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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 22, 2026 has been entered.
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) 1 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vorderkunz (US 2008/0164269) in view of Andersen (WO 2021/229057).
With regards to claim 1, Vorderkunz teaches a method of manufacturing a one-piece insulating receptacle (Abstract) comprising providing a single blank from one or more materials, the blank formed from a unitary continuous piece of the one or more materials (paragraph 33).
Vorderkunz states that blank is formed into the one-piece insulating receptacle by any conventional means including welding (paragraph 36). Vorderkunz fails to explicitly disclose that the method for forming the receptacle by ultrasonic welding.
Andersen teaches a method of manufacturing an insulating receptacle (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Vorderkunz, where Andersen discloses comprising providing a blank from one or more materials (Figure 3 item 24 and Figure 4 item 16), the blank formed from a unitary continuous material (page 14 line 11); and ultrasonic welding the blank to form the insulating receptacle (page 15 lines 8 – 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Andersen’s ultrasonic welding in Vorderkunz’s method of manufacturing a one-piece insulating receptacle. The rationale being that, as stated by Andersen, it provides a higher quality seal in a faster and more robust manner as well as providing a narrower seal which reduces the amount of overlap needed in the welding zones (page 2 lines 28 – 31 and page 3 lines 1 – 2).
With regards to claim 2, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that the method further comprises disposing an indicia on the blank prior to the ultrasonic welding of the blank (page 14 lines 5 – 9).
With regards to claim 3, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Vorderkunz teaches that the blank is formed from at least one of a polyester weave material, a neoprene material, a foam material, a flexible material, a stretchy material, a liquid proof material, a liquid resistant material, and/or blends thereof (paragraph 32).
With regards to claim 4, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Vorderkunz teaches that the blank includes a plurality of sides, each of the sides having one or more opposing edges (as seen in Figures 4A – 4B and 5A – 5C items 18 and 30).
With regards to claim 5, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Vorderkunz teaches that the method comprises aligning an edge of one of the sides and an edge of another one of the sides prior to the welding of the blank (paragraph 34).
With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Vorderkunz teaches that the welding occurs adjacent the edges of the sides to join the sides together (paragraph 36).
With regards to claim 7, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that the ultrasonic welding of the blank is by a welding machine, and where the welding machine includes a fixture and a drive system having a welding horn (page 15 lines 25 – 31 and page 16 lines 1 – 21).
With regards to claim 8, the teachings of Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that the fixture and/or the welding horn includes one or more engagement/welding elements (page 15 lines 25 – 31 and page 16 lines 1 – 21).
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that the one or more engagement/welding elements of the fixture includes one or more protuberances formed thereon (page 17 lines 4 – 22).
With regards to claim 10, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that a distance between each of the protuberances is about 2.5 mm (page 17 lines 4 – 22).
With regards to claim 11, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that the one or more protuberance is a plurality of teeth formed on the one or more engagement/welding elements of the fixture (page 17 lines 4 – 22).
With regards to claim 12, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that the one or more engagement/welding elements of the welding horn includes one or more protuberances formed thereon (page 17 lines 4 – 22).
With regards to claim 13, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that a distance between each of the protuberances is about 2.5 mm (page 17 lines 4 – 22).
With regards to claim 14, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that the one or more protuberance is a plurality of teeth formed on the one or more engagement/welding elements of the fixture (page 17 lines 4 – 22).
With regards to claim 15, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that the method comprises transporting the blank by a carrier shuttle (page 18 lines 1 – 10).
With regards to claim 16, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that the ultrasonic welding has a total cycle time of about three seconds per insulating receptacle (page 17 lines 4 – 28).
With regards to claim 17, Vorderkunz teaches a method of manufacturing a one-piece insulating receptacle (Abstract) comprising:
Providing a single blank from one or more materials , the blank formed from a unitary continuous piece of the one or more materials (paragraph 33), where the blank includes opposing sides having one or more edges and a bottom continuously formed with the opposing sides (as seen in Figures 4A – 4B and 5A – 5C items 18 and 30)
Folding the blank upon itself to move the sides towards each other and to align the one or more edges of the sides (paragraph 34)
Welding the folded blank adjacent the edges of the sides to form the one-piece insulating receptacle (paragraph 36)
Vorderkunz states that blank is formed into the one-piece insulating receptacle by any conventional means including welding (paragraph 36). Vorderkunz fails to explicitly disclose that the method for forming the receptacle by disposing the folded blank in a shuttle, transporting the blank to an ultrasonic welding machine and then transporting the welded blank from the welding machine.
Andersen discloses a method of manufacturing an insulating receptacle (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Vorderkunz, comprising disposing the folded blank into a carrier shuttle (page 18 lines 1 – 10); transporting the folded blank to a welding machine by the carrier shuttle (page 18 lines 1 – 10), the welding machine including a welding horn and a fixture, each of the welding horn and the fixture includes a plurality of forming features (page 17 lines 4 – 22); ultrasonic welding the folded blank adjacent the edges of the sides to form the insulating receptacle (page 15 lines 8 – 11); and transporting the welded blank form the welding machine (page 18 lines 1 – 10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Andersen’s ultrasonic welding machine in Vorderkunz’s method of manufacturing a one-piece insulating receptacle. The rationale being that, as stated by Andersen, it provides a higher quality seal in a faster and more robust manner as well as providing a narrower seal which reduces the amount of overlap needed in the welding zones (page 2 lines 28 – 31 and page 3 lines 1 – 2).
With regards to claim 18, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that the method further comprises disposing an indicia on the blank prior to the ultrasonic welding of the blank (page 14 lines 5 – 9).
With regards to claim 19, Vorderkunz discloses a one-piece insulating receptacle (Abstract) comprising a single blank formed from a unitary continuous piece or one or more materials, the blank having opposing sides, where each of the sides includes one or more edges (paragraph 33, as seen in Figures 4A – 4B and 5A – 5C items 18 and 30); a welded seam adjacent each of the edges to form the one-piece insulating receptacle (paragraph 36). Vorderkunz fails to explicitly disclose that the seams are ultrasonic welded.
Andersen teaches a method of manufacturing an insulating receptacle (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Vorderkunz, where Andersen discloses comprising providing a blank from one or more materials (Figure 3 item 24 and Figure 4 item 16), the blank formed from a unitary continuous material (page 14 line 11); and ultrasonic welding the blank to form the insulating receptacle (page 15 lines 8 – 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Andersen’s ultrasonic welding in Vorderkunz’s one-piece insulating receptacle. The rationale being that, as stated by Andersen, it provides a higher quality seal in a faster and more robust manner as well as providing a narrower seal which reduces the amount of overlap needed in the welding zones (page 2 lines 28 – 31 and page 3 lines 1 – 2).
With regards to claim 20, the teachings of Vorderkunz and Andersen are presented above. Additionally, Andersen teaches that an indicia is provided on the blank (page 14 lines 5 – 9).
Response to Arguments
Due to Applicant’s amendments, Applicant’s arguments, filed May 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 - 20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vorderkunz (US 2008/0164269) as stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights