DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 4, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on March 4, 2026.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 14 and 21 have been amended,
Claims 5-6, and 15-21 were previously presented,
Claims 1-4 and 7-13 were and still are withdrawn from further consideration, and
Lastly claim 22 has been newly added.
Therefore, claims 5-6 and 14-22 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. It fails to further limit amended claim 14 (which it depends from), as all of the limitation(s) presented in claim 17 are already present in amended claim 14 (see ln. 5-8); emphasis added. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14, 15, 17, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sollie et al. (US 11066228 B2 – art of record; hereinafter Sollie) and further in view of Bradley et al. (US 20230382626 A1; hereinafter Bradley) and Collison et al. (US 10882682 B2 – art of record; hereinafter Collison).
Regarding claims 14, 17 and 21, Sollie teaches a shipping assembly embodiment (as shown in Figs. 1-12 and 28-34 (respectively) – for transporting refrigerated items) comprising:
an outer box (110) defining a bottom (222) and an outer box cavity (230);
a bottom insulator (i.e. in the form of bottom wall liner (640) – as shown in Figs. 6b-7) received in the outer box cavity and superposed above the bottom of the outer box;
an insulated inner box (120) positioned in the outer box cavity above the bottom insulator (as shown in Figs. 8-9), the insulated inner box defining an inner box cavity and a ridge; and
a top insulator box assembly (i.e. in the form of temperature-regulating lid (500) – as shown in Figs. 28-34 – Sollie furthers states that the lid (500) can be used in the embodiment of Figure 4a; see Col. 22 ln. 54-67; emphasis added), the top insulator box assembly partially received in the inner box cavity of the insulated inner box such that a first overhang portion (2126) of a top panel (2120) and a second overhang portion (2128) of the top panel rest upon the ridge of the insulated inner box (Sollie Col. 6 ln. 29 – Col. 15 ln. 8 and Col. 20 ln. 16 – Col. 23 ln. 28).
However, Sollie fails to teach a bottom insulator box assembly comprising a closed box defining a bottom insulator cavity, the closed box having an inside surface.
Bradley is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Sollie, which is a shipping package assembly. Bradley teaches a shipping box assembly embodiment (200; as shown in Figs. 2a-2d) comprising: an outer box (110) defining a bottom and an outer box cavity;
a bottom insulator box assembly received in the outer box cavity and superposed above the bottom of the outer box (i.e. the bottom internal box (220) that is placed directly on the bottom of the outer box – is what examiner equates to the claimed bottom insulator box assembly – as shown in Fig. 2d), the bottom insulator box assembly comprising a closed box defining a bottom insulator box cavity, the closed box having an inside surface (as shown in Figs. 2a-2b);
a top insulator box assembly (i.e. the upper internal box (220) that placed into the outer box last and sits on top of the four respective side insulation panels (250) placed along the four sides of the outer box – as shown in Fig. 2d), the top insulator box assembly partially received in the outer box cavity (Bradley [0027]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enclose the bottom insulator (of Sollie) with a similar closed box (as taught by Bradley) to ensure that bottom insulator (i.e. loose batt material) does not get severely compressed or damaged during use or transport.
Lastly, Sollie fails to teach the inside surface of the closed box (of the bottom insulator cavity) being coated with a repulpable insulating film.
Collison is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Sollie and Bradley, which is a shipping package assembly. Collison teaches a shipping box assembly embodiment (158; as shown in Figs. 18a-18b) comprising a closed box defining a cavity, and wherein the closed box of the box assembly further defines a closed box inside surface coated with a repulpable insulating film (22; Collison Col. 8 ln. 60-66 and Col. 11 ln. 25 – Col. 14 ln. 50 and claims 2 and 19).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the inside surface of the closed box (of the bottom insulator cavity; of Sollie) with a similar repulpable insulating film (as taught by Collison) to ensure that the whole the whole [bottom insulator] box assembly passes through recycling plants without it being discarded/incinerated/landfilled (essentially increasing the recyclability of the whole box; emphasis added).
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. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 15, modified Sollie as above further teaches wherein the outer box further defines an outer box inside surface (see Sollie Figs. 1-12 and 28-34).
However, fails to teach the outer box inside surface being coated with a repulpable insulating film.
Collison is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Sollie and Bradley, which is a shipping package assembly. Collison teaches a shipping box assembly embodiment (158; as shown in Figs. 18a-18b) comprising a closed box defining a cavity, and wherein the closed box of the box assembly further defines a closed box inside surface coated with a repulpable insulating film (22; Collison Col. 8 ln. 60-66 and Col. 11 ln. 25 – Col. 14 ln. 50 and claims 2 and 19).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the inside surface of the outer box (of Sollie) with a similar repulpable insulating film (as taught by Collison) to ensure that the whole outer box passes through recycling plants without it being discarded/incinerated/landfilled (essentially increasing the recyclability of the whole outer box; emphasis added).
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. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 18, modified Sollie as above further teaches a bottom insulation batt element positioned within the bottom insulator box cavity (see Bradley Figs. 2a-2d).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied claims 14 and 18 above) and further in view of Lembo (US 7780886 B2 – art of record; hereinafter Lembo).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sollie as above further teaches all the structural limitation(s) as set forth in claims 14 and 18 (respectively), except for a sheet layer attached to at least one surface of the bottom insulation batt element.
Lembo is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is an insulation panel. Lembo teaches an insulation panel embodiment (100; as shown in Figs. 1-3) comprising:
an insulation batt material (10; which is made of “…a high or low density insulation mat or board, as described above, formed from organic fibers such as polymeric fibers or inorganic fibers such as rotary glass fibers, textile glass fibers, stone wool (also known as rockwool) or a combination thereof. Mineral fibers, such as glass, are preferred…”); see Col. 4 ln. 38-46) having a sheet layer (i.e. in the form of kraft paper (31)) that is attached a first major surface (12) of the insulation batt material (Lembo Col. 4 ln. 38 – Col. 8 ln. 16).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one surface of the bottom insulation batt material (of Sollie) with a similar sheet layer (as taught by Lembo) “to provide an effective barrier or retarder for water vapor” (see Lembo Col. 4 ln. 56-57) AND a structural backing for the insulation batt material.
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. See MPEP §2144.07
Claims 16, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied claims 14-15 and 21 above) and further in view of Oostdik (US 3756496 A – art of record; hereinafter Oostdik).
Regarding claims 16, 20 and 22, Sollie as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 14-15 and 21 (respectively), except for a bottom insulation box stiffener positioned within the bottom insulator box cavity.
Oostdik is in the same filed of endeavor as the claimed invention and Sollie, which is a shipping [package] assembly. Oostdik teaches a shipping box assembly comprising a closed box (B; as shown in Fig. 5) defining a cavity; and a stiffener (i.e. in the form of a divider (A and 10)) positioned within the box cavity (Oostdik Col. 2 ln. 6 – Col. 3 ln. 58 and Figs. 1-5).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide bottom insulator box cavity (of Sollie) with a similar stiffener (as taught by Oostdik) to divide the overall bottom insulator box cavity (of Sollie) into smaller compartments or cells – which allows the user to store multiple items at once.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims (i.e. claims 14-22) have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736