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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 21 April 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s statement concerning the supplemental amendment, Examiner notes that Applicant’s amendment filed 16 April 2026 was not entered at least because claim 10 was amended to reflect the exact opposite of what claim 10 recited in the previous (examined) claim set and the issue with claim 12 was first raised prior to 8/27/2025 action. Further, it is unclear why Applicant would amend claim 10 to be consistent with the existing drawings and also agree to amend the drawings to match previously examined claim 10.
To alleviate Applicant’s concerns with the Kato reference, Examiner has replaced Kato with Takahashi which shows both a freezing zone and a refrigerated zone. If Applicant wishes to further structurally define claim 13 to include a third zone, which is not currently claimed, such limitation would require further search/consideration over the combination with Takahashi. Applicant’s statement regarding Rusignuolo is inaccurate. Rusignuolo specifically discusses “DC power to the compressor 106 and fans 108” in paragraph [0020]. Rusignuolo contemplates both AC/DC embodiments and DC only embodiments. Regarding Harrison, Examiner notes that Harrison specifically discusses that “In the event of poor grid failure, multiple trailers could be coupled together to provide a safe reliable emergency source of electrical energy from the on-board storage array to support the discharge location allowing it to remain operating until power is restored. Large distribution centers where hundreds of trailers are located could supply enough energy to become a utility substation.” in paragraph [0007]. Thus, Applicant’s statement that Harrison does not teach a “full ganged energy grid as claimed in claim 9” is inaccurate.
Applicant is again reminded that Applicant may schedule an interview with the Examiner discuss the rejections and any proposed amendments to better facilitate compact prosecution.
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 “wherein ducts are recessed into a ceiling” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes that the drawings show the ducts protruding from a ceiling, and thus it appears that claim 10 should be amended to match the drawings rather than submitting a new drawing sheet.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The term “transport reefer unit” is absent from the text of the specification.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice.
Claims 2-6 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 2 recites the limitation “the battery powered transport reefer unit with zone isolation as claimed in claim 13”. Claim 13 is not directed at “with zone isolation”. It is believed that the preamble of claim 2 should be amended to omit “with zone isolation”. Claim 2 also recites the limitation “there is a battery that powers said transport reefer unit […]”. Claim 2 is dependent on new claim 13. Claim 13 recites “is energized by a battery”. It is, therefore, unclear if the battery in claim 2 is the same or different from the battery in claim 13. To expedite prosecution, it has been interpreted as the same. Claims 3-6 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 2 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 10 is 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.
It is unclear if “ducts” are the same or different from the “ductwork” of claim 13. It is believed they were intended to be the same. It is unclear if “a ceiling” is the same or different from the “ceiling” of claim 13. It is believed to be the same. Claim 10 also recites the limitation “said refrigeration zones”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, as claim 13 uses “refrigerated zones”.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitation “and said battery state of charge is less than a predetermined minimum”. This limitation cannot be understood as presented. It appears that Applicant may have left out a transitional phrase, perhaps “when”.
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) 13, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusignuolo et al. (US 2015/0121923: previously cited) in view of Takahashi (WO 2006/019021).
Regarding claim 13, Rusignuolo et al. discloses a battery powered transport reefer unit (see at least paragraphs [0019]-[0021]; [0016]), said transport reefer unit being equipped with a refrigeration and airflow system that is powered solely by DC power and is energized by a battery (see at least paragraphs [0019]-[0021]; [0016], especially at paragraph [0020]: both the fans and the compressor may be DC powered and energized by the battery).
Rusignuolo et al. is silent regarding the reefer unit with multiple refrigerated zones, said refrigerated zones being equipped with mixing chambers, including ductwork and control gates, wherein said refrigerated zones are cooling chambers integral to said transport reefer wall, ceiling, and floor.
Takahashi teaches a transport reefer unit equipped with a refrigeration and airflow system having multiple refrigerated zones (see at least Abstract: zones 2A and 2B; Figures 10 zones 202A and 202B); said refrigerated zones being equipped with mixing chambers, including ductwork and control gates (see at least paragraphs [0029]-[0030] and [0036]: control gates (shutters) are provided, and since the air is supplied from the front to the rear, the ducts extending along both chambers form mixing chambers, best seen in Figure 10), wherein said refrigerated zones are cooling chambers integral to said transport reefer wall, ceiling, and floor (see at least paragraph [0029]: the cooling chambers are integral to the wall/ceiling/floor of the container #2/#200).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the reefer of Rusignuolo et al. with multiple refrigerated zones, said refrigerated zones being equipped with mixing chambers, including ductwork and control gates, wherein said refrigerated zones are cooling chambers integral to said transport reefer wall, ceiling, and floor, as taught by Takahashi, to improve the reefer of Rusignuolo et al. by allowing for independent temperature control of a plurality of regions within the refrigerated area of the reefer (see at least Takahashi paragraph [0030]), thus allowing for transport/storage of items with differing temperature requirements using a single vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, Rusignuolo et al. further discloses wherein there is, in addition, a backup wheel generator system that only makes power during deceleration of a vehicle that is towing said backup wheel generator system (see at least paragraph [0016]: Examiner notes that auxiliary source(s) #104 are the same as auxiliary source(s) #85: axle mounted generators on rear axles of the trailer, regenerative brakes on the trailer or other DC power sources that convert trailer kinetic energy to DC power are all backup wheel generator systems and at least regenerative brakes would only make power during deceleration of the towing vehicle).
Regarding claim 12, Rusignuolo et al. further discloses wherein, in addition, a backup wheel generator continuously provides power above a minimum-moving reefer speed and when said battery state of charge is less than a predetermined minimum (see at least paragraph [0016]: an axle mounted generator is a wheel generator that provides power above a minimum speed and is capable of performing charge when the battery is below full charge or at other predetermined charge level).
Claims 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusignuolo et al. in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2013/0152612: previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Rusignuolo et al. further discloses wherein, in addition, there is a battery that powers said transport reefer unit refrigeration system (see at least paragraph [0019]).
Rusignuolo et al. does not disclose that consumes less than 8kW of electrical power while producing 18 kW of cooling power at 35 degrees Fahrenheit with a coefficient of performance greater than 2.25.
However, Rusignuolo et al. further discloses that the battery has a capacity of around 5kWh or greater (see at least paragraph [0019]), which is less than 8kW. Additionally, Smith et al. teaches that it is old and well-known for refrigeration systems in transport reefer units to have a COP of greater than 2.25 (see at least paragraph [0133]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the refrigeration system in the reefer of Rusignuolo et al. with consumes less than 8kW of electrical power while producing 18 kW of cooling power at 35 degrees Fahrenheit with a coefficient of performance greater than 2.25, since, Rusignuolo et al. teaches a battery that stores around 5kWh of energy, and since it is old and well-known, per Smith et al. that COP of greater than 2.25 exists for transport reefer refrigeration systems. Such would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for an energy efficient refrigeration system in the transport reefer.
Regarding claim 3, Rusignuolo et al. further discloses wherein, in addition, there is a compressor driven by a motor selected from the group consisting of: a) direct current brushed motor; b) direct current brushless motor (see at least paragraphs [0019]-[0020]: the compressor of the refrigeration system may be driven by a direct current motor, which means that the motor must be either a direct current brushed motor or a direct current brushless motor).
Regarding claim 4, Rusignuolo et al. further discloses wherein the motor can be a separate component from the compressor or integral with the compressor (see at least paragraphs [0019]-[0020]: since the compressor is discussed in relation to a motor, the compressor motor must be either a separate component from the compressor or integral with the compressor).
Regarding claim 5, Rusignuolo et al. further discloses wherein a solar panel is used to charge said battery that runs said transport reefer unit refrigeration system (see at least paragraphs [0016]; [0019]; Figure 7).
Regarding claim 6, Rusignuolo et al. further discloses wherein said solar panel is a power generation source and said generated power is sufficient to supply all the power necessary to run said refrigeration unit (see at least paragraphs [0016]; [0019]-[0021]; Figure 7: in the Figure 7 embodiment, the battery may be charged solely by the auxiliary power source (solar panel) and thus the solar panel generates sufficient power to run the refrigeration unit).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusignuolo et al. in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Harrison (US 2007/0187957: cited by Applicant; cited by Examiner in parent).
Regarding claim 9, Rusignuolo et al. in view of Takahashi disclose the battery powered transport reefer unit as claimed in claim 13 (see rejection, above).
Rusignuolo et al. in view of Takahashi is silent regarding an electric power generation plant comprising a fleet equipped with solar panels, ganged together in a charging network.
Harrison teaches an electric power generation plant comprising a fleet equipped with solar panels, ganged together in a charging network (see at least paragraphs [0006]-[0007]: a fleet is ganged together to form an emergency energy network capable of charging).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the unit of Rusignuolo et al. in view of Takahashi as an electric power generation plant comprising a fleet equipped with solar panels, ganged together in a charging network, as taught by Harrison, to improve the unit of Rusignuolo et al. in view of Takahashi by allowing for power supply during emergency conditions (see at least Harrison paragraph [0007]).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusignuolo et al. in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE, now taken as Applicant-Admitted-Prior-Art.
Regarding claim 10, Rusignuolo et al. in view of Kato et al. is silent regarding wherein ducts are recessed into the ceiling of said refrigeration zones.
However, Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE, now taken as Applicant-Admitted-Prior-Art, that wherein ducts are recessed into the ceiling of said refrigeration zones is old and well-known in the art.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the unit of Rusignuolo et al. in view of Kato et al. with wherein ducts are recessed into the ceiling of said refrigeration zones, since such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of providing a uniform ceiling height with the unit, thus preventing injury due to non-uniform protrusions, Examiner also notes that such provision would also improve the aesthetic design of the unit.
Alternatively, to the extent that Applicant intended wherein the ductwork protrudes from the ceiling of said refrigeration zones, Examiner notes that the combination with Takahashi further teaches this feature (see Figures 9 and 10).
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 TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights