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 § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fascio (US 2005/0214512) in view of Neves (BRMU 8900392) and McMahon et al. (US 2018/0105316).
Regarding claim 1, Fascio teaches a corrugated packaging and insulation material (Paragraph [0002]). As shown in figure 12, the corrugated insulation material includes a top sheet (“a first layer defining a perimeter edge and an inner surface”), a bottom sheet, and a corrugated substrate between the two (“a corrugated medium defining a perimeter edge and a plurality of peaks, the plurality of peaks attached to the inner surface, a plurality of flutes defined between the corrugated medium and the inner surface”) (Paragraph [0034]). A material of expanded foam fills the voids between the sheets and the corrugated medium providing insulation and cushioning properties (“an insulation material at least partially filling a flute of the plurality of flutes”) (Paragraph [0034]).
Fascio is silent with respect to an encapsulating layer comprising a sealing strip attached to the perimeter edge of the first layer and the perimeter edge of the corrugated medium, thereby defining a sealed edge of the insulated panel, wherein the sealing strip comprises a strip of adhesive.
Neves teaches a low cost, high strength panel that utilizes recyclable cellulosic materials which includes a corrugated core with surfaces covered with kraft paper (Paragraph [0003]). The sides of the corrugated core also is covered with lamellar strips of kraft paper in order to complete construction of the panel and the strips of kraft paper are fixed via an adhesive (Paragraph [0007]).
McMahon teaches a plastic corrugated container blank with smooth outer edges (Paragraph [0003]). The smoothed edges prevent the interior of the blank from being exposed which allows for a safe touch and prevents debris, liquids and other contaminants from becoming trapped in the flutes (Paragraphs [0130]-[0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the insulation materials of Fascio such that they further include the lamellar strips of kraft paper affixed via an adhesive, taught by Neves, which creates sealed edge preventing the corrugations from being exposed further preventing debris, liquids and other contaminants from becoming trapped in the flutes as taught by McMahon.
Regarding claim 2, Fascio teaches the insulation materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figure 12, the corrugated medium between the two sheets forms a plurality of flutes which are filled with the expanded insulation material (“wherein each flute of the plurality of flutes is defined between an adjacent pair of peaks of the plurality of peaks”).
Regarding claim 4, Fascio teaches the insulation materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, figure 12 illustrates a top sheet and a bottom sheet (“a second layer”) with a corrugated medium between the two forming a plurality of flutes which are filled with an expanded foam (“the insulation mateiral at least partially fills a flute of the second plurality of flutes”) (Paragraph [0034]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fascio (US 2005/0214512) in view of Neves (BRMU 8900392) and McMahon et al. (US 2018/0105316) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomka (US 5,705,536).
Regarding claim 3, Fascio teaches the insulation materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Fascio is silent with respect to the expanded foam filling the flutes being a starch foam.
Tomka teaches a biologically degradable polymer foam which is used in various fields including packaging and thermal insulation (Col. 1, Lines 3-15). The foams may be formed with thermoplastic starch and a hydrophobic polymer (Col. 3, Line 58-Col. 4, Line 3). The foams have an extremely uniform cell structure, low density, and excellent mechanical properties (Col. 5, Lines 48-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the expanded foam of Fascio with the biologically degradable foams of Tomka which are taught to be formed from a mixture include thermoplastic starch and have an extremely uniform cell structure, low density, and excellent mechanical properties.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fascio (US 2005/0214512) in view of Neves (BRMU 8900392) and McMahon et al. (US 2018/0105316) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2013/0160945).
Regarding claim 22, Fascio teaches the insulation materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, Neves and McMahon teach the lamellar strips of kraft paper which are affixed via an adhesive creating sealed edges.
Fascio and Neves are silent with respect to the adhesive being a starch-based adhesive.
Huang teaches adhesive compositions which have improved insulation properties and are applied to corrugated cardboards (Paragraph [0001]). The adhesives are formed from starch based compositions which provide greater insulation while maintaining sufficient adhesive strength (Paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the adhesives of Neves with the adhesives of Huang which are taught to be formed from starch based compositions which provide greater insulation while maintaining sufficient adhesive strength.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollie et al. (US 2018/0051460) in view of Fascio (US 2005/0214512), Neves (BRMU 8900392) and McMahon et al. (US 2018/0105316).
Regarding claim 11, Sollie teaches compressible and expandable insulation batts (Paragraph [0001]). The insulation is formed from a first stiffening layer, a second stiffening layer and an insulation layer between the two (Paragraph [0005]). The first and second stiffening layer can comprise a corrugated cardboard (“a first layer defining a perimeter edge comprising corrugated cardboard, the first layer defining a plurality of flutes; a second layer defining a perimeter edge comprising corrugated cardboard, the second layer defining a plurality of flutes”) (Paragraph [0046]-[0047]; Fig. 6; Fig. 8). The insulation may include a lateral crease allowing for a folding of the insulation (“a first portion of the insulation panel is configured to fold relative to a second portion of the insulated panel when the insulated panel is in a dry state”) (Paragraph [0053]; Fig. 6).
Sollie is silent with respect to the first and second insulation layers, comprising corrugated cardboard, to further include a first and second insulation material filling at least one of the flutes in the first and second stiffening layers.
Fascio teaches a corrugated packaging and insulation material (Paragraph [0002]). As shown in figure 12, the corrugated insulation material includes a top sheet, a bottom sheet, and a corrugated substrate between the two (Paragraph [0034]). A material of expanded foam fills the voids between the sheets and the corrugated medium providing insulation and cushioning properties (Paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the first and second stiffening layers, which both are formed from corrugated cardboard, to further include an expanded foam material which provides the stiffening layers with further insulation and cushioning as taught by Fascio.
Sollie is silent with respect to an encapsulating layer comprising a sealing strip attached to the perimeter edge of the first layer and the perimeter edge of the second layer, thereby defining a sealed edge of the insulated panel.
Neves teaches a low cost, high strength panel that utilizes recyclable cellulosic materials which includes a corrugated core with surfaces covered with kraft paper (Paragraph [0003]). The sides of the corrugated core also is covered with lamellar strips of kraft paper in order to complete construction of the panel and the strips of kraft paper are fixed via an adhesive (Paragraph [0007]).
McMahon teaches a plastic corrugated container blank with smooth outer edges (Paragraph [0003]). The smoothed edges prevent the interior of the blank from being exposed which allows for a safe touch and prevents debris, liquids and other contaminants from becoming trapped in the flutes (Paragraphs [0130]-[0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the insulation materials of Fascio such that they further include the lamellar strips of kraft paper affixed via an adhesive, taught by Neves, which creates sealed edge preventing the corrugations from being exposed further preventing debris, liquids and other contaminants from becoming trapped in the flutes as taught by McMahon.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollie et al. (US 2018/0051460) in view of Fascio (US 2005/0214512), Neves (BRMU 8900392) and McMahon et al. (US 2018/0105316) as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Tomka (US 5,705,536) and Andersen (US 8,614,154).
Regarding claim 12, Sollie teaches the insulation as discussed above with respect to claim 11. As discussed above, the insulation includes an insulation material between the two stiffening layers (“a third insulation material between the first layer and the second layer”). The stiffening layers prevent unwanted bending or folding of the insulation layer, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as the insulation layer being flexible (Paragraph [0046]). The insulation layer is adhered to the first and second stiffening layers along an entirety of the length of the blank (“the first layer defines an inner surface and the third insulation material is adhered to an entirety of the inner surface of the first layer”) (Paragraph [0043]-[0044]; Fig. 6). Sollie further teaches the insulation material may be any material which has insulation properties and is expandable or compressible (Paragraph [0048]).
Sollie and Fascio are silent with respect to the insulation layer being different from the insulation materials of Fascio which are placed in the first and second stiffening layers.
Tomka teaches a biologically degradable polymer foam which is used in various fields including packaging and thermal insulation (Col. 1, Lines 3-15). The foams may be formed with thermoplastic starch and a hydrophobic polymer (Col. 3, Line 58-Col. 4, Line 3). The foams have an extremely uniform cell structure, low density, and excellent mechanical properties (Col. 5, Lines 48-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the expanded foam of Fascio with the biologically degradable foams of Tomka which are taught to be formed from a mixture include thermoplastic starch and have an extremely uniform cell structure, low density, and excellent mechanical properties.
Andersen teaches a fiber insulation material which has a reduction in overall weight, maintains good insulation properties and has a spring elastic characteristic which is advantageous for compressing the product during transport (Col. 1, Line 36-39; Col. 1, Lines 48-57; Col. 2, Lines 22-31). The insulation is formed from 50 to 90% cellulose fibers; 2 to 20% synthetic fibers; and 2 to 20% bi-component timbres (Col. 1, Lines 40-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the insulation layer of Sollie, which is required to be expandable and compressible, from the insulation of Andersen which is formed from 50 to 90% of cellulose fibers and provides a reduction in overall weight, maintains good insulation properties and has a spring elastic characteristic which is advantageous for compressing the product during transport.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the insulation layer formed from the insulation of Andersen would be different from the insulation materials formed from Fascio and Tomka.
Regarding claim 13, Sollie teaches the insulation as discussed above with respect to claim 12. As discussed above, the insulation layer is formed from the insulation of Andersen including 50 to 90% cellulose fibers.
Regarding claim 14, Sollie teaches the insulation as discussed above with respect to claim 13. As discussed above, the foam insulation material of Fascio and Tomka includes thermoplastic starch.
Regarding claim 15, Sollie teaches the insulation as discussed above with respect to claim 13. As discussed above, Fascio teaches a foam insulation material (“porous structure”).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollie et al. (US 2018/0051460) in view of Fascio (US 2005/0214512), Neves (BRMU 8900392) and McMahon et al. (US 2018/0105316) as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Huang et al. (US 2013/0160945).
Regarding claim 24, Sollie teaches the insulation as discussed above with respect to claim 11. As discussed above, Neves and McMahon teach the lamellar strips of kraft paper which are affixed via an adhesive creating sealed edges.
Fascio and Neves are silent with respect to the adhesive being a starch-based adhesive.
Huang teaches adhesive compositions which have improved insulation properties and are applied to corrugated cardboards (Paragraph [0001]). The adhesives are formed from starch based compositions which provide greater insulation while maintaining sufficient adhesive strength (Paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the adhesives of Neves with the adhesives of Huang which are taught to be formed from starch based compositions which provide greater insulation while maintaining sufficient adhesive strength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections of claims 1 and 11 in view of Fascio and Larsen and Sollie, Fascio and Larsen have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment requiring the sealing strip to comprise a strip of adhesive overcomes the rejections in view of Larsen such that the sealing of Larsen fails to include an adhesive. Therefore, the rejection of 02/20/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-7, applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1 requiring the sealing strip to comprise a strip of adhesive overcomes the teachings of Neves such that Neves fails to teach the sealing strip being a strip of adhesive.
The examiner notes that the claim does not require the sealing strip to only be a strip of adhesive wherein the claim requires the sealing strip to comprise a strip of adhesive. As such, the claim indicates that the sealing strip may include other materials, such as the kraft paper.
Therefore, the examiner contends that the rejection in view of Neves and McMahon is proper and still teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11.
The current rejection is made FINAL.
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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights