect level position relative to a ground, the shipper will wobble until hitting a stable position from momentum). Thereby the wobble capability is met by the first boss on its own).
But Wallin does not explicitly teach lid hinges.
Official Notice, however, is given that it is well-known in the art of shipping containers with lids to provide hinges for the lid for retaining the lid versus loss. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the lid of Wallin hinged with hinges in order to advantageously attach the lid to a first side of the base of the shipper container to prevent loss of the lid.
But Wallin does not explicitly teach wheels.
James, however, teaches a similar dewar transporting container comprising:
a plurality of wheels attached to the base at the side of the base opposite the first side of the base, wherein the handle and the wheels are operable regardless of a proximity of the first side of the base to an obstruction (Fig 6B, col 5 lines 13-16, container is shown for portable Dewar (as in Fig 2B, dewar 60), shown with handle on a side opposite wheels, and the handle and wheels are capable of use/operation regardless of being near/proximal an obstruction such as a wall for the handle or opposing wheels because a user is interpreted to be in operable range of it. In other words, since the handle and wheels are capable of being used, which implies that a user can use them, meaning any obstruction is moot already by definition of operable).
Therefore, 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 shipper container base of Wallin with wheels as taught by James in order to advantageously transport by pushing more easily versus a user carrying.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via Wallin’s lid being hinged by hinges Officially to Wallin’s shipper container base’s first side with the wheels of James on its base, and the handle and wheels operable.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights