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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 3, 2006 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, “the panel border” should be --the uninsulated panel border--.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “a portion” should be --the portion--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-11 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the insulated bag assembly…comprising an insulation blank”. However, the claim fails to define a relationship between the blank and the insulated bag assembly. Accordingly, it is not clear what bag structure is defined by the blank.
For the purpose for examination, the insulation blank will be considered to form at least one panel of the pair of main panels and the pair of side panels as defined in claim 8.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the pair of opposing main panels and the pair of opposing side panels define a top border, wherein the panel border is attached to a portion of the uninsulated bag lip at the top border”. The structure intended by the language of the claim is confusing and not clear because the top border is defined with respect to the pair of opposing main panels and the pair of opposing side panels, not the uninsulated bag lip. Accordingly, it is not clear where the panel border is attached.
For the purpose of examination, the uninsulated panel border will be considered to be attached to a portion of the uninsulated bag lip.
Claims 9 and 10 recite the limitation “the uninsulated panel border is attached to a portion of the uninsulated bag lip”. However, claim 1, from which claims 9 and 10 depend, require that “a portion of the uninsulated panel border is attached to the uninsulated bag lip”. Accordingly, claims 9 and 10 are broader than claim 1 from which they depend.
For the purpose of examination, the portion of the uninsulated panel border will be considered to be attached to a portion of the uninsulated bag lip.
Claim 8 and 11 are rejected for being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, claims 7 and 9, respectively, from which they depend.
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 Seiders et al. (US 2017/0036844 A1, hereinafter Seiders) in view of De Lesseux et al. (US 2016/0060017 A1, hereinafter De Lesseux).
Regarding claim 1, Seiders teaches an insulated bag assembly, comprising:
a pair of opposing insulated main panels (FIG. 24-26);
a pair of opposing insulated side panels (FIG. 24-26);
a bottom panel extending from the pair of opposing main panels and the pair of opposing side panels (FIG. 29A);
an uninsulated bag lip opposite the bottom panel and extending from the pair of opposing main panels and the pair of opposing side panels (FIG. 29A-uninsulated portion between body assembly 3350 and lid assembly 3300); and
an insulated panel (3300) comprising a first panel sheet (3501A), a second panel sheet (3500A), and insulation (3502A) encapsulated between the first panel sheet and the second panel sheet, and an uninsulated panel border defined by the first panel sheet and the second panel sheet around a perimeter of the insulation batt (FIG. 29A), wherein a portion of the uninsulated panel border is attached to the uninsulated bag lip (FIG. 29A) (paragraphs 185-211 and FIG. 24-26 and 29A).
Seiders fails to teach the insulation being an insulation batt. De Lesseux teaches an analogous insulated bag having an insulation material encapsulated between panel sheets and further teaches that insulation foam and insulation batts are well-known and common alternative insulation materials (paragraphs 45, 46).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Seiders by replacing the insulation foam with an insulation batt, as taught by De Lesseux, as the substitution of one known insulation material for an alternative known insulation material to achieve the equivalent result of providing an insulation material between panel sheets would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Seiders as modified by De Lesseux teaches the insulated bag assembly of claim 1 above, wherein the insulated bag assembly further comprises an insulated blank comprising an insulation batt, a first sheet, and a second sheet, the insulation batt encapsulated in a blank cavity defined between the first sheet and the second sheet, the insulated blank defining at least one of the pair of opposing insulated main panels, the pair of opposing insulated side panels, and the bottom panel (Seiders: FIG. 29A and De Lesseux: paragraphs 45, 46).
Regarding claim 9, Seiders as modified by De Lesseux teaches the insulated bag assembly of claim 1 above, wherein the pair of opposing main panels and the pair of opposing side panels define a top border, and wherein the portion of the uninsulated panel border is attached to a portion of the uninsulated bag lip at the top border (Seiders: FIG. 29A).
Regarding claim 10, Seiders as modified by De Lesseux teaches the insulated bag assembly of claim 9 above, wherein the portion of the uninsulated panel border is attached to the portion of the uninsulated bag lip to form a hinged top panel (Seiders: FIG. 29A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7,8 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 3, 2026 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM 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 Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
