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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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 26-29 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 26 call for the limitation of " wherein the gas flow director covers substantially all of the bottom and the plurality of sides of the insulation base " in line 2. It is unclear what would necessarily constitute a “substantially all of”.
Claims 27-29 are dependent from claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 13-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzo et al. (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2018/0328644 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rizzo et al. ‘644, in view of Fallgren (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2018/0134427 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fallgren ‘427.
Regarding claim 1, Rizzo et al. ‘644 disclose a system (11) for storing and/or transporting a payload of temperature-sensitive materials {see ¶ [0065]}, the system comprising: an insulation base (225-1), the insulation base comprising a plurality of vacuum insulated panels (225-2, 225-3, 225-4, 225-5) joined together at one or more interfaces to define a cavity (231), the insulation base having an open top {see Abstract, Fig.14: ¶¶ [0115]}.
However, Rizzo et al. ‘644 fail to disclose the limitations of (b) a gas flow director, the gas flow director comprising a receptacle having a top end, the top end comprising an opening, the receptable being adapted to receive a payload and a quantity of dry ice, the gas flow director being disposed within the cavity of the insulation base so as to reduce the egress of carbon dioxide gas from the cavity of the insulation base through the one or more interfaces.
Fallgren ‘427 teaches: the concept of a gas flow director (20), the gas flow director comprising a receptacle (400) having a top end, the top end comprising an opening (420), the receptable being adapted to receive a payload and a quantity of dry ice, the gas flow director being disposed within the cavity (100) of the insulation base so as to reduce the egress of carbon dioxide gas from the cavity of the insulation base through the one or more interfaces {see Figs. 19 and 20: ¶¶ [0233-0243], [0864-0869], [0893], [0895], [0897] and [0913], wherein food item constitutes payload}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Rizzo et al. ‘644 in view of Fallgren ‘427 to include the use of gas flow director and dry ice, in order to facilitate cooling the cavity so as to enable a further extended period of time during which the chilled state of payload is maintained {Fallgren ‘427 - ¶¶ [0233], [0235] and [0238]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Rizzo et al. ‘644 in view of Fallgren ‘427 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 1, Rizzo et al. ‘644 disclose wherein the insulation base is 5-sided and comprises a bottom vacuum insulated panel (225-1) and four side vacuum insulated panels (225-2, 225-3, 225-4, 225-5), the four-side vacuum insulated panels joined to the bottom vacuum insulated panel {see Abstract, Fig.14: ¶¶ [0115]}.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 1, Rizzo et al. ‘644 further disclose comprising an insulation lid, the insulation lid being removably positionable over the open top of the insulation base {see ¶¶ [0030-0031], [0036] and [0041]}.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 1, Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 further discloses the limitations of wherein the opening at the top end of the gas flow director is closed but not sealed airtight {see ¶¶ [0240], wherein a valve facilitates opening for the flow of gas}.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 4, Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 further discloses the limitations of wherein the closed opening at the top end of the gas flow director is closed by folding the gas flow director over upon itself {see ¶¶ [0240], wherein a valve facilitates closing for the flow of gas}.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 4, Rizzo et al. ‘644 further disclose comprising an insulation lid, the insulation lid being removably positionable over the open top of the insulation base, the closed opening at the top end of the gas flow director being positioned below the insulation lid when the insulation lid is positioned over the insulation base {see ¶¶ [0030-0031], [0036] and [0041]}.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 6, Rizzo et al. ‘644 further disclose comprising a payload box (99), the payload box being adapted to hold the temperature-sensitive materials and capable of being removably received within the gas flow director {see Fig. 1: ¶¶ [0066], [0081], [0084], [0096] and [105]}.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 1, Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 further discloses the limitations of wherein the opening at the top end of the receptacle is closable and sealable airtight and wherein the gas flow director further comprises a one-way valve mounted in the receptacle to permit gas to escape from the receptacle while preventing outside gas from entering the receptacle {see ¶¶ [0240-0242], [0866], [0871] and [0892]}.
Regarding claim 14, Rizzo et al. ‘644 disclose a system (11) for storing and/or transporting a payload of temperature-sensitive materials {see ¶ [0065]}, the system comprising: an insulation base (225-1), the insulation base comprising a plurality of vacuum insulated panels (225-2, 225-3, 225-4, 225-5) joined together at one or more interfaces to define a cavity (231) for receiving the payload of temperature-sensitive materials, the insulation base having an open top {see Abstract, Fig.14: ¶¶ [0115]}; an outer box (13), the insulation base being disposed within the outer box {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0067]}.
However, Rizzo et al. ‘644 fail to disclose the limitations of a gas flow director, the gas flow director comprising a receptacle having an opening at a top end thereof, the gas flow director being disposed within the outer box so as to reduce the egress of gas from the cavity of the insulation base through the one or more interfaces.
Fallgren ‘427 teaches: the concept of a gas flow director (20), the gas flow director comprising a receptacle (400) having a top end, the top end comprising an opening (420), the receptable being adapted to receive a payload and a quantity of dry ice, the gas flow director being disposed within the cavity of the insulation base so as to reduce the egress of carbon dioxide gas from the cavity of the insulation base through the one or more interfaces {see Figs. 19 and 20: ¶¶ [0233-0243], [0864-0869], [0893], [0895], [0897] and [0913], wherein food item constitutes payload}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Rizzo et al. ‘644 in view of Fallgren ‘427 to include the use of gas flow director and dry ice, in order to facilitate cooling the cavity so as to enable a further extended period of time during which the chilled state of payload is maintained {Fallgren ‘427 - ¶¶ [0233], [0235] and [0238]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Rizzo et al. ‘644 in view of Fallgren ‘427 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 14, wherein the gas flow director is capable of being disposed within the insulation base. Applicant is reminded that, while reference does not disclose the gas flow director is disposed within the insulation base, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disposed the gas flow director within the insulation base in order to facilitate better cooling of the bottom portion of payload bottom, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 14, wherein the insulation base is capable of being disposed within the gas flow director. Applicant is reminded that, while reference does not disclose the insulation base is capable of being disposed within the gas flow director, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disposed the insulation base within the gas flow director, in order to facilitate better insulation of the gas flow director bottom portion, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 14, Rizzo et al. ‘644 further disclose comprising an insulation lid, the insulation lid being removably positionable over the open top of the insulation base {see ¶¶ [0030-0031], [0036] and [0041]}.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 14, Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 further discloses the limitation of wherein the opening at the top end of the gas flow director is closed but not sealed airtight {see ¶¶ [0240], wherein a valve facilitates opening for the flow of gas}.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 18, Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 further discloses the limitation of wherein the closed opening at the top end of the gas flow director is closed by folding the gas flow director over upon itself {see ¶¶ [0054] and [0115]}.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 19, Rizzo et al. ‘644 further disclose comprising an insulation lid, the insulation lid being removably positionable over the open top of the insulation base {see ¶¶ [0030-0031], [0036] and [0041]}; Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 disclose the limitations of the closed opening at the top end of the gas flow director being positioned below the insulation lid when the insulation lid is positioned over the insulation base {see ¶¶ [0054] and [0115]}.
Regarding claim 21, Rizzo et al. ‘644 disclose a system (11) for storing and/or transporting a payload of temperature-sensitive materials {see ¶ [0065]}, the system comprising:
an insulation base (225-1), the insulation base comprising a plurality of pieces (225-2, 225-3, 225-4, 225-5) joined together at one or more interfaces to define a cavity (231) for receiving the payload of temperature-sensitive materials, the insulation base having an open top {see Abstract, Fig.14: ¶¶ [0115]}; an outer box (13), the insulation base being disposed within the outer box {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶ [0067]}.
However, Rizzo et al. ‘644 fail to disclose the limitations of a gas flow director, the gas flow director reducing the egress of gas from the cavity of the insulation base through the one or more interfaces, the gas flow director comprising a receptacle having a first opening, the first opening being located at a top end of the receptacle, the gas flow director being disposed within the outer box, with the first opening having at least some patency.
Fallgren ‘427 teaches: the concept of a gas flow director (20), the gas flow director reducing the egress of gas from the cavity of the insulation base through the one or more interfaces, the gas flow director comprising a receptacle (400) having a first opening (420), the first opening being located at a top end of the receptacle {see Figs. 19 and 20: ¶¶ [0233-0243], [0864-0869], [0893], [0895], [0897] and [0913], wherein food item constitutes payload}, the gas flow director capable of being disposed within the outer box, with the first opening having at least some patency.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Rizzo et al. ‘644 in view of Fallgren ‘427 to include the use of gas flow director, in order to facilitate cooling the cavity so as to enable a further extended period of time during which the chilled state of payload is maintained {Fallgren ‘427 - ¶¶ [0233], [0235] and [0238]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Rizzo et al. ‘644 in view of Fallgren ‘427 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 21 wherein the insulation base is capable of being disposed within the gas flow director. Applicant is reminded that, while reference does not disclose the insulation base is capable of being disposed within the gas flow director, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disposed the insulation base within the gas flow director, in order to facilitate better insulation of the gas flow director bottom portion, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 21, wherein the gas flow director is capable of being disposed within the insulation base. Applicant is reminded that, while reference does not disclose the gas flow director is disposed within the insulation base, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disposed the gas flow director within the insulation base in order to facilitate better cooling of the bottom portion of payload bottom, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 21, Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 further discloses the limitations of comprising a quantity of dry ice positioned within the cavity of the insulation base {see ¶¶ [0234-0238]}.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 21, Rizzo et al. ‘644 further disclose comprising a product box (99) for receiving the payload of temperature-sensitive materials, the product box disposed within the cavity (83) of the insulation base {see Figs. 10(a) and 12: ¶¶ [0082-0083]}.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 21, Rizzo et al. ‘644 disclose wherein the insulation base comprises a bottom (225-1) and a plurality of sides (225-2, 225-3, 225-4, 225-5) {see Abstract, Fig.14: ¶¶ [0115]}, and wherein the gas flow director covers substantially all of the bottom and the plurality of sides of the insulation base. Applicant is reminded that, while reference does not disclose the gas flow director covers all of the bottom and the plurality of sides of the insulation base, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disposed the gas flow director covers all of the bottom and the plurality of sides of the insulation base, in order to facilitate complete gas flow over entire perimeter of the cavity, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 26, Rizzo et al. ‘644 disclose wherein the insulation base is 5-sided and comprises a bottom vacuum insulated panel (225-1) and four side vacuum insulated panels (225-2, 225-3, 225-4, 225-5), the four-side vacuum insulated panels positioned on top of the bottom vacuum insulated panel {see Abstract, Fig.14: ¶¶ [0115]}.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 26, disclose wherein the gas flow director is capable of not being provided to cover any of the open top of the insulation base. Applicant is reminded that, while reference does not disclose the gas flow director does not cover any of the open top of the insulation base, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made not to provide the gas flow director to cover any of the open top of the insulation base in order to facilitate easy opening and closing of the top cover, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 26, wherein the gas flow director is capable of covers a portion, but not an entirety, of the open top of the insulation base. Applicant is reminded that, while reference does not disclose the gas flow director is capable of covers a portion, but not an entirety, of the open top of the insulation base, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made not to cover a portion, but not an entirety, of the open top of the insulation base in order to minimize overall weight and maximize overall volume capacity of the cavity, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 21, Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 further disclose wherein the receptacle (400) comprises a flexible bag and wherein the flexible bag comprises a minimally breathable polymer film or sheet {see Figs. 19-20: ¶¶ [0222-0223] and [0662]}.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 21, Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 further disclose wherein the patency of the first opening is adjustable in size {see ¶¶ [0055]}.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 21, Rizzo et al. ‘644 disclose further comprising an insulation lid, the insulation lid being removably positionable over the open top of the insulation base {see ¶¶ [0030-0031], [0036] and [0041]}.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 32 wherein the first opening of the gas flow director is capable of being positioned below the insulation lid when the insulation lid is positioned over the insulation base. Applicant is reminded that, while reference does not disclose wherein the first opening of the gas flow director is capable of being positioned below the insulation lid when the insulation lid is positioned over the insulation base, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the first opening of the gas flow director below the insulation lid when the insulation lid is positioned over the insulation base, in order to facilitate exhaustion of unwanted gas from the cavity, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427, further in view of DYCKMANS et al (English Translated French Patent Pub No.: FR 2971330 A1), hereinafter referred to as DYCKMANS et al ‘330.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644 and Fallgren ‘427 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 7, EXCEPT for the limitations of further comprising a first refrigerant cassette, the first refrigerant cassette being adapted to hold a first quantity of dry ice and being removably received within the gas flow director.
DYCKMANS et al ‘330 teach: the concept of a refrigerant cassette (306) being adapted to hold a first quantity of dry ice {see Description, Page 1, and Page 13, ¶9}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 dry ice in view of DYCKMANS et al ‘330 to the use of refrigerant cassette being adapted to hold quantity of dry ice, in order to facilitate cassette cooling system {DYCKMANS et al ‘330 – Summary of the Invention, Page 3}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 in view of DYCKMANS et al ‘330 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644, Fallgren ‘427 and DYCKMANS et al ‘330 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 8, Rizzo et al. ‘644, disclose wherein the first refrigerant cassette (251-1) is positioned below the payload box (213) {as shown in Fig. 13: ¶ [0117]; wherein temperature-control member constitutes the refrigerant cassette (306)}.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644, Fallgren ‘427 and DYCKMANS et al ‘330 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 9, Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified Fallgren ‘427, in view DYCKMANS et al ‘330 further comprising a refrigerant cassette (306), the refrigerant cassette capable being adapted to hold a quantity of dry ice and being removably received within the gas flow director above the payload box {see Description, Page 1, and Page 13, ¶9}.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzo et al. ‘644, Fallgren ‘427 and DYCKMANS et al ‘330 as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of KILMER et al (WO Pub No.: 2019/079186 A1), hereinafter referred to as KILMER et al ‘186.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644, Fallgren ‘427 and DYCKMANS et al ‘330 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 10, EXCEPT for the limitations of further comprising a scaffolding, the scaffolding being removably received within the gas flow director around the payload box to define a plurality of vertical cavities adapted to receive dry ice.
KILMER et al ‘186 teach: the concept of a scaffolding (250), the scaffolding being removably received within the gas flow director around the payload box to define a plurality of vertical cavities (221-226) adapted to receive dry ice (190) {as shown in Figs. 10 and 11a-11b: Page 12, ¶2, ¶4; Page 13, ¶2; Page 13, ¶1; Page 15, ¶¶1-5, Page 16 ¶¶ 1- 4}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 in view of view of KILMER et al ‘186 to the use of a scaffolding capable of being removably received within the gas flow director around the payload box to define a plurality of vertical cavities adapted to receive dry ice, in order to facilitate filling or replenishing the temperature control material units below the payload box without removing payload box {KILMER et al ‘186 –, Page 15, ¶4}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Rizzo et al. ‘644 as modified by Fallgren ‘427 in view of KILMER et al ‘186 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Rizzo et al. ‘644, Fallgren ‘427, DYCKMANS et al ‘330 and KILMER et al ‘186 disclose and teach the system as claimed in claim 11, Rizzo et al. ‘644, DYCKMANS et al ‘330 in view of KILMER et al ‘186 further disclose the limitation wherein the first refrigerant cassette (210) further comprises dry ice (190), wherein the second refrigerant cassette (220) further comprises dry ice (190), and further comprising dry ice in at least some of the plurality of vertical cavities {as shown in Figs. 10 and 11B: Page 16, ¶2, ¶4}.
Conclusion
3. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20100147837-A1 to Williams; Alton.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571)272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
03/19/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763