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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luburic (US8,839,975).
23. A shipper (Fig. 1 shows a container that can be used for shipping) configured to retain a shipment (Fig. 1 shows a container that can be used for shipping), the shipper comprising: a base (Fig. 1) comprising an inner compartment wall (Fig. 1) defining an inner compartment to receive the shipment; and a lid (Fig. 5) selectably closable over the inner compartment to secure the shipment therein (Fig. 1 shows a container that can be used for shipping), wherein the lid comprises a boss (Fig. 5 at 210) to be received by an aspect of another shipper (for stacking), the boss comprising: a ramp portion (the boss is shaped like a ramp) of increasing height away from the base in at least one dimension along a first direction (Fig. 5 at 210); a bend portion (Fig. 5 at 210 where the boss curves at the corners) curving along a path of changing direction (Fig. 5 at 210); and wherein the ramp portion extends from a ramp portion terminus (Fig. 5 at 210) to the front bend portion, wherein a height (middle height of 210) away from the base of the front bend portion is a greatest height (middle height of 210) of any portion of the boss away from the base (where the middle height of 210 is greater than the ends of the boss 210).
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) 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallin (W) (US20040076117), in view of Claypool (US20060261065).
10. Wallin teaches a shipper (Fig. 7) configured to retain a dewar (103) for shipment, the shipper comprising: a base (115) comprising an inner compartment wall defining an inner compartment to receive the dewar (103); and a lid (119) selectably closable over the inner compartment to secure the dewar therein, wherein the base comprises a strengthening face (in the below annotated Fig. 7) opposite the lid, the strengthening face having a base floor (in the below annotated Fig. 7) parallel to the lid when the lid is closed and comprising an annular channel (in the below annotated Fig. 7) defining an annular bead (in the below annotated Fig. 7) of the base floor, the annular channel comprising: an inward bend face (in the below annotated Fig. 7) comprising a first curved bend (in the below annotated Fig. 7) of the strengthening face inwardly away from the base floor and into the inner compartment. The dewar, wherein the dewar has a floor with a profile that corresponds to the strengthening face, so that a distance between the base floor and the dewar is a first constant distance (the shipper can be used with such a dewar). The dewar is spaced the first constant distance from the strengthening face (the shipper can be used with such a dewar).
Wallin DIFFERS in that it does not disclose wherein the strengthening face is raised in non-constant distance from the strengthening face and wherein the strengthen face is raised in non-contacting relationship with a resting surface when the base of the shipper is rested in contacting relationship with the resting surface. Attention, however is directed to Claypool, which discloses an inset wall (raised non-contacting wall) (Fig. 5 at 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to modify Wallin, in view of Claypool , by employing an inset wall, in order to have a more structurally secure base.
11. The shipper according to claim 10, wherein the annular channel further comprises a basin face comprising an inward most floor of the annular channel, a tangent of the basin face parallel to at least a portion of the base floor (this occurs when the reference is modified).
12. The shipper according to claim 11, wherein the annular channel further comprises an outward bend face comprising a second curved bend of the strengthening face outwardly from the basin face and away from the inner compartment and toward the base floor (this occurs when the reference is modified).
13. The shipper according to claim 12, wherein the strengthening face further
comprises a central recess, the central recess comprising a joining plane joining all outermost points of the second curved bend (this occurs when the reference is modified).
14. The shipper according to claim 13, wherein the joining plane is a circle (this occurs when the reference is modified).
15. The shipper according to claim 14, wherein the joining plane is parallel to the base floor and nearer to the lid than the base floor (this occurs when the reference is modified).
16. The shipper according to claim 15, wherein the base floor, the inward bend face, the basin face, the outward bend face, and the central recess are all inset toward the lid by a inset wall surrounding the base floor and extending normal to each of the lid, the base floor, and the joining plane, the surrounding inset wall defining a closed perimeter of the base floor, the base floor defining a closed perimeter of the annular channel, and the annular channel
defining a closed perimeter of the central recess (this occurs when the reference is modified).
17. The shipper according to claim 10, wherein the first curved bend has a profile corresponding to a profile of a portion of the dewar, and wherein the dewar is nestable against at least a portion of the strengthening face inside the
inner compartment (the shipper can be used with such a dewar).
18. The shipper according to claim 10, wherein the first curved bend has a profile corresponding to a profile of a portion of the dewar, and wherein a distance between the dewar and the strengthening face measured in a direction
normal to the strengthening face is the first constant distance (the shipper can be used with such a dewar).
19. The shipper according to claim 18, wherein a foam block is received into the first constant distance, and wherein the strengthening face supports the foam block and wherein the foam block supports the dewar (W, Fig. 7).
20. Wallin teaches a shipper (Fig. 7) configured to retain a dewar (103) for secure shipment, the shipper comprising: a base (115) comprising an inner compartment wall defining an inner compartment to receive the dewar (103); the base (115) contacts a resting surface (whatever the base rest on) when the shipper is rested on the resting surface and a lid (119) selectably closable over the inner compartment to secure the dewar therein, wherein the base comprises a strengthening face (in the below annotated Fig. 7) opposite the lid, the strengthening face having a base floor (in the below annotated Fig. 7) parallel to the lid when the lid is closed and comprising an inset wall comprising Wallin DIFFERS in that it does not disclose a central region of the base surrounded by the base floor and inset toward the lid relative to the base floor, and wherein the inset wall spaces the dewar received in the inner compartment away from the base floor so that the base elevates the dewar away from the base floor. Attention, however is directed to Claypool, which discloses an inset wall (Fig. 5 at 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to modify Wallin, in view of Claypool , by employing an inset wall, in order to have a more structurally secure base.
Note: after the modification the inset wall will still be configured to space the (unclaimed) dewar. After the modification the inset wall will not contact the resting surface. After the modification the base elevates the (unclaimed) dewar away from the base floor so that the (unclaimed) dewar is spaced a distance away from the base floor.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1-9, 21 and 22 are allowable. Regarding claim 1, lines 7-19 are not obvious, in light of the other claim limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 21, lines 7-17 are not obvious, in light of the other claim limitations of claim 21. Regarding claim 22, lines 6-14 are not obvious, in light of the other claim limitations of claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amendment to claims 10 and 20 define over the prior art, examiner disagrees. Please see the updated rejection above on how the prior art reads on the amended claimed limitations. Wallin discloses all of the features of claim 10 and 20 except the raised center that allows for better stacking. However, Claypool discloses it is old and well known to use a raised center for better stacking.
Applicant argues new claim 23 defines over the prior art, examiner disagrees. Please see the updated rejection above on how the newfound art reads on new claim 23.
PNG
media_image1.png
663
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights