DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, lines 4-8 “An insulated container assembly comprising: … a soft-sided insulated wall structure defining a main body of said insulated container assembly… a lid of said soft-sided insulated container” while true and understandable does not introduce the “insulated container” before making one “wall structure” of it “soft-sided”. In other words, “said soft-sided insulated container” is not properly preceded by “a soft-sided insulated container” or “an insulated container” claim limitation, yet is also not elevated to a 35 USC 112b due to sufficient context.
Regarding claim 5, “said over-folded rim” should read “said over-folded flange”.
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 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, 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BR MU8900233 by Flosi (hereinafter “Flosi”) in view of US Pub 20210188521 by Stephens et al. (hereinafter “Stephens”) in view of US Pub 20210214123 by Iyer et al. (hereinafter “Iyer”) in view of US Pub 20050103044 by Mogil et al. (hereinafter “Mogil”).
Regarding claim 1, Flosi teaches an insulated container assembly (Abstract, Figs 1-9, assembly 1 is shows an insulated container and lid) comprising:
a first portion, a second portion;
said first portion having an insulated wall structure defining a main body of said insulated container assembly (Fig 1, a first portion of 1 is “container assembly CR” which has 2 and 3 and 4, wherein an insulated wall structure “insulating housing 3” is shown defining a main body of 1);
said second portion defining a lid of said insulated container (Fig 1, “lid assembly CT” defines a second portion of 1); and
said lid being co-operable with said body to define an insulated chamber therewithin in which to place objects (Fig 5, said body and lid are shown operated to close together defining an insulated chamber inside capable of receiving objects), said chamber having an opening (Fig 5, the insulated chamber has an opening at its top);
said lid being movable relative to said main body between a first position and a second position to govern access to said chamber (the lid can move relative to the body of 3, between a first and second position meaning closing or opening the chamber);
said first portion having a rigid cuff that extends about said opening of said chamber (Figs 1 & 5, CR has a rigid cuff which is “peripheral collar G” of “rigid container 2” comprising at least peripheral steps 2i and top plane 2h);
said insulated wall structure of said main body being surmounted by said rigid cuff (Fig 5, 3 is shown surmounted by G of 2);
said lid including a second closure member (Figs 1 & 5, CT includes a second closure member which is “a flat upper base structural base 7”);
said second closure member being movable to a first position relative to said cuff in which said lid obstructs access to said chamber, said first position being a closed position of said lid (Fig 5, 7 of lid CT is shown capable of being in a closed (first) position on cuff G and obstructing chamber access);
said second closure member being movable to a second position relative to said cuff, said second position defining an open position of said lid relative to chamber (Fig 1, the lid with 7 can reach an open (second) position);
said second closure member defines a rigid land (Figs 1 & 5, a rigid land of 7 is “lateral wall 7b”; wherein 7b is rigid at least for being attached as part of the rigid lid assembly CT; page 3 para 2, “The sealing cap assembly [CT], in turn, has… protection cover [9], made of rigid plastic and molded so that it fits tightly to the [intermediate insulating material] plate” IS/8 that attaches to 7 (also see Abstract; i.e. the land 7b at least behaves rigidly in its closed position sandwiched with materially rigid parts making it a rigid land));
But Flosi does not explicitly teach the insulated wall structure defining a main body of the insulated container assembly is soft-sided.
Stephens, however, discloses a similar soft-sided insulated container comprising: a soft-sided insulated wall structure (Fig 11i, a soft-sided insulated wall structure is a wall structure casing 502; [0139] “embodiment of Figs 11a-11k… there is a soft-sided insulated container assembly 500 that may be taken as being of the same construction as soft-sided insulated container assembly 20 [i.e. Figs 1-3]… It has a soft-sided insulated main body, or casing, 502”, thereby meaning casing 502 is casing 22, wherein [0102] “casing 22” of 20 has layers including “A layer 54 of open cell or closed cell insulation [shown in Fig 11i]” and “a layer of insulation 60 [shown in Fig 11i]” and as in Fig 3a “layer 56 overlies layer 54 of insulation… made of a nylon sheet. Similarly, the side wall panels have an external skin 58, a layer of insulation 60… External skin 58 may be made of a sheet or web that is a rubberized skin that is waterproof”, meaning at least one layer of the total insulated wall structure casing 502 that includes 54, 56, 58 is “soft” in order to make the casing “soft-sided” as disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulated wall structure of Flosi to be soft-sided as taught by Stephens in order to advantageously upgrade Flosi’s wall side to be “scuff-resistant” and “waterproof” (Stephens [0102]) to better prevent degradation of the wall.
But Flosi/Stephens does not explicitly teach a liner in the container assembly.
Iyer, however, discloses a similar insulated container assembly of at least three portions (lid assembly, container assembly, liner) comprising:
a third portion defining a liner of said container assembly (Fig 16, 1602); said liner fitting within said chamber of said main body (shown within container main body chamber);
said liner has a rim (Fig 16, a liner rim is an upper edge portion of 1602);
in said closed position of said second closure member relative to said cuff (Fig 16, a cuff is separate and distinct part “frame 1506”) said land of said second closure member entraps said rim (Fig 16, a lid second closure member land is a bottom surface portion directly above liner 1602 rim, shown entrapping the rim while in closed position relative to the cuff);
said rim of said liner seats removably on said cuff (1602 is removable and therefore necessarily its rim too, because [0068] “liner 1602 may correspond to the liner 200 shown in FIG. 2” and Fig 4 wherein [0036] “liner 200 may be removed”, “liner 200 may be a soft sided liner that can collapse”, and its rim has a peripherally extending member/portion that also extends into a flange portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container assembly of Flosi/Stephens with a liner as taught by Iyer in order to advantageously protect the container chamber from liquid damage and increase ease of lifting out contents (Iyer [0036] “liner 200 may also be a leak-proof liner to enable the use of the cooler 100 for holding items, such as ice, cold drink bottles, etc., that be result in a liquid inside the liner”).
But Flosi/Stephens/Iyer does not explicitly teach the rim of the liner is rigid.
Mogil, however, discloses a similar insulated container assembly comprising:
said liner (Fig 9i [0200] “A flexible, waterproof liner 440” is shown attached to a rigid “cuff 420”; [0199] “rather than having a rigid, molded, water holding internal receptacle, such as might be generally similar to receptacle 30” of the other embodiment Fig 1b) has a rigid rim (Fig 9, [0199] “peripherally running, inwardly extending reinforced cuff 420… made of substantially rigid material”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rim of the liner of Iyer to be rigid material as taught by Mogil in order to advantageously improve the lid-to-liner fit of Flosi/Iyer to an upgraded sealing fit of interference fit (Mogil Fig 9i [0199] “land region 434” is engaged in an interference fit with the lid, Fig 9j; [0202] “the land is, as indicated, merely a cuff of suitable size and location to engage the interfering, protruding bull nose of the lid”).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liner rim of Iyer to be made materially rigid because Mogil teaches a rigid liner rim and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (i.e. liner is used the same way). MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention including the claim limitation “in said closed position of said second closure member relative to said cuff said rigid land of said second closure member entraps said rim” and “said rigid rim of said liner seats removably on said cuff” via the rigid land of the second closure of the lid of Flosi closing toward its first portion’s wall mounted rigid cuff to entrap the removable liner rim of Iyer, the rim being rigid as in Mogil, since a POSITA would mount the liner of Iyer/Mogil into Flosi similarly to Iyer and Mogil that show a liner rim seated on a wall cuff entrapped positionally between cuff and a lid, specifically onto Flosi cuff plane 2h Fig 5. The wall structure of Flosi is made soft sided as conceptualized in Stephens.
Regarding claim 2, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches said cuff (Flosi, Figs 1 & 5, first portion rigid cuff G) defines a first peripherally extending indexing member (Flosi, Fig 5, a first peripherally extending indexing member is peripheral top plane 2i), said rim (Iyer, Fig 16, the liner rim is the upper edge portion of 1602, made materially rigid, Mogil) defines a second peripherally extending indexing member (Iyer, a second peripherally extending indexing member is said rim that has the peripherally extending member/portion/flange shown as in Fig 4 since it corresponds to liner 200 [0068]), said first and second indexing members being mutually engageable in a male-female mating relationship (see resultant combination interpretation of claim 1, wherein the construction is necessarily capable of engaging secondary art liner rim to primary art cuff). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 3, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches in said closed position said rigid land of said second closure member of said lid (Flosi, Fig 5, lid rigid land 7b, in closed position) bears against said rigid rim of said liner in an interference fit (Iyer, Fig 16, the liner rim is the upper edge portion of 1602, made materially rigid, Mogil, is also taught by Mogil to make an interference fit with the lid, applied to Flosi’s lid via resultant combination). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 4, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches in said closed position said rigid rim (Iyer, Fig 16, the liner rim is the upper edge portion of 1602, made materially rigid, Mogil) is sandwiched between said rigid land of said lid (Flosi, Fig 5, 7b) and said rigid cuff (Flosi, Figs 1 & 5, G) of said main body portion (see resultant combination interpretation of claim 1, wherein the construction sandwiches the secondary art liner rim between the primary art lid rigid land and cuff). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 5, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches said cuff (Flosi, Figs 1 & 5, G) includes an upstanding ridge (Flosi, Figs 1 & 5, plane 2h is an upstanding ridge of G), and said rim (Iyer/Mogil, liner rigid rim combination) has an over-folded flange (Iyer, rim also has a flange portion, folded over in at least one direction away from the liner body), and said over-folded flange seats on said ridge (see combination sandwiching claim 1 and 2, wherein the peripheral extension portion (claim 2) and flange (related element cited in in claim 1) seat “on” Flosi’s cuff ridge). See details in the parent claims 1 and 2 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 6, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches said liner (Iyer, Fig 16, 1602) includes a flexible membrane that depends from (Iyer, [0036] soft sided) said rigid rim (Iyer, Fig 16, the liner rim is the upper edge portion of 1602, made materially rigid, Mogil), and, on installation of said liner, said membrane locates within said chamber (Iyer, Fig 2, liner membrane shown installed in its chamber, i.e. Flosi’s chamber). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 7, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches said main body of said soft-sided (Stephens, soft sided) insulated container assembly has a base (Flosi, Fig 5, shows a base) and an upstanding soft-sided peripheral sidewall that stands upwardly of said base, said soft-sided peripheral sidewall having an uppermost margin distant from said base, and said cuff caps said uppermost margin of said soft-sided peripheral sidewall (Flosi, Fig 5, cuff G shown mounted to an uppermost margin of the upward wall, therefore also the combination soft sided wall by Stephens). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 8, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches said cuff (Flosi, Figs 1 & 5, G) has a first depending leg that extends downwardly inside said chamber (Flosi, Fig 5, 2g depends from G extending down into the chamber), and a second leg that extends downwardly outside said uppermost margin of said upstanding (Flosi, at least one step 2i is shown extending down outside of the wall’s uppermost margin) soft-sided peripheral sidewall (Flosi/Stephens soft sided wall). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 9, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches said cuff (Flosi, Figs 1 & 5, G) has a leg that extends downwardly outside said uppermost margin of said upstanding (Flosi, at least one step 2i is shown extending down outside of the wall’s uppermost margin) soft-sided peripheral wall (Flosi/Stephens soft sided wall); said container assembly has an outermost fabric skin, said outermost fabric skin having an uppermost margin, said uppermost margin of said outermost fabric skin being mated to said downwardly extending leg of said cuff (the cuff being mounted and thereby mated on the soft sided wall of Flosi/Stephens mates the cuff’s outside leg of Flosi to an outermost skin of Stephens, “external skin 58” which is a fabric). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 10, Flosi further teaches said lid (Figs 1 & 5, lid CT) has a peripherally extending outermost flange that bottoms on said cuff when said lid is in said closed position (Fig 5, “flat support wall 7e” shown bottoming on the cuff G).
Regarding claim 11, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches said lid (Flosi, Fig 1, lid CT) has a downwardly extending shoulder that co-operates with said rim (Flosi, a downwardly extending shoulder of 7 cooperates with the liner rigid rim of Iyer/Mogil) when said lid is in said closed position (combination in closed position). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Flosi/Iyer/Mogil does not explicitly teach a separate and distinct seal member between said lid and said liner rigid rim being squeezed between said lid and said rim when said lid is in said closed position.
Stephens, however, discloses a similar lid comprising: said lid has at least one seal member mounted thereto (Figs 2G & 2H & 3D, [0115] “Seal 100 is an O-ring seal that goes around the entire periphery of lid assembly 30 in channel 184”, and shown squeezed, Fig 3D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid of Flosi to have a seal member as taught by Stephens in order to advantageously improve sealing against jostling and environments.
Regarding claim 12, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches said third portion is a rigid liner and said rim is part of said rigid liner (Iyer, Fig 16, the liner rim is the upper edge portion of 1602, made materially rigid, Mogil; meaning it is already a rigid rim of the liner therefore the combination liner is broadly and reasonably a “rigid liner” as a whole. In other words, since the parent claim is of a “rigid rim” of the liner, at least a portion of the liner is rigid before this claim, especially since this claim says the rigid rim is part of the liner, thereby making it the liner rigid). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 13, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches said container assembly is a folding container assembly (examiner notes “a folding container assembly” is a container assembly that is capable of folding, which for Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil necessarily is capable of since in the combination the liner rim is rigid but a lower part of the liner is not rigid but flexible, and Iyer discloses rigid/hard walls that can fold (Title) so the “rigid container 2” that makes the cuff G of Flosi does not teach away from the capability as known to a POSITA. i.e. rigid does not preclude folding of the combination). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 14, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches said cuff (Flosi, Figs 1 & 5, G) has the form of a Z-section, in which a first leg of the Z-section is an upstanding index upon which said rim seats (Flosi, Fig 5, 2h is a first leg and upstanding index upon which said liner rigid rim of Iyer/Mogil seats), and a second leg of the Z-section is a depending leg (Flosi, Fig 5, at least one step 2i is a depending leg from the first leg), and said container assembly has an outermost skin that mates with said depending leg (the cuff being mounted on the soft sided wall of Flosi/Stephens mates the cuff’s second leg of Flosi to an outermost skin of Stephens, “external skin 58”). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 15, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches said cuff (Flosi, Figs 1 & 5, G) has a first leg, a second leg and a third leg (Flosi, Fig 5, 2g); said first leg extending upwardly to define an index upon which said rim seats (Flosi, Fig 5, 2h is a first leg and upwardly extending index portion of the cuff upon which said liner rigid rim of Iyer/Mogil seats); said second leg being a depending leg to which an outermost skin of said main body of said container assembly mates (the cuff being mounted on the soft sided wall of Flosi/Stephens mates the cuff’s second leg of Flosi to an outermost skin of Stephens, “external skin 58”); and said third leg being a depending leg to which a flexible liner membrane is mated (the liner of Iyer/Mogil’s lower part is a flexible membrane which mates/contacts 2g). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 16, Flosi/Stephens/Iyer/Mogil further teaches said cuff (Flosi, Figs 1 & 5, G) has an inside leg (Flosi, Fig 5, 2g), an outside leg (Flosi, Fig 5, an outer step 2i), and a web extending between said inside leg and said outside leg (Flosi, Fig 5, an inner step 2i is a web structure between an outer step 2i and 2g), said inside leg, said outside leg and said web defining a relief (said web is shown forming a relief underneath), and soft-sided insulated wall structure having an upper margin of said main body seats in said relief (the cuff being mounted on an upper margin of the insulated wall structure of Flosi means its mounted on the upper margin of the combined soft sided wall of Flosi/Stephens). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights