Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/062,998

SHIPPING PACKAGE WITH PHASE-CHANGE MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 25, 2025
Examiner
CASTRIOTTA, JENNIFER
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Temp Aid Corp.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
424 granted / 687 resolved
-8.3% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
728
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.0%
+0.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 687 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 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 second thermally insulative sheet positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the second phase-change material mat and an additional thermally insulative sheet positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the interior space must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 518 and 528. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the internal space" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of further consideration, the claim is being considered as referencing “the [[internal]] interior space”. 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) 1-5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Der Ovanesian (US 5840080) in view of Chasteen et al. (US 12366400) (hereinafter Chasteen). Regarding Claim 1 Der Ovanesian teaches a shipping package comprising: an envelope (below, Fig. 4) including a closed end (7) and a closeable end (6), the envelope defining a thermal control space (3/14 and 14/4) and an interior space (16) that is separate from the thermal control space, wherein the interior space is configured to contain a product to be shipped; a first phase-change material (15) positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the interior space; a first thermally insulative sheet (8) positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the first phase-change material; and a second phase-change material (10) positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent first thermally insulative sheet, as can be seen in Fig. 4 below (Col. 3, Ln. 6-19). PNG media_image1.png 740 435 media_image1.png Greyscale Der Ovanesian does not specifically teach first and second phase-change materials are mats. Chasteen teaches a shipping package (below – Fig 1) comprising: a closed end and a closeable end, the package defining a thermal control space and an interior space that is separate from the thermal control space, wherein the interior space is configured to contain a product (99) to be shipped; a first phase-change material mat (101-1) positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the interior space; and a second phase-change material mat (103-1) positioned within the thermal control space (Col. 12, Ln. 59 – Col. 3, Ln. 32). PNG media_image2.png 523 392 media_image2.png Greyscale Der Ovanesian and Chasteen are analogous inventions in the field of thermally insulated containers. Because both Der Ovanesian and Chasteen teach packages having first and second phase-change materials in a thermal control space, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to substitute the first and second phase-change materials of Der Ovanesian with the first and second phase-change material mats of Chasteen to achieve the predictable result of creating an insulated container that keeps the contents at their desired temperature within the container. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Regarding Claim 2 Der Ovanesian in view of Chasteen (hereinafter “modified Der Ovanesian”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Der Ovanesian further teaches the first phase-change material [mat], the first thermally insulative sheet, and the second phase-change material [mat] form an arrangement that is positioned on a first side of the interior space, the shipping package further comprising another such arrangement positioned on a second side of the interior space, as can be seen in Fig. 4 above. Regarding Claims 3-5 Modified Der Ovanesian teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Der Ovanesian does not teach a second thermally insulative sheet positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the second phase-change material mat; or an additional thermally insulative sheet positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the interior space, wherein the additional thermally insulative sheet is positioned to maintain a size of the interior space. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have a second thermally insulative sheet positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the second phase-change material mat; and/or an additional thermally insulative sheet positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the interior space, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that having a second thermally insulative sheet positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the second phase-change material mat; and/or an additional thermally insulative sheet positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the interior space provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of having a second thermally insulative sheet positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the second phase-change material mat; and/or an additional thermally insulative sheet positioned within the thermal control space and adjacent the interior space does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record. With regards to the positioning of the “additional thermally insulative sheet”, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to ensure that the additional thermally insulative sheet is positioned to maintain a size of the interior space as the interior space has inevitably been designed specifically to be able to hold a desired contents and that sizing would want to be maintained. Regarding Claim 7 Modified Der Ovanesian teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Chasteen further teaches one or more of the first and second phase-change material mats comprise a rigid shell containing phase-change material (Col. 13, Ln. 13-21). Regarding Claim 8 Modified Der Ovanesian teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Chasteen further teaches one or more of the first and second phase-change material mats comprise a flexible bag containing phase-change material (Col. 13, Ln. 13-21). Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Der Ovanesian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuchs (US 2008/0141700). Regarding Claim 6 Modified Der Ovanesian teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Modified Der Ovanesian does not teach the first thermally insulative sheet comprises rigid segments with a strip of flexible material therebetween. Fuchs teaches a portable package (below – Fig. 2 and 5) including a thermal control space and an interior space, wherein the package includes a first thermally insulative sheet that comprises rigid segments (94/96/98) with a strip of flexible material (34) therebetween (Paragraph [0024]). PNG media_image3.png 351 515 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 393 524 media_image4.png Greyscale Modified Der Ovanesian and Fuchs are analogous inventions in the field of thermally insulated containers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the first thermally insulative sheet of modified Der Ovanesian with the teachings of Fuchs in order to provide the interior space with reinforcement (Paragraph [0024]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm. 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. /JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733 /DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 25, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601451
CRYOGENIC LIQUID STORAGE TANK INCLUDING SUPPORTER STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595096
ONE-HANDED PRESS-OPEN COSMETIC CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583651
Dual Functioning Straw and Drink Spout
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12564281
Stackable Space Saving System and Method of Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12522414
FULLY RECYCLABLE CONTAINER AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+28.8%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 687 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month