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
Amended claim 8 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 8 is drawn to a distinct species including a locking bar (see par. 0013 of the original disclosure describing the locking bar as an alternate embodiment) . The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; or
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; or
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different CPC schemes, US classes/subclasses, or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 8 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-17, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezina et al. (US-20090293524-A1) in view of Brewster (US-7484918-B2).
Regarding claim 1:
Vezina discloses a container assembly (Fig. 1A) comprising: an intermodal container (2); and an insulating structure (1) comprising an aerogel (par. 0028), wherein the insulating structure is removably secured to an interior of the intermodal container, and wherein the insulating structure comprises an interior for receiving goods (par. 0028), wherein the insulating structure is removably secured to the intermodal container by a securing arrangement (par. 0042).
Vezina fails to teach wherein the securing arrangement comprises (i) a securing member coupled with one of the intermodal container or the insulating structure, and (ii) an engagement portion coupled with the other one of the intermodal container or the insulating structure, wherein one of the securing member or the engagement portion is configured to be rotated between a first orientation, in which the securing member is movable into and out of the engagement potion, and a second orientation, in which the securing member is retained within the engagement portion and the insulating structure is prevented from being removed from the intermodal container.
Brewster teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a securing arrangement for containers (col. 4, lines 32-47) comprising (i) a securing member (24), and (ii) an engagement portion (32), wherein one of the securing member or the engagement portion is configured to be rotated between a first orientation, in which the securing member is movable into and out of the engagement potion, and a second orientation, in which the securing member is retained within the engagement portion and the container is prevented from being removed from the other container (col. 5, lines 33-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the assembly of Vezina with the securing arrangement taught by Brewster, in order to securely attach the components together. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5-7, 11-17, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 26, the modified assembly of Vezina teaches:
2. The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the insulating structure comprises a plurality of layers and at least one of the layers comprises the aerogel (par. 0005).
3. The container assembly according to claim 2, wherein multiple layers of the plurality of layers comprise the aerogel (pars. 0005, 0028).
5. The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the insulating structure comprises an inner surface defining the interior of the insulating structure, and the inner surface comprises a groove to direct a fluid flow through the interior (par. 0026, passage).
6. The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the insulating structure substantially fills the interior of the intermodal container (Fig. 1A, substantially does not require completely).
7. The container assembly according to claim 6, wherein the insulating structure comprises a ceiling portion, a floor portion and at least two opposing wall portions (par. 0029), wherein a thickness of the ceiling portion is different to a thickness of the floor portion (Fig. 1B, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the sizes were different based on the disclosure).
11. The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the intermodal container comprises a refrigeration unit (par. 0040), but fails to teach the unit disposed at an end of the intermodal container, opposite doors of the intermodal container, and disposed between an end wall of the intermodal container and the end wall portion of the insulating structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have locate the unit in the claimed location since the unit would function the same and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
12. The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the intermodal container comprises a shipping container (par. 0005).
13. An internodal container insulating assembly (Fig. 1A) comprising: a plurality of walls defining an internal volume (par. 0029), the plurality of walls comprising an insulating material (par. 0028); a securing arrangement for removably securing the insulating assembly to an interior of an intermodal container (par. 0042); the securing arrangement (Brewster, col. 4, lines 32-47) comprising (i) a securing member (Brewster, 24) coupled with one of the intermodal container or one of the plurality of walls, and (ii) an engagement portion (Brewster, 32) coupled with the other one of the intermodal container or the one of the plurality of walls, wherein one of the securing member or the engagement portion is configured to be rotated between a first orientation, in which the securing member is movable into and out of the engagement potion, and a second orientation, in which the securing member is retained within the engagement portion and the one of the plurality of walls is prevented from being removed from the intermodal container (Brewster, col. 5, lines 33-47), and a connector to connect to a refrigeration unit such that the internal volume is in fluid communication with the refrigeration unit (par. 0040).
14. The intermodal container insulating assembly according to claim 13, wherein the insulating material comprises an aerogel (par. 0028).
15. The intermodal container insulating assembly according to claim 13, wherein each of the plurality of walls comprises a plurality of layers and at least one of the layers comprises the aerogel (pars. 0005, 0028).
16. The intermodal container insulating assembly according to claim 15, wherein multiple layers of the plurality of layers comprise the aerogel (par. 0005).
17. The intermodal container insulating assembly according to claim 13, wherein an inner surface of the plurality of walls comprises a groove to direct a fluid flow through the internal volume (par. 0026, passage).
19. The intermodal container insulating assembly according to claim 13, wherein the plurality of walls have different thicknesses (Fig. 1B).
20. An intermodal container (2) comprising insulation (1) removably attached to an interior of the intermodal container, wherein the insulation comprises an aerogel (par. 0028), and the insulation is removably attached to an interior of the intermodal container by a securing arrangement (Brewster, col. 4, lines 32-47) comprising (i) a securing member (Brewster, 24) coupled with one of the intermodal container or the insulation, and (ii) an engagement portion (Brewster, 32) coupled with the other one of the intermodal container or the insulation, wherein one of the securing member or the engagement portion is configured to be rotated between a first orientation, in which the securing member is movable into and out of the engagement potion, and a second orientation, in which the securing member is retained within the engagement portion and the insulation is prevented from being removed from the intermodal container (Brewster, col. 5, lines 33-47).
22. The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein, in the first orientation, the securing member is disengaged from the engagement portion to allow the insulating structure to be removed from the intermodal container, and, in the second orientation, the securing member is engaged with the engagement portion to secure the insulating structure to the intermodal container such that the securing member which is, in the second orientation, inserted into the engagement portion and rotated with respect to the engagement portion to engage the engagement portion (Brewster, col. 5, lines 33-47).
23. The container assembly according to claim 22, wherein the securing member extends through a hole in the insulating structure and the engagement portion is connected to the intermodal container, and the securing member comprises a barbed portion that is, in the first orientation, received by the engagement portion and disengaged with eh engagement portion, and is, in the second orientation, received by the engagement portion and retained within the engagement portion (Brewster, Fig. 3).
26. The intermodal container insulating assembly according to claim 13, wherein the connector comprises a tube (par. 0040, the ducts can be considered tube), but fails to teach the tube extending through an end wall portion of the insulating assembly opposite a door portion of the insulating assembly, the tube being open at a first end to an interior of the insulating assembly, and connectable to the refrigeration unit at a second end, opposite the first end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have located the components in the claimed location since the components would function the same and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9, 18, 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezina et al. (US-20090293524-A1) in view of Vujic et al. (US-7559343-B1).
Regarding claims 9, 18 and 21, Vezina discloses all the claimed limitations as shown above wherein the intermodal container comprises a recessed floor to accommodate the floor portion of the insulating structure (Fig. 1b, the base surface has recesses), but fails to teach a plurality of parallel grooves/channel sin the portions of the container and insulation.
Vujic teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a wall structure with parallel grooves/channels (Fig. 2, at 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the components with groove/channels, in order to strengthen the components and allow for air flow.
Regarding claim 24, the modified assembly of Vezina teaches wherein the floor portion abuts against a floor of the intermodal container (Fig. 1A), but fails to teach wherein the ceiling portion abuts against a roof of the intermodal container, and the two opposing wall portions abut against opposing side walls of the intermodal container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the inner structure larger since that the portions abut, in order to accommodate larger items since the air flow could still occur with the groove/channels and such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezina et al. (US-20090293524-A1) in view of Reiss (US-4403023-A).
Vezina discloses all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach wherein the insulating structure comprises two layers of steel and the aerogel is a layer of aerogel disposed between the two layers of steel, wherein the layer of aerogel defines a thickness that is substantially equal to a thickness of the layers of steel.
Reiss teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture an insulating structure with two layers of steel and the aerogel disposed between the two layers of steel (col. 4, lines 1-45). Note that the transitional phrase comprising is inclusive
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the insulating structure with the claimed materials, as taught by Reiss, in order to adjust costs and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have changed the size, in order to adjust insulation since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments have been addressed in the modified rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights