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 § 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (U.S. 2006/0130962 A1) in view of Lindstedt et al. (WO 2017/220662A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harrison teaches a thermally-insulating packaging assembly (see Abstract), comprising an enclosure (box; paragraph [0004], [0064]) having a plurality of walls defining an interior volume (cavity of box) therebetween for receiving a plurality of beverage containers (paragraph [0004]), each of the plurality of walls including a substrate 7 (paragraphs [0061 ]-[0062]), an adhesive layer (paragraph [0074]), and a metallized layer 104 (102, 104; paragraph [0066]); figure 2) coupled to the substrate via the adhesive layer (paragraph [0074]).
Further regarding claim 1, Harrison discloses the claimed invention except for the printable coating. Lindstedt et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with a printable coating (see “Advantage” paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method Harrison with the box having a printable coating, as taught by Lindstedt et al., in order to provide a durable surface to print images for advertising the contents.
Regarding claim 2, a heat-resistant coating layer 103 coupled to the metallized layer (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 3, the metallized layer 102, 104 is positioned on an exterior of the packaging assembly (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 4, the metallized layer 102, 104 is configured to reflect light away from the interior volume of the packaging assembly (“reflective”; paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 5, the metallized layer 102, 104 is configured to be positioned on an interior of the packaging assembly adjacent contents of the packaging assembly (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 6, the metallized layer 102, 104 is configured to insulate the contents of the packaging assembly (aluminum 102 has insulative properties; paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 7, the metallized layer 102, 104 contains aluminum (paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 8, the base layer 7 (understood to be the substrate) contains one or both of a paperboard material or a cardboard material (paragraphs [0061 ]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 9, Harrison teaches a multi-layer packaging assembly (see Abstract), comprising a plurality of walls arranged to define an interior space (cavity of box), at least one of the plurality of walls including a base layer 7 (paragraphs [0061]-[0062]), an insulating adhesive layer (paragraph [0074]) disposed atop the base layer 7 (figure 2), a metallized layer 102, 104 (paragraph [0066]) coupled to the base layer 7 via the insulating adhesive layer (paragraph [0074]), and a heat-resistant coating layer disposed atop the metallized layer 103 (paragraph [0056]).
Further regarding claim 9, Harrison discloses the claimed invention except for the printable coating. Lindstedt et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with a printable coating (see “Advantage” paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method Harrison with the box having a printable coating, as taught by Lindstedt et al., in order to provide a durable surface to print images for advertising the contents.
Regarding claim 10, the metallized layer 102, 104 is located on an outward-facing side of the base layer (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 11, the metallized layer 102, 104 is configured to reflect light away from the interior space (“reflective”; paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 12, the metallized layer 102, 104 located on an inward-facing side of the base layer (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 13, the metallized layer 102, 104 is configured to insulate the contents of the packaging assembly (aluminum has insulative properties; paragraph [0080]).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (U.S. 2006/0130962 A1) in view of Zacherle et al. (U.S. 2021/0221588) and Lindstedt et al. (WO 2017/220662A1).
Regarding claim 14, Harrison teaches a method of forming a multi-layer packaging assembly (see Abstract), comprising providing a substrate 7 (paragraphs [0061 ]-[0062]), depositing an adhesive layer on the substrate (paragraph [0074]), depositing a metallized layer 102, 104 (paragraph [0066]) on the adhesive layer (paragraph [0074]; figure 2), the substrate 7, adhesive layer and the metallized layer 102, 104 forming a layered assembly (figure 2), and forming the layered assembly into an enclosure having an interior volume (box; paragraph [0004]).
Further regarding claim 14, Harrison discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of beverage containers and the printable coating. Zacherle et al. teaches that it is known to store a plurality of beverage containers within a box (see paragraph [0002]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method Harrison with the box storing a plurality of beverage containers, as taught by Zacherle et al., in order to transport a plurality of beverage containers for sale together as a package.
Additionally, Lindstedt et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with a printable coating (see “Advantage” paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method Harrison with the box having a printable coating, as taught by Lindstedt et al., in order to provide a durable surface to print images for advertising the contents.
Regarding claim 15, applying a heat- resistant coating layer 103 to the metallized layer 102, 104 (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 16, positioning the metallized layer 102, 104 on an exterior of the packaging assembly (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 17, the metallized layer 102, 104 is configured to reflect light away from the interior volume of the packaging assembly (“reflective”; paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, positioning the metallized layer 102, 104 on an interior of the packaging assembly adjacent contents of the packaging assembly (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 19, the metallized layer 102, 104 is configured to insulate the contents of the packaging assembly (aluminum has insulative properties; paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 20, the metallized layer 102, 104 is coupled with the base layer via transfer lamination (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendment filed November 19, 2025 is sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in the previous Office Action. Applicant argues that Harrison does not teach a printable coating on the exterior of the container. The secondary reference of Lindstedt et al. (WO 2017/220662A1) has been added to the rejections above for the teaching of providing a printable coating on the exterior of the container to receive printing. Printing is commonly used in the container art to advertise the contents of the container, give the container a decorative appearance or to relay important information to the consumer. The printable coating of Lindstedt et al. allows the manufacturer of the container to print material on the exterior of the container in an effective manner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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 E. Avilés 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736