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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 3 shows reference number 5, but this reference number is not in the written description.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “4” has been used to designate both “a double sided adhesive flap” and “an external sticker mechanism”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “the compartment is customizable in position within the container”. This is not enabled.
There is no description in the Specification how the compartment is configured to be customizable in position within the container. The compartments are only disclosed to be designed to house temperature regulating elements (2). It appears from Figure 4, that the invention relates to an outer box, with a separate insert. However, applicant only identifies a single component as comprising the “container and lid component (1)” Whether element as the temperature regulating element 2 is shown in the customizable compartment is unclear, as there is no distinct structure showing the compartments nor are any means identified to position or reposition the compartments. Therefore, how such compartments are constructed to be customizable not enabled. It is not shown if such compartments are integral with the insert or how they are attachable as desired within the container.
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, these claims recite “adjustable ventilation strips for controlling airflow and condensation”. This is not enabled.
Applicant identifies adjustable ventilation strips with reference number 3. However, how such strips are configured or function to be adjustable or to provide ventilation is not shown, described, or identified. It appears from Figures 2 and 4 that the ventilation strip is a static component without any apertures or means to provide adjustment. Therefore, how such a strip is configured or operates is not enabled. It is further not understood or enabled how such adjustable strips minimize condensation as recited in Claim 4, as the strip (3) is shown on the UPPER SURFACE of the insert.
All dependent claims are rejected as dependent on a rejected independent claim.
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 1-12 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites “accommodating one or more food items”. This does not specify the container as being capable of accommodating one or more food items, as the food items are not positively recited. Furthermore, Claim 1 recites “at least two compartments, each compartment for accommodating temperature regulating elements”. It is not clear if the term “for accommodating temperature regulating elements” imparts any structural significance relating to features of the temperature regulating elements, such as the size or material composition of the temperature regulating elements.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the compartment" in the first line. This is indefinite, as Claim 1 recites AT LEAST TWO compartments. Therefore, it is unclear which compartment of the (minimum two) compartments recited in Claim 1 are configured to be customizable.
Claim 9 recites “a separate (singular) container and lid components (plural)”. This is ungrammatical and unclear, as there are no lid components (i.e. more than one) shown.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, how such compartments are configured to be customizable is not enabled, as the structure and construction of the compartments is not adequately shown or identified as being customizable in position. Therefore the claims are also indefinite. For the purposes of examination, any known means of making adjustably positioned compartments will be considered to meet the limitations of the claims.
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, details relating to the adjustable ventilation strips, their construction, and function are not enabled as discussed above. Therefore, the claim is also indefinite. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that any known adjustable ventilation means will meet the limitations of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Repking (US 2734349).
Regarding Claim 1, Repking discloses a multifunctional packaging container comprising: a flat-box design that is configurable from a flat state to an assembled state (Col. 2 Lines 11-14) accommodating flowers. Repking also discloses at least two compartments (insert C), accommodating temperature-regulating elements (Col. 4 Lines 4-5). Repking specifically identifies that more than one insert may be employed and positioned as desired in Col. 4 Lines 41-44.
While Repking discloses that flowers or other perishable temperature sensitive items are stored in the container (Col. 1 Lines 15-21), Repking does not explicitly disclose the use to accommodate food items.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the container of Repking may also be used to store and transport food as an obvious variation in the contents of the container. Please note that the recitation of contents for a container is a statement of intended use and does not provide any structural limitations to the container.
Regarding Claim 2, Repking discloses the compartments are customizable in position within the container.
Regarding Claim 5, Repking discloses the container is made of solid fiberboard, or any other suitable material. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that water-resistant food-safe paper or plastic are suitable materials used in the transport of perishable items and ice.
Regarding Claim 6, Repking discloses the insert C is filled with ice or other heat absorbing material (Col. 4 Lines 4-5). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that ice packs are similar heat absorbing materials that are equivalent to ice.
Regarding Claims 7-8 while Repking does not disclose a double-sided adhesive flap with a tear-off strip or an external sticker, these are known means to seal and closed a container that a person having ordinary skill in the art would readily implement as known container sealing means. Please see Kroeze (US 7219797) Elements 66 and 64 (Col. 7 Lines 14-24).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Repking (US 2734349) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hill (US 2453574). Similarly, Claims 9-12 are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Repking (US 2734349) in view of Hill (US 2453574).
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Repking discloses a flat box design with compartments for housing temperature-regulating elements as discussed in Claim 1 above. While Repking discloses ventilation holes or apertures (22) for the circulation of refrigerated air (Col. 3 Lines 3-8), Repking does not disclose that the ventilation means are adjustable.
Hill discloses a similar ventilated container wherein the ventilation means is adjustable by way of insertion of panels (39, 40) to selectively block or open similar ventilating apertures (42). Repking and Hill are analogous inventions in the art of ventilated containers with cooling means.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compartment of Repking with the adjustability means disclosed in Hill in order to allow a user to selectively adjust the circulation within the container due to changing conditions in the temperature and humidity during storage and shipping or for different contents (Col. 1 Lines 1-8).
Regarding Claim 4, the adjustable ventilation means of Hill would minimize condensation within the container.
Regarding Claim 10, as discussed above, Repking discloses the insert C is filled with ice or other heat absorbing material (Col. 4 Lines 4-5). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that ice packs are similar heat absorbing materials that are equivalent to ice.
Regarding Claim 11, Repking discloses the compartment is customizable in position based on user preference.
Regarding Claim 12, Repking discloses the container and lid are constructed from durable materials suitable for various temperature conditions.
Regarding Claim 13, the use of external stickers or tape equivalents are well known means to seal a container that would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art and applicable to Repking.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, please note Cornish (US 3678703), Cummings (US 3352472), and Wasserman (US 2317005).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3736