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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vezina et al. (US-20090293524-A1).
Vezina discloses:
1. 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).
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 (par. 0005).
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 roof portion is different to a thickness of the floor portion (Fig. 1B).
8. The container assembly according to claim 7, wherein the insulating structure comprises a support assembly to support the ceiling portion (par. 0029, third and fourth wall).
9. The container assembly according to claim 7, wherein the intermodal container comprises a recessed floor to accommodate the floor portion of the insulating structure (Fig. 1b, the base surface has recesses).
11. The container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the intermodal container comprises a refrigeration unit (par. 0040).
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); 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).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezina et al. (US-20090293524-A1).
Vezina discloses all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach a plurality of grooves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the inner surface with a plurality of passages (grooves) in order to further direct fluid in the container and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 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 disposed between the two 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).
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.
Claim(s) 10 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).
Vezina discloses all the claimed limitations as shown above wherein the insulating structure is removably secured to the intermodal container by a securing arrangement (par. 0042), but fails to teach a securing member which extends through a hole in the insulating structure and is received by an engagement portion of the intermodal container.
Vujic teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a securing arrangement with a securing member which extends through a hole in the insulating structure and is received by an engagement portion of the intermodal container (col. 3, lines 58-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container with the claimed securing arrangement, as taught by Vujic, since Vezina teaches that known connection arrangements can be used and such a modification would be the use of a known connection arrangement.
Conclusion
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