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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 18, 2026.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated July 17, 2026, claims 1, 3, 15, 21-24, 29-31, and 36-38 were amended, and claims 4, 8-11, 17, 20, 25-28, 32-35, 39, 42, and 46 were cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-16, 18, 19, 21-24, 29-31, 36-38, 40, 41, and 43-45 are pending, with claim 15 withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims overcome the drawing objections.
The amendments to the claims overcome the claim rejections over 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the art rejections over Baron have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “planar exterior surface of the at least one sidewall” and “planar interior surface of the at least one sidewall” recited in claims 1 and 38 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). All of the drawings show a curved sidewall that is not planar (see Figs. 1-7). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 38, line 11: “between adjacent channels the planar exterior surface” should read “between adjacent channels and the planar exterior surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-14, 16, 18, 19, 21-24, 29-31, 36-38, 40, 41, and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a planar exterior surface” and “a planar interior surface” in lines 5 and 7, respectively. It is unclear what is meant by these terms. The term “planar” is not used in the specification, and all of the figures show curved sidewalls (see Figs. 1-7).
Claim 1 recites “the at least one sidewall having an interior surface and an exterior surface” at line 4, and later recites “a planar exterior surface of the at least one sidewall” and “a planar interior surface of the at least one sidewall.” It is unclear whether the planar exterior surface and planar interior surface are referring to the interior surface and exterior surface previously recited, or whether they are defining a separate interior and exterior surface.
Claim 7 recites “the plurality of protrusions are concave on the interior surface of the at least one sidewall” in lines 1-2. The plurality of protrusions are already defined as extending from the planar exterior surface, and there are co-located recesses on the planar interior surface, as recited in claim 1. It is unclear how the protrusions could be concave on the interior surface as claimed. Is the “concave” referring to the recesses already recited in claim 1?
Claim 24 recites “the plurality of ribs are concave on the interior surface of the at least one sidewall” in lines 1-2. The plurality of ribs are already defined as extending from a planar exterior surface and there are a plurality channels recessed from the planar interior surface that are circumferentially co-located, as recited in claim 38. It is unclear how the ribs could be concave on the interior surface as claimed. Is the “concave” referring to the channels already recited in claim 38?
Claim 38 recites “a planar interior surface” and “a planar exterior surface” in lines 6 and 8, respectively. It is unclear what is meant by these terms. The term “planar” is not used in the specification, and all of the figures show curved sidewalls (see Figs. 1-7).
Claim 38 recites “the at least one sidewall having an interior surface and an exterior surface” at line 4, and later recites “a planar exterior surface of the at least one sidewall” and “a planar interior surface of the at least one sidewall.” It is unclear whether the planar exterior surface and planar interior surface are referring to the interior surface and exterior surface previously recited, or whether they are defining a separate interior and exterior surface.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 12-14, 16, 18, 19, 21-24, 29-31, 36, 37, 40, 41, and 43-45 are also rejected through their dependence on a rejected parent claim (details above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21-24, 29, 31, 37-41, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. 8,474,610 to Knight et al. (hereinafter, “Knight”).
Regarding claim 1, Knight discloses an insulative container (container 10, Fig. 1), the insulative container (container 10) comprising: a base (bottom wall 18, Fig. 1); at least one sidewall (sidewall 22, Fig. 1) which extends upwardly from the base (bottom wall 18, see Fig. 1) and terminates in a rim (rim 24, Fig. 1), the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22) having an interior surface (annotated Fig. 1 below) and an exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1); a plurality of protrusions (ribs 30, Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 9-18) extending from a planar exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22), wherein the protrusions (ribs 30) form co-located recesses (flutes 32, Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 9-18) in a planar interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22), and wherein the planar exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) between adjacent protrusions (ribs 30) and the planar interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) between adjacent recesses (flutes 32) are co-located (see Fig. 1) and define a series of thermally insulative gaps (gaps between ribs 30, see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
569
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Knight Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Knight further discloses the container (container 10) is configured to retain food therein (col. 1, ll. 6-9).
Regarding claim 5, Knight further discloses the plurality of protrusions (ribs 30) are convex (col. 3, ll. 9-18) on the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22).
Regarding claim 6, Knight further discloses the plurality of protrusions (ribs 30) protrude outwardly (col. 3, ll. 9-18) from the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22).
Regarding claim 7, Knight further discloses the plurality of protrusions (ribs 30) are concave (see Fig. 1) on the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22).
Regarding claim 12, Knight further discloses the insulative container (container 10) is disposable (container 10 is capable of being disposed of).
Regarding claim 14, Knight further discloses the insulative container (container 10) is arranged to be stackable (col. 3, ll. 1-8) with other at least one or more similar insulative containers (col. 3, ll. 1-8).
Regarding claim 16, Knight further discloses a portion (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22) includes no protrusions (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Knight further discloses the series of thermally insulative gaps (gaps between ribs 30) are uniformly spaced along the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 38, Knight discloses an insulative container (container 10, Fig. 1), the insulative container (container 10) comprising: a base (bottom wall 18, Fig. 1); at least one sidewall (sidewall 22, Fig. 1) which extends upwardly from the base (bottom wall 18, see Fig. 1) and terminates in a rim (rim 24, Fig. 1), the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22) having an interior surface (annotated Fig. 1 above) and an exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1); a plurality of channels (flutes 32, Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 9-18) recessed from a planar interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22), and extending at least partially along an axial length (height of sidewall 22 in vertical direction, see Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22); and a plurality of ribs (ribs 30, Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 9-18) extending from a planar exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22), and extending at least partially along the axial length (height of sidewall 22 in vertical direction) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22), wherein the planar interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) between adjacent channels (flutes 32) and the planar exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) between adjacent ribs (ribs 30) are circumferentially co-located (see Fig. 1) and define a series of thermally insulative gaps (gaps between ribs 30, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 40, Knight further discloses the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22) is not smooth (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 41, Knight further discloses the channels (flutes 32) allow heat radiating from food inside the container to remain within the container (channels are capable of allowing heat to remain within the container).
Regarding claim 45, Knight further discloses a portion (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22) includes no channels or ribs (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Knight further discloses the container (container 10) is configured to retain food therein (col. 1, ll. 6-9).
Regarding claim 22, Knight further discloses the plurality of ribs (ribs 30) are convex (col. 3, ll. 9-18) on the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22).
Regarding claim 23, Knight further discloses the plurality of ribs (ribs 30) protrude outwardly (col. 3, ll. 9-18) from the exterior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22).
Regarding claim 24, Knight further discloses the plurality of ribs (ribs 30) are concave (see Fig. 1) on the interior surface (annotated Fig. 1) of the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22).
Regarding claim 29, Knight further discloses the insulative container (container 10) is disposable (container 10 is capable of being disposed of).
Regarding claim 31, Knight further discloses the insulative container (container 10) is arranged to be stackable (col. 3, ll. 1-8) with other at least one or more similar insulative containers (col. 3, ll. 1-8).
Regarding claim 37, Knight further discloses the series of thermally insulative gaps (gaps between ribs 30) are uniformly spaced along the at least one sidewall (sidewall 22, see Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 18 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by Knight or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Knight in view of U.S. Pat. 6,554,154 to Chauhan et al. (hereinafter, “Chauhan”).
Regarding claim 18, Knight further discloses the insulative container (container 10) is made via a thermoforming process (this is a product-by-process limitation, and Knight discloses the claimed product, see MPEP 2113).
To the extent there is some structure implied by a thermoforming process that is not disclosed in Knight, this would be obvious in view of Chauhan.
Chauhan teaches a similar insulative container comprising a base and at least one sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (Figs. 1-2). Chauhan teaches a plurality of protrusions integrally formed with the sidewall (ribs 20, Figs. 1-2). Chauhan teaches that the container is formed by a thermoforming process (col. 3, ll. 18-22). Chauhan teaches that thermoforming is known in the art for forming thin-walled plastic containers that are durable and inexpensive (col. 1, ll. 12-59). Chauhan teaches that thermoforming plastic containers are more environmentally friendly than other types of containers because they are recyclable (col. 1, ll. 12-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Knight to form the container by thermoforming as taught by Chauhan for the purpose of forming a durable and inexpensive container, as recognized by Chauhan (col. 1, ll. 12-59), and because it is no more than a simple substitution of one known manufacturing method for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 36, Knight further discloses the insulative container (container 10) is made via a thermoforming process (this is a product-by-process limitation, and Knight discloses the claimed product, see MPEP 2113).
To the extent there is some structure implied by a thermoforming process that is not disclosed in Knight, this would be obvious in view of Chauhan.
Chauhan teaches a similar insulative container comprising a base and at least one sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (Figs. 1-2). Chauhan teaches a plurality of protrusions integrally formed with the sidewall (ribs 20, Figs. 1-2). Chauhan teaches that the container is formed by a thermoforming process (col. 3, ll. 18-22). Chauhan teaches that thermoforming is known in the art for forming thin-walled plastic containers that are durable and inexpensive (col. 1, ll. 12-59). Chauhan teaches that thermoforming plastic containers are more environmentally friendly than other types of containers because they are recyclable (col. 1, ll. 12-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Knight to form the container by thermoforming as taught by Chauhan for the purpose of forming a durable and inexpensive container, as recognized by Chauhan (col. 1, ll. 12-59), and because it is no more than a simple substitution of one known manufacturing method for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3, 13, 30, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight as applied to claims 1 and 38 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. 3,558,001 to Fritz et al. (hereinafter, “Fritz”).
Regarding claim 3, Knight does not expressly disclose each of the plurality of protrusions includes a face that is square, rectangular, circular, ovular, triangular, or elliptical.
Fritz teaches a similar insulative container having a base and at least one sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (Fig. 1). Fritz teaches a plurality of protrusions (columns 20, Fig. 1) that are ribs extending along an axial length of the sidewall (Figs. 1-2). Fritz teaches each of the plurality of protrusion has a face with a triangular shape (triangular face formed at bottom end of column 20, see Fig. 1). Fritz further teaches that this protrusion arrangement improves the vertical strength characteristics of the container (col. 1, ll. 35-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Knight to form the protrusions with a face that is triangular as taught by Fritz for the purpose of improving the vertical strength characteristics of the container, and because it has been held that changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), citing In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47).
Regarding claim 13, Knight does not expressly disclose the insulative container is selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, high density polyethylene, high impact polystyrene and a combination thereof.
Fritz teaches a similar insulative container having a base and at least one sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (Fig. 1). Fritz teaches a plurality of protrusions that are ribs extending along an axial length of the sidewall (Figs. 1-2). Fritz teaches that the container may be formed from polypropylene or high density polyethylene (col. 3, ll. 52-67). Fritz further teaches that high density polyethylene is among “particularly preferred container forming materials” (col. 3, ll. 64-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Knight to form the container of polypropylene or high density polyethylene as taught by Fritz because Fritz teaches these are suitable materials for a container having ribs and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 30, Knight does not expressly disclose the insulative container is selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, high density polyethylene, high impact polystyrene and a combination thereof.
Fritz teaches a similar insulative container having a base and at least one sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (Fig. 1). Fritz teaches a plurality of protrusions that are ribs extending along an axial length of the sidewall (Figs. 1-2). Fritz teaches that the container may be formed from polypropylene or high density polyethylene (col. 3, ll. 52-67). Fritz further teaches that high density polyethylene is among “particularly preferred container forming materials” (col. 3, ll. 64-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Knight to form the container of polypropylene or high density polyethylene as taught by Fritz because Fritz teaches these are suitable materials for a container having ribs and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 43, Knight does not expressly disclose the plurality of ribs include a face, and wherein the face of the plurality of ribs is curved.
Fritz teaches a similar insulative container having a base and at least one sidewall that extends upwardly and terminates in a rim (Fig. 1). Fritz teaches a plurality of protrusions (columns 20, Fig. 1) that are ribs extending along an axial length of the sidewall (Figs. 1-2). Fritz teaches each of the plurality of protrusion has a face (triangular face formed at bottom end of column 20, see Fig. 1). Fritz further teaches that this protrusion arrangement improves the vertical strength characteristics of the container (col. 1, ll. 35-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Knight to form the protrusions with a face as taught by Fritz for the purpose of improving the vertical strength characteristics of the container. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulative container of Knight/Fritz to have the face be curved because it has been held that changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), citing In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47). Here, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed arrangement (see e.g., Specification at para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 44, Knight as modified by Fritz already includes the plurality of ribs (Knight, ribs 30) include a tapered distal end (Knight, see bottom end of ribs 30, Fig. 2; see also Fritz at Fig. 1).
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 LAURA E. PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm 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 Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/LAURA E. PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights