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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 02/02/2026. The objections to the Drawings have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 7-17 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation “the insulating material recovers all the surface…” should be - - the insulating material covers all the surface…- - for clarity.
Further Regarding Claim 1, the recitation “wherein the space between a first and the second panels” should be - - wherein the space between the first and the second panel - - for antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
.
Claims 1-3, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman et al. (US20090212047A1) in view of Schyver et al. (US20230008512A1) and Ranade et al. (US20140353317A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Harman teaches a thermally regulated aeronautic container [cargo container 10 for use in all modes of transport, especially aircraft, Figure 1; 0018 ] comprising a storage box [cargo box or main body 14, Figure 1; 0017] arranged on a base [hollow base 16, Figure 1] comprising at least two forklift tunnels [where the base 16 is a modified pallet including a pair of forklift tunnels 20, Figure 1; 0022] and a central housing between two forklift tunnels [between forklift tunnels 20 of pallet base 16, visible in Figure 1], a temperature control system [Temperature Control System (TCS) 18, Figure 5] integrated to the container [where the container 10 is self-powered and temperature controlled; 0018] comprising at least a compressor [where the refrigerator component includes compressor 74, Figure 3;0058], and an Electrical Power System comprising at least battery cells [rechargeable DC batteries 66, Figure 3; 0046] feeding the temperature control system [where the power supply for the TCS 18 is integrated in the pallet base 16; 0042], said storage box further comprising walls [vertical perimeter sidewalls 32, Figure 1] defining an internal storage volume [main internal storage space defining a main cargo box 48, Figure 3], said walls comprising an insulating material providing a thermal isolation and a structural arrangement providing the mechanical resistance of the walls [where the box 14 is configured for suitable thermal insulation in sandwich wall construction with internal and external structural skins bounding an internal insulating core; 0029], wherein:
the structural arrangement comprises non-metallic fibre containing material [where the box is made from composite materials such as fiberglass in resin matrices; 0029] and
said walls are sandwich assemblies wherein the insulating material are comprised between a first panel and a second panel of the structural arrangement [where internal and external structural skins bound an insulating core; 0029].
Harman does not teach where the insulating material is selected among at least one panel of material having a density lower than 60 kg/m3.
However, Schyver teaches thermal insulating foam with applications in cold storage units [0002] where the insulating material is selected among at least one panel of material [0086] having a density lower than 60 kg/m3 [where foam of example 4 has a density of 38.5 kg/m3 cut from a foam sheet, Table 1; 0145] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing effective insulation where density greatly impacts thermal insulating performance [Schyver, Table 1, 0006]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Harman to have where the insulating material is selected among at least one panel of material having a density lower than 60 kg/m3in view of the teachings of Schyver where the element could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing effective insulation where density greatly impacts thermal insulating performance [Schyver, Table 1, 0006].
Harman further does not teach where the insulating material covers all the surface of the structural arrangement and wherein the space between a first and a second panels of the structural element is free of reinforcing element.
However, Ranade teaches thermally insulated VIP sandwich shipper for shipping temperature sensitive payloads [0001] where the insulating material [VIP panels 16, Figure 1] covers all the surface of the structural arrangement [where the edge 14 of one VIP panel 16 abuts an adjacent VIP panel 16, Figure 4] and wherein the space between a first and a second panels of the structural element is free of reinforcing element [where the vacuum insulated panels are press fitted against each other and against the outer shell and the inner shell to minimize or eliminate edge leaks; 0026]
where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, minimizing thermal bridges, to a known device, insulation panels, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improving insulation by reducing or eliminating edge leaks [Ranade, 0011-0013].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the insulating material covers all the surface of the structural arrangement and wherein the space between a first and a second panels of the structural element is free of reinforcing element in view of the teachings of Ranade where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving insulation by reducing or eliminating edge leaks [Ranade, 0011-0013].
Regarding Claim 2, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the thermal conductivity of the insulating material is lower than 0.03 W/mK.
However, Schyver teaches thermal insulating foam with applications in cold storage units [0002] where the thermal conductivity of the insulating material is lower than 0.03 W/mK [where the insulation of the example 4 has a thermal conductivity of 17.4 mW/mK or .0174 W/mK, Table 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing effective insulation by minimizing thermal conductivity [Schyver, Table 1, 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Harman to have where the thermal conductivity of the insulating material is lower than 0.03 W/mK in view of the teachings of Schyver where the element could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing effective insulation by minimizing thermal conductivity [Schyver, Table 1, 0006].
Regarding Claim 3, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the insulating material has a density of 30 kg/m3 and thermal conductivity of 0.02 W/mK, 0.018 W/mK or lower.
However, Schyver teaches thermal insulating foam with applications in cold storage units [0002] where the insulating material has a density of 30 kg/m3 [where the foam of example 2 has a density of 34.3 kg/m3, Table 1] and the thermal conductivity of the isolating material is lower than 0.03 W/mK [where the insulation of the example 2 has a thermal conductivity of 19.9 mW/mK or .0199 W/mK, Table 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable, density, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., minimizing weight while providing effective insulation by optimizing density to thermal conductivity where density greatly impacts thermal insulating performance [Schyver Table 1, 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the insulating material has a density of around 30 kg/m3 and thermal conductivity of 0.02 W/mK, 0.018 W/mK or lower in view of the teachings of Schyver where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result i.e., minimizing weight while providing effective insulation by optimizing density to thermal conductivity where density greatly impacts thermal insulating performance [Schyver Table 1, 0006]
Regarding Claim 9, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where said non-metallic fibre containing material is a prepreg composite material [where the box is made from composite materials such as fiberglass in resin matrices; 0029].
Regarding Claim 10, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the insulating material comprises or is based on polyisocyanurate (PIR).
However, Schyver teaches thermal insulating foam with applications in cold storage units [0002] where the insulating material comprises or is based on polyisocyanurate (PIR) [where the insulating foam is a rigid polyisocyanurate foam board; 0055] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing excellent thermal insulation performance with low environmental impact [Schyver, Table 1, 0001]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the insulating material comprises or is based on polyisocyanurate (PIR) in view of the teachings of Schyver where the element could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing excellent thermal insulation performance with low environmental impact [Schyver, Table 1, 0001]
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman et al. (US20090212047A1) in view of Schyver et al. (US20230008512A1) and Ranade et al. (US20140353317A1) as applied in claim 1 above and in further view of Ohnishi et al. (US5979684A).
Regarding Claim 4, Harman, as modified teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where one or each one of the first and the second panels of the structural arrangement form two or more contiguous walls in one piece.
However, Ohnishi teaches a cargo container formed using fiber reinforced plastics (FRP) suitable as a container for cold insulating [col. 1, lines 4-9] where one or each one of the first and the second panels of the structural arrangement form two or more contiguous walls in one piece [where at least two walls adjacent to each other can be integrally and simultaneously formed easily using fiber reinforced plastic; col. 5, lines 45-50] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., reducing post processing and assembly time by integrating walls into one part.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where one or each one of the first and the second panels of the structural arrangement form two or more contiguous walls in one piece in view of the teachings of Ohnishi where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., reducing post processing and assembly time by integrating walls into one part.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman et al. (US20090212047A1) in view of Schyver et al. (US20230008512A1), Ranade et al. (US20140353317A1) and Ohnishi et al. (US5979684A) as applied in claim 4 above and in further view of Tatsuno et al. (Tatsuno, D. et al., “Local heat clamp bending of carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic sheet”, October 2020, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing, Vol. 111, Retrieved from Internet <DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06216-7>)
Regarding Claim 5, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 and does not teach where said two or more contiguous walls form a ridge resulting from an angular position of the corresponding panels, and wherein the fibres within the non-metallic material are oriented according to a privilege direction crossing the angles between said contiguous walls.
However, Tatsuno teaches a method of bending carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic sheets [Abstract] where said two or more contiguous walls [where the left and right side of the bend will form two walls, Figure 8] form a ridge resulting from the angular position of the corresponding panels [bent unidirectional sheet, Figure 13], and wherein the fibres within the non-metallic material are oriented according to a privilege direction crossing the angles between said contiguous walls [where the fibers direction may relative to the bend line cross the bend line at 0, 45, or -45, Figure 8] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable, fiber direction, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., maintaining thickness and increasing rigidity of the ridge where the fibers provide restriction to the bending [Tatsuno, p.14, right col., para. 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where said two or more contiguous walls form a ridge resulting from an angular position of the corresponding panels, and wherein the fibres within the non-metallic material are oriented according to a privilege direction crossing the angles between said contiguous walls in view of the teachings of Tatsuno where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., maintaining thickness and increasing rigidity of the ridge where the fibers provide restriction to the bending [Tatsuno, p.14, right col., para. 2].
Claims 7, 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman et al. (US20090212047A1) in view of Schyver et al. (US20230008512A1) Ranade et al. (US20140353317A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kumar et al. (US9027782B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where said non-metallic fibre containing material denotes a composite material comprising E-Glass, S-Glass, Carbon, Aramid or a combination thereof.
However, Kumar teaches a sandwich composite material used to insulate shipping containers [col. 1, lines 11-17] where said non-metallic fibre containing material [inner skin layer 21 and outer skin layer 27, Figure 1] denotes a composite material comprising E-Glass, S-Glass, Carbon, Aramid or a combination thereof [where the inner skin layer 21 and outer skin layer 27 material are made of one or more layers of non-metallic fibers of glass, carbon, and KEVLAR synthetic fiber, Figure 1; col. 2, lines 24-30] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing both insulation and rigidity for efficient and safe transportation of temperature sensitive payloads [Kumar, col. 2, lines 9-12].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Harman to have where said non-metallic fibre containing material denotes a composite material comprising E-Glass, S-Glass, Carbon, Aramid or a combination thereof in view of the teachings of Kumar where the element could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing both insulation and rigidity for efficient and safe transportation of temperature sensitive payloads [Kumar, col. 2, lines 9-12].
Regarding Claim 8, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 and further teaches where said non-metallic fibre containing material further comprising reinforcing fibres or veil or fabric [where the box is made from composite materials such as fiberglass in resin matrices; 0029].
Regarding Claim 15, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach a process for manufacturing a container according to claim 1, comprising:
a moulding step to provide non-metallic fibre containing panels forming a first and a second panels of a structural arrangement,
a combination step of combining at least one of said first and a second panels with an insulating material,
wherein said insulating material is under the form of rigid and homogenous panels, so that the insulating panels covers all the surface of said at least one of said first and a second panels.
However, Kumar teaches a sandwich composite material used to insulate shipping containers [col. 1, lines 11-17] including a process for manufacturing a container according to claim 1, comprising:
a moulding step [where the layers 21, 27 and core materials are stacked in a mold and fused using a polymeric resin at an elevated temperature; col. 3, lines 50-58] to provide non-metallic fibre containing panels [where the inner and the outer skin layers are made of one or more layers of woven non-metallic fibers; col. 3, lines 18-20] forming a first and a second panels of a structural arrangement [inner skin layer 21 and outer skin layer 27 of panel 20, Figure 1],
a combination step of combining at least one of said first and a second panels with an insulating material [where the layers 21, 27 and core materials are stacked in a mold; col. 3, lines 50-53],
wherein said insulating material [core materials 23, 25, Figure 1] is under the form of rigid and homogenous panels [where the panel 20, which includes core materials 23 and 25, can be cut into requires sizes of panels; col.3, lines 55-60], so that the insulating panels covers all the surface of said at least one of said first and a second panels [where the container provides continuous insulation around the edges, visible in Figure 1], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a customizable container where the panel can be formed into any desired shape in a single step [Kumar, col. 3, lines 38-40].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have a process for manufacturing a container according to claim 1, comprising: a moulding step to provide non-metallic fibre containing panels forming a first and a second panels of a structural arrangement, a combination step of combining at least one of said first and a second panels with an insulating material, wherein said insulating material is under the form of rigid and homogenous panels, so that the insulating panels covers all the surface of said at least one of said first and a second panels in view of the teachings of Kumar where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a customizable container where the panel can be formed into any desired shape in a single step [Kumar, col. 3, lines 38-40].
Regarding Claim 16, Harman, as modified teaches the invention of claim 15 and does not teach a combination step is performed at a temperature comprised between 90° C. and 150° C.
Kumar teaches a sandwich composite material used to insulate shipping containers [col. 1, lines 11-17] including a combination step [where the layers 21, 27 and core materials are stacked in a mold and fused using a polymeric resin at an elevated temperature; col. 3, lines 50-58] performed at a temperature comprised between 90° C. and 150° C [where fusing is done under an elevated temperature in a range of 93.3° C to 176.7 ° C; col. 3, lines 50-56] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a customizable container where the panel can be formed into any desired shape in a single step [Kumar, col. 3, lines 38-40].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have a combination step is performed at a temperature comprised between 90° C. and 150° C in view of the teachings of Kumar where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a customizable container where the panel can be formed into any desired shape in a single step [Kumar, col. 3, lines 38-40].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman et al. (US20090212047A1) in view of Schyver et al. (US20230008512A1) and Ranade et al. (US20140353317A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Dryzun (US20070175236A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the battery cells are of NiMH type and arranged so that their larger dimension is oriented in a horizontal plan.
However Dryzun teaches a portable refrigeration container [0001] where the battery cells [battery pack 22, Figure 1] are of NiMH type [where the battery type is nickel metal hydride; 0089, Palletized Collapsible Refrigeration Container] and arranged so that their larger dimension is oriented in an horizontal plan [where the battery pack 22 is mounted between the feet of the pallet base 20 where the larger dimension of the pack 22 is parallel to the top face of the pallet base 20, visible in Figure 1; 0068] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements for another and yield predictable results, i.e., maintaining portability by providing a rechargeable battery [Dryzun, 0088].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to where the battery cells are of NiMH type and arranged so that their larger dimension is oriented in a horizontal plan in view of the teachings of Dryzun where the substitution of two elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., maintaining portability by providing a rechargeable battery [Dryzun, 0088].
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman et al. (US20090212047A1) in view of Schyver et al. (US20230008512A1) and Ranade et al. (US20140353317A1) as applied in claim 1 above and in further view of Mardall et al. (US20120237803A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the batteries cells [batteries 66, Figure 3] are packed in a tray [battery tray 62, Figure 3] arranged in a central housing [where batteries 66 are in base 16 to the side and in between forklift tunnels 20, Figure 3].
Harman does not teach the tray having edges and a lid, wherein the height of the edges is equal or larger than the thickness of the battery cells.
However, Mardall teaches means for mitigating the effects and hazards associated with a battery undergoing thermal runaway [0002] where the tray has edges [where the battery pack 400 has walls at module mounting flanges, Figure 5] and a lid [top member 201, Figure 4] wherein the height of the edges is larger than the thickness of the battery cells [where the cells 501 are below air space 703 of top member 201, Figure 7; 0044] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., improving rigidity and strength to the tray with additional walls [Mardall, 0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have the tray having edges and a lid, wherein the height of the edges is equal or larger than the thickness of the battery cells in view of the teachings of Mardall where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improving rigidity and strength to the tray with additional walls [Mardall, 0043].
Regarding Claim 12, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 11 and does not teach where the tray further comprises at least one internal wall defining internal areas and wherein each battery cell is arranged in a corresponding internal area of the tray.
However, Mardall teaches means for mitigating the effects and hazards associated with a battery undergoing thermal runaway [0002] where the tray further comprises at least one internal wall [where the battery pack has cross members 301, Figure 3 and Figure 7] defining internal areas [battery pack compartment 309, Figure 3] and wherein each battery cell is arranged in a corresponding internal area of the tray [where modules are within the individual battery compartments 309 and 311; 0045] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., improving rigidity and strength to the tray with additional walls [Mardall, 0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have where the tray further comprises at least one internal wall defining internal areas and wherein each battery cell is arranged in a corresponding internal area of the tray in view of the teachings of Mardall where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improving rigidity and strength to the tray with additional walls [Mardall, 0043].
Regarding Claim 13, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 11 and does not teach where the tray further comprises one or more air permeable devices allowing exchange of air and/or humidity between the internal space of the tray and the outside environment, while preventing the passage of liquids.
However, Mardall teaches means for mitigating the effects and hazards associated with a battery undergoing thermal runaway [0002] where the tray further comprises one or more air permeable devices [gas exhuast ports 115 with valve 117, Figure 1;0038] allowing exchange of air and/or humidity between the internal space of the tray and the outside environment [where valve 117 is designed to open during a thermal runaway event in order to provide a controlled exhaust pathway for the hot gas and materials expelled during runaway; 0038], while preventing the passage of liquids [where each port is sealed using a valve 117; 0038] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing pressure build up by exhausting gas when needed while also preventing contamination to the batteries [Mardall, 0038]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the predefined temperature range includes a lower limit above the temperature required for maintaining the cryogenic fuel in the liquid phase in view of the teachings of Mardall where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing pressure build up by exhausting gas when needed while also preventing contamination to the batteries [Mardall, 0038]
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman et al. (US20090212047A1) in view of Schyver et al. (US20230008512A1), Ranade et al. (US20140353317A1) and Kumar et al. (US9027782B1) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of Hexcel (Hexcel, HexPly F185 Product Data Sheet, Sept 2017, [retrieved on 29 Sept 2025], Retrieved from Internet Archive<https://web.archive.org/web/20170926023023/http://hexcel.com/user_area/content_media/raw/HexPly_F185_us_DataSheet.pdf >
Regarding Claim 17, Harman, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 15 and does not teach where the combination step is performed at a pressure comprised between 0.5 and 4 bars, with a vacuum applied to the internal structure comprised between −0.1 bar and −0.8 bar.
However, Hexcel teaches a 121° C cure resin system for advanced composites [p.1] where the combination step [where HexPly F185 offers high sandwich bonding strengths with a single assembly sandwich layup procedure; p.1] is performed at a pressure comprised between 0.5 and 4 bars [where the cure procedure applies 45 psig or 3.1 bar of pressure for a sandwich; p.3, Cure Procedure], with a vacuum applied to the internal structure comprised between −0.1 bar and −0.8 bar [where a minimum 22 inHg vacuum or -0.74 bar is applied; p.3, Cure Procedure] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing highest available fracture toughness and strain for the desired resin system cure temperature range [Hexcel; p.1, Description].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the combination step is performed at a pressure comprised between 0.5 and 4 bars, with a vacuum applied to the internal structure comprised between −0.1 bar and −0.8 bar in view of the teachings of Hexcel where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing highest available fracture toughness and strain for the desired resin system cure temperature range [Hexcel; p.1, Description].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks that Harman fails to disclose panels of insulating materials and only teaches in [0029] an “internal insulating core”. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For clarity, Harman has been established in the rejection as the primary reference to teach a thermally regulated aeronautic container. In other words, the teachings of Schyver have been relied upon for making it obvious to modify the system of Harman to have one feature. MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned" Section 2123 goes on to state "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonable suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art". Schyver is relied upon for making obvious the insulation core being a panel structure where “the insulating material is selected among at least one panel of material having a density lower than 60 kg/m3”, as claimed, where a foam bun may for example be cut into foam boards which may be used to insulate refrigerated vehicles, 0086 of Schyver. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that the foam boards disclosed by Schyver could be provide for low density insulation. Combining the sandwich wall construction with internal and external structural skins bounding an internal insulating core of Harman with the foam bun cut into foam boards of Schyver would provide enhanced insulative properties to the container where density greatly impacts thermal insulating performance. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained
Applicant’s arguments in remarks filed 02/02/2026 with respect to amended claim 1, where “the insulation material recovers all the surface of the structural arrangement” and “wherein the space between a first and the second panels of the structural element is free of reinforcing element” 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.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-5 and 7-17 except for their dependence upon claim 1. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
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 KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights