DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application with claims 12-20 withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2, “an insulated panel defining a panel border” should be --the insulated panel defining the panel border--.
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, 3-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker at al. (US 7,140,773 B2, hereinafter Becker) in view of D’Este et al. (US 1,942,917 A, hereinafter D’Este) and Willard et al. (US 4,819,793 A, hereinafter Willard).
Regarding claim 1, Becker teaches an insulated bag assembly, comprising:
a pair of opposing insulated main panels (20, 22);
a pair of opposing insulated side panels (16, 18);
a bottom panel (14) extending from the pair of opposing main panels and the pair of opposing side panels; and
a bag lip (25a, 25b, 27a, 27b-area above 21a, 21b, 23a, 23b) opposite the bottom panel and extending from the pair of opposing main panels and the pair of opposing side panels (column 4 line 19-column 7 line 26 and Fig. 1-10).
Becker fails to teach the bag lip being uninsulated. D’Este teaches an analogous insulated bag having a pair of opposing insulated main panels, a bottom, and a bag lip opposite from the bottom and extending from the pair of opposing main panels (Fig. 1, 2). D’Este further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the bag lip to be uninsulated so that the bag lip is more flexible and can be easily folded for closing the bag (page 1 line 63-page 2 line 24 and Fig. 1, 2).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Becker by configuring the bag lip to be uninsulated, as taught by D’Este, in order to provide more flexibility to the bag lip so that it can be easily folded for closing the bag.
Becker also fails to teach an insulated panel comprising a panel border attached to the uninsulated bag lip. Willard teaches an insulated bag assembly and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to additionally provide an insulated panel (52, 42) defining a panel border, wherein the panel border is attached to a portion of the bag main panels in order to provide an insulated ceiling for enclosing and insulating the products contained in the bag (column 4 line 67-column 5 line 36 and Fig. 5-9).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Becker, as modified by D’Este, by additionally providing an insulated panel defining a panel border attached to a portion of the bag main panels, as taught by Willard, in order to define an insulated ceiling for enclosing and insulating the products contained in the bag. Additionally, as the insulation stops at the top border, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the top border to be an obvious and desirable position to attach the panel portion in order to provide continuous insulation around the products in the bag.
Regarding claim 3, Becker as modified by D’Este and Willard teaches the insulated bag assembly of claim 1 above, wherein the insulated bag assembly further comprises an insulated blank comprising an insulation (36), a first sheet (32), and a second sheet (38), the insulation 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 (Becker: column 4 line 19-column 7 line 26 and Fig. 1-10) but fails to teach the insulation being an insulation batt.
However, D’Este also teaches an analogous insulated blank comprising an insulation (12), a first sheet (2), and a second sheet (4), wherein the insulation is encapsulated in a blank cavity defined between the first sheet and the second sheet, and wherein the insulated blank defines the pair of opposing main panels and the bottom. D’Este further teaches that analogous insulation layers are known in the prior art to be an insulation batt (page 1 lines 63-84 and Fig. 1-6).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to replace the insulation layer of Becker with the insulation batt of D’Este as the substitution of one known insulating layer for an alternative known insulating layer to achieve the equivalent result of forming an insulated blank and bag assembly would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Becker as modified by D’Este and Willard teaches the insulated bag assembly of claim 1 above, wherein a top of the pair of opposing main panels and the pair of opposing insulated side panels define a beveled edge and wherein the uninsulated bag lip is coupled to the beveled edge (D’Este: Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Becker as modified by D’Este and Willard teaches the insulated bag assembly of claim 1 above, wherein the uninsulated bag lip comprises a side crease line (angled creases) and a main crease line (corner creases) (Becker: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Becker as modified by D’Este and Willard teaches the insulated bag assembly of claim 1 above, wherein the insulated bag assembly comprises an insulated blank defining a first end and a second end, the insulation blank comprising an insulation encapsulated between a first sheet and a second sheet and defining a perimeter, wherein the first sheet and the second sheet extend beyond the insulation at the first end and the second end opposite the first end (Becker: Fig. 2 and D’Este: Fig. 2, 4-6) but fails to teach the insulation being an insulation batt.
D’Este teaches an analogous insulation blank comprising an insulation (12), a first sheet (2), and a second sheet (4), wherein the insulation is encapsulated in a blank cavity defined between the first sheet and the second sheet. D’Este further teaches that analogous insulation layers are known in the prior art to be an insulation batt (page 1 lines 63-84 and Fig. 1-6).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to replace the insulation layer of Becker with the insulation batt of D’Este as the substitution of one known insulating layer for an alternative known insulating layer to achieve the equivalent result of forming an insulated blank and bag assembly would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Becker as modified by D’Este and Willard teaches the insulated bag assembly of claim 7 above, wherein the insulation blank forms at least one panel of the pair of main panels and the pair of side panels (Becker: Fig. 1, 4-10).
Regarding claim 9, Becker as modified by D’Este and Willard 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 (Becker: 21a, 21b, 23a, 23b), and wherein the panel border is attached to a portion of the uninsulated bag lip at the top border (Willard: column 4 line 67-column 5 line 36 and Fig. 5-9, see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Becker as modified by D’Este and Willard teaches the insulted bag assembly of claim 9 above, wherein the panel border is attached to a portion of the uninsulated bag lip to form a hinged (56) top panel (Willard: column 4 line 67-column 5 line 36 and Fig. 5-9).
Regarding claim 11, Becker as modified by D’Este and Willard teaches the insulted bag assembly of claim 9 above, the insulated panel is positioned within the bag cavity defined by the main panels and the side panels, and the panel border is attached at a beveled edge (D’Este: Fig. 2) formed at the top border (Willard: column 4 line 67-column 5 line 36 and Fig. 5-9).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of D’Este and Willard, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malone et al. (US 6,513,974 B2, hereinafter Malone).
Regarding claim 2, Becker as modified by D’Este and Willard teaches the insulated bag assembly of claim 1 above, wherein the bottom panel further comprises a pair of wings (74), each wing of the pair of wings attached to an outer surface of a different side panel of the pair of side panels (Becker: Fig. 1, 8-10) but fails to teach the pair of wings being uninsulated.
Malone teaches an analogous insulated bag having a pair of opposing insulated main panels, a pair of opposing insulated side panels, a bottom panel comprising a pair of wings, and a bag lip, wherein each wing of the pair of wings attached to an outer surface of a different side panel of the pair of side panels (FIG. 13-16). Malone further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the pair of wings to be uninsulated (column 2 lines 52-67, column 10 line 52-column 11 line 6) in order to increase flexibility and in order to provide a space to effectively receive and collect melted ice and any liquid leakage so that it is separated from the product so as to enhance freshness and minimize contamination.
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Becker by further configuring the pair of wings to be uninsulated, as taught by Malone, in order to increase flexibility and in order to configure each of the wings to effectively receive and collect melted ice and any liquid leakage so that it is separated from the product so as to enhance freshness and minimize contamination.an analogous bag
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of D’Este and Willard, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Orstrom (US 2,070,747 A).
Regarding claim 6, Becker as modified by D’Este and Willard teaches the insulated bag assembly of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the bottom panel comprising two bottom subpanels joined by a bottom seam, wherein the bottom seam extends from one side panel to the opposite side panel.
Orstrom teaches an analogous bag assembly comprising a pair of opposing main panels, a pair of opposing side panels and a bottom panel (FIG. 1). Orstrom further teaches that it is well-known and common in the prior art to configure a blank for forming the bag assembly such that the bottom panel is formed from two bottom subpanels joined by a bottom seam that extends from one side panel to the opposite side panel (FIG. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Becker by alternatively configuring a blank for forming the bag assembly such that the bottom panel is formed by two bottom subpanels joined by a bottom seam, wherein the bottom seam extends from one side panel to the opposite side panel, as taught by Orstrom, as the substitution of one known blank and bottom panel configuration for an alternative known blank and bottom panel configuration to achieve the equivalent result of forming a flat bottom panel would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 20206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Becker and D’Este fail to disclose, teach or suggest an insulated panel comprising a panel border attached to the uninsulated bag lip, is not persuasive.
Becker and D’Este were not intended to teach the argued limitation. The argued limitation was previously presented in claim 9 and as such, Willard was previously applied to teach the argued limitation.
Applicant’s argument Becker teachers away from the claimed configuration by emphasizing that the resulting tight seal is important to the thermal effectiveness of the container, is not persuasive.
The tight seal of Becker does not necessarily have anything to do with the insulation in the bap lip. The tight seal can still be formed by folding and sealing with a sealing strip (26) as described without the insulation in the bag lip. Becker expressly states that “the formation and closing of the top 24 results in a tight seal that significantly seals the contents of the container 10 off from any air that might otherwise enter through the top of the container”. While Becker does teach the bag lip being insulated, Becker does not expressly state that the insulation in the bag lip is required for the tight seal as described. Additionally, the modification of Becker in view of Willard would remedy any insulation concerns at the top of the insulated bag assembly when the bag lip is sealed. Willard essentially provides insulation in the same area of the bag in a different way.
Applicant’s argument that the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction, is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, Becker and Willard teach alternative structures for insulating the top portion of a bag. Accordingly, the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is proper.
Applicant’s argument that Becker does not disclose a problem of insufficient flexibility or difficultly closing the bag that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill to remove insulation, is not persuasive.
Becker does not have to disclose a problem in order for a person of ordinary skill to be motivated to make the medication suggested in the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights