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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 32 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 14-16, 19-22, 24, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high level” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " wherein the first and second closures comprise first and second axially extending portions of the generally tubular wall element, fastened together to provide a corresponding degree of thermal isolation as the generally tubular wall element about the load volume." However, this limitation is unclear as to what the nature is of “as the generally tubular wall element about the load volume”, and appears to include an incomplete clause. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “as the generally tubular wall element defines
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the generally tubular wall elements". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "separate first and second closures". However, it is unclear whether these closures are to refer to those of claim 1, or are to introduce new and additional first and second closures to those of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to those first and second closures of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the generally tubular wall elements". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “simple polygons” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “simple polygons” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the three-dimensional thin film cushion sheet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "glued or otherwise” (interpreted similar to “or the like") renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “or otherwise”/"or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the number of layers of corrugated sheet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 14-16, 19-22 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 4,862,674 (Lejondahl et al hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1-3 and 6, Lejondahl et al. discloses: An insulating transport/storage container for transporting/storing temperature sensitive materials (Lejondahl et al. Abstract), the container comprising: a generally tubular wall element (8, 9) defining a load volume between first and second apertures at either end thereof (shown closed by closures 18 and 19, see Fig. 6 below), the generally tubular wall element having an axis; first and second closures (18/19) operable to close the first and second apertures; and fastening structure operable to secure the first and second closures (column 5, lines 29-33); wherein the generally tubular wall element comprises multiple-layers of three-dimensional lightweight film comprising at least a first thin film sheet (9) and a second three-dimensional thin film sheet (8 “porous” column 3, lines 55-60 renders the sheet three-dimensional), with the layers coupled together whereby to define a high level of thermal resistance; and, wherein, upon securement by way of the fastening structure, the closures are brought together with respect to the generally tubular wall element at the ends thereof about mutually contacting areas (see Fig. 6), wherein the lightweight film comprises a metallized surface (“metallic foil”, column 3, lines 55-60).
[AltContent: textbox (Flange)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
556
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
318
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claims 3 and 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention including a former about which the generally tubular wall elements surround, the former defining a generally tubular assembly having an axis with first and second axially separated apertures and against which, respectively, separate first and second closures abut, to seal therewith, or the former defining a generally elongate tubular assembly having an axis with an aperture at a first end and a closed axially separated second end, the first closure abutting the aperture to close the first end and the second closure abutting the second, closed end, whereby to provide a uniform degree of thermal isolation about the load volume (see Fig. 6 and Detail below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Closure Outer Part)][AltContent: textbox (Closure Inner Part)][AltContent: textbox (Closure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Tubular Wall Element)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Former)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image3.png
329
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the fastening structure comprises one or more of: adhesive tape, tensioned straps, shrink-wrap plastics film, a frame (20), and a box, wherein the fastening structure is operable to ensure that the closures fit closely to / abut with the generally tubular wall element (see Fig. 6 above).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the first thin film sheet and the second three-dimensional thin film sheet are arranged as a wound sheet or layered sheets (see Figs. 1 and 6), each subsequent sheet surrounding a previous sheet (column 5, lines 43-59).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein at least one of the first and second closures define a plug (18, 19) which is operable to fit in an interference fashion with an inside surface of the respective end of the generally tubular wall element (see fig. 6).
In re claims 15 and 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein at least one of the first and second closures are arranged to closely abut the first thin film sheet and the three-dimensional thin film cushion sheet at the respective first and second ends of the generally tubular wall element (see Fig. 6 detail in re claims 3 and 4 above), and at least one of the first and second closures are arranged such that the respective closure comprises a first, inner part that has a section that corresponds with an inside section of the generally tubular wall element associated with one of the apertures and a second, outer part that has a profile that is arranged to provide thermal insulating properties (see Fig. 6 detail in re claims 3 and 4 above).
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein a second, outer part of at least one closure element is arranged such that its profile in section extends beyond an external section of the generally tubular wall element (upturned flanges of 18/19 extend away/beyond an external section of the tubular wall element, see Fig. 6 above).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein a second, outer part of at least one closure element is arranged such that its axial profile extends beyond an axial profile of the generally tubular wall element (flange in Fig. 6 above extends beyond axial profile of the wall element in the section shown).
In re claim 21, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the closures are retained in place by virtue of being placed in a container which prevents axial movement of the closures with respect to the generally tubular wall element (note that in this interpretation, the closures are the top and bottom horizontally oriented insulation composites at 16a and 16b, see Fig. 6).
In re claim 22, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the closures are retained in place by adhesive (column 3, lines 22-29) whereby axial movement of the closures with respect to the generally tubular wall element is prevented.
In re claim 30, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the generally tubular wall element has two or more sections along its axial length where the number of layers of corrugated sheet differs, whereby the R-value varies along the axial length (See annotated Fig. 6 below).
[AltContent: textbox (2nd Section/ R-Value)][AltContent: textbox (Tubular Element )][AltContent: rect][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (1st Section/ R-Value)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Tubular Element Axial Length)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image4.png
334
278
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lejondahl et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 3,420,363 (Blickensderfer hereinafter).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein the first and second closures comprise first and second axially extending portions of the generally tubular wall element, fastened together to provide a corresponding degree of thermal isolation as the generally tubular wall element about the load volume.
However, with reference to Figs. 2b and 2c, Blickensderfer discloses a transport/shipping box wherein a first and second closure are formed from axially extending portions of a wall element, fastened (at 14) together to facilitate thermal isolation of a load volume.
[AltContent: textbox (Wall Element)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd Closure)][AltContent: textbox (1st Closure)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
253
236
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the first second closures of Lejondahl et al. to have been formed from portions of the wall element and folded down to seal the wall element for the purposes of simplifying assembly, and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0028 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 24, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein the closures are formed of a multi-layer corrugated sheet, wherein the corrugated sheet is cellulose-based, wherein layers of sheet and fluted corrugations are glued or otherwise connected to each other.
However, Blickensderfer teaches closures formed of corrugated paper utilizing adhesive to assemble layers to one another (column 5, lines 6-30), while Lejondahl et al. also utilizes glue to assembly layers of the laminate to one another (column 6, lines 14-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the closures of corrugated material wherein layers are adhered to one another as taught by Blickensderfer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0045, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lejondahl et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,201,868 (Johnson hereinafter).
In re claims 7 and 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein the three-dimensional lightweight film is a recyclable sheet material, selected from the group consisting of paper, cellulose-based sheet material and starch-based material that include a three dimensional surface, and separate plies of sheet material of the three- dimensional lightweight film are fastened together by the use of adhesives selected from the group consisting of: water soluble glues, starch based glues, acrylic glues, and hot melt glues.
However, Johnson discloses an insulated shipping container wherein a metallized layer of an insulation element (92) is formed of recycled/recyclable paper (column 6, lines 33-56) and utilizes water soluble glues to enhance performance of the insulation layer (column 8, lines 18-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized know insulation materials such as recycled/recyclable paper , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0035, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lejondahl et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2008/0087716 (Sadlier hereinafter).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein the three-dimensional lightweight film has embossments in the shape of circular or simple polygons.
However, Sadlier teaches a three-dimensional insulation layer including embossments in the shape of simply polygons (i.e. rectangles, see Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
242
430
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have imparted embossments to the three-dimensional film of Lejondahl et al. as taught by Sadlier to be in the shape of simple polygons (rectangles), for the purposes of improving insulation in an assembled multi-layer container, and preventing spreading or collapsing during use (paragraph 0009).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lejondahl et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2020/0262637 (Tattam hereinafter).
In re claim 26, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lejondahl et al. discloses the claimed invention except a gasket member to ensure complete sealing with the closures.
However, Tattam discloses an insulating transport and storage container including a gasket member comprising crepe paper employed to ensure air-tightness and to assist placement of a closure (paragraph 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized a gasket member to ensure complete sealing with the closure of Lejondahl et al. as taught by Tattam, whereby air-tightness of the closure is ensured as well placement of the closure is facilitated (Tattam paragraph 0053).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights