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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“refrigeration mechanism” in claims 1, 16, and 17
“screwing mechanism” in claim 1, 16, and 17
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“refrigeration mechanism” is considered “a thermo-electric assembly (TEA)” (para. 0051 of the originally filed specification) or equivalents
“screwing mechanism” is considered “a helical screw” (para. 0091) or equivalents
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 4, 6-7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon (KR-101889069) in view of Okanlawon (GB 2515514) and Cunningham (US 2008/0178623).
Per claim 1, Hoon teaches a refrigerating device comprising a refrigeration mechanism (220); and a cooling chamber (100), wherein the cooling chamber is operatively coupled to the refrigeration mechanism and is configured to hold a load (“an article such as a vaccine”, pg. 2, second paragraph) to be cooled, and wherein the cooling chamber (100) is thermally sealed with the refrigeration mechanism (200) (“the accommodating portion 100 can be sealed by the cooling portion 200 so that the inside is maintained at a low temperature”, pg. 3, last paragraph of translation) but fails to explicitly teach a screwing mechanism, wherein the screwing mechanism thermally seals the refrigeration mechanism with the cooling chamber for effective cooling of the load, and wherein said cooling chamber has an air deflector at a cooling chamber bottom, said air deflector configured to guide air falling on the air deflector equally over said load from beneath said load.
Regarding the screwing mechanism, Okanlawon teaches a refrigeration device including a screwing mechanism (50), wherein the screwing mechanism thermally seals (“a liquid-tight manner”, pg. 8, line 5) a refrigeration mechanism (“thermoelectric device”, pg. 8, line 23) with a cooling chamber (12) for effective cooling of a load (“contents”, pg. 8, line 31) for maintaining the load at a chosen temperature (pg. 1, lines 6-7). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a screwing mechanism, wherein the screwing mechanism thermally seals a refrigeration mechanism with a cooling chamber for effective cooling of a load, as taught by Okanlawon in the invention of Hoon, in order to advantageously maintain the load at a chosen temperature (pg. 1, lines 6-7).
Regarding the air deflector, Cunningham teaches a refrigeration device wherein a cooling chamber (12) has an air deflector (160) at a cooling chamber bottom (bottom of 12), said air deflector configured to guide air falling on the air deflector equally over said load from beneath said load (para. 0037) for promoting air flow beneath an item being cooled (para. 0037). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a cooling chamber having an air deflector at a cooling chamber bottom, said air deflector configure to guide air falling on the air deflector equally over said load from beneath said load, as taught by Cunningham in the combined teachings, in order to advantageously promote air flow beneath an item being cooled (para. 0037), thereby providing optimal cooling to the item.
Further, it is understood claim 1 includes the recitation “for effective cooling operation” which is considered to be a statement of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here (MPEP 2114, section II). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Per claim 4, Hoon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hoon, as modified, teaches wherein the refrigeration system is a thermo-electric assembly (TEA) (220, “Peltier element”, pg. 5, third to last para.).
Per claims 6 and 10, Hoon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 4. Further, Hoon, as modified, teaches wherein the cooling chamber and said TEA but fails to explicitly teach wherein said cooling chamber is a vacuum flask, open end of said vacuum flask configured to be thermally sealed with said TEA, wherein said vacuum flask provides thermal insulation between said load and ambient environment (claim 6), wherein said vacuum flask is configured to provide said thermal insulation using any or a combination of vacuum and thermal insulation material (claim 10).
However, Okanlawon teaches a portable cooling system wherein a cooling chamber (12) is a vacuum flask (“a vacuum insulation region within at least its sidewall 26”, pg. 8, line 16), open end (14) of said vacuum flask configured to be thermally sealed with a TEA (“thermoelectric device”, pg. 8, line 23), wherein said vacuum flask provides thermal insulation between a load (“contents”, pg. 8, line 31) and ambient environment (claim 6), wherein said vacuum flask is configured to provide said thermal insulation using a vacuum (“vacuum insulation”, pg. 8, line 16) (claim 10) for maintaining the load at a chosen temperature (pg. 1, lines 6-7). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a cooling chamber as a vacuum flask, an open end of said vacuum flask configured to be thermally sealed with a TEA, wherein said vacuum flask provides thermal insulation between a load and ambient environment (claim 6), wherein said vacuum flask is configured to provide said thermal insulation using a vacuum (claim 10) , as taught by Okanlawon in the invention of Hoon, as modified, in order to advantageously maintain the load at a chosen temperature (pg. 1, lines 6-7).
Per claim 7, Hoon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 4. Further, Hoon, as modified, teaches wherein said TEA (220) has a fan (225) on a cold side heat sink (223) of the TEA, said fan configured to circulate air in said cooling chamber (100) and over said load.
Per claim 11, Hoon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Hoon, as modified, teaches wherein the device is powered using a battery (“The power source unit 260 may be a lithium ion battery that is easily charged and discharged”, pg. 7, last para. of English translation of Hoon) but fails to explicitly teach the battery being swappable.
However, the examiner takes OFFICAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to swap out batteries in portable devices to quickly provide power to the device. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a swappable battery in order to advantageously quickly provide power to the cooling device.
In the Office Action dated 1/28/2025, the Examiner took Official Notice that it is old and well known to swap out batteries in portable devices. Applicant has failed to traverse the(se) statement(s). As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art.
Per claim 12, Hoon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hoon, as modified, teaches wherein said device is configured to have a total operating weight (i.e. all things have a weight) but fails to explicitly teach the weight is less than 5 kilograms. However one skilled in the art would know that as weight increases the shipping costs of the device will also increase. Therefore the weight is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the weight of the device is increased the shipping costs of the device will increase. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the operating weight was disclosed in the prior art by Hoon, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of the operating weight by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the operating weight disclosed by Hoon, as modified, being less than 5 kilograms.
Per claim 14, Hoon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hoon, as modified, teaches wherein said device comprises a head cap (211/213) configured to be attached on said refrigeration mechanism (220), wherein upon said attachment power supplied to said refrigeration mechanism (220) commences, and wherein said head cap (211/213) is designed from maximum thermal insulation to said cooling chamber (100) (pg. 4, second para.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon (KR-101889069) in view of Okanlawon (GB 2515514) and Cunningham (US 2008/0178623) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Scully (US 2017/0135902).
Per claim 2, Hoon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hoon, as modified, teaches wherein said load comprises at least one vial containing a fluid, said vial held in a space configured in said cooling chamber, wherein said space is configured with a sensor to detect absence or presence of said at least one vial.
However, Scully teaches a portable transport device for medical specimens wherein a load comprises a vial (“vials”, para. 0005) containing a fluid (“vaccines”, para. 0005) , said vial held is a space (volume of ““biomedical reservoirs”, para. 0005) configured in a cooling chamber (“biomedical reservoirs”, para. 0005), said space is configured with a sensor to detect absence of said vial (“pressure sensor may also be used to determine in the smaller items and devices have been removed”, para. 0006) for ensuring the security of the load (para. 0005). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a load comprising a vial containing a fluid, said vial held in a space configured in a cooling chamber, said space is configured with a sensor to detect the absence or said vial, as taught by Scully in the invention of Hoon, as modified, in order to advantageously ensure the securing of the load (para. 0005).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon (KR-101889069) in view of Okanlawon (GB 2515514), Cunningham (US 2008/0178623), and Scully (US 2017/0135902) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Ota (JPH0961038) and Heroux et al. (US 2008/0276643).
Per claim 3, Hoon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Hoon, as modified, said cooling chamber (100), a bottom of the cooling chamber (bottom of 100) and said vial but fails to explicitly teach wherein said cooling chamber has a stitched cotton or super-absorbent polymers (SAP) at a bottom of the cooling chamber to absorb any spillage of said fluid from said at least one vial.
Regarding the super-absorbent polymers, Ota teaches a cooling chamber (10) including super-absorbent polymers (2) at a bottom of the cooling chamber (bottom of 10) for preventing deteriorating cooling efficiency (pg. 3, lines 22-23 of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide super-absorbent polymers at a bottoms of a cooling chamber, as taught by Ota in the invention of Hoon, as modified, in order to advantageously prevent a deterioration of cooling efficiency (pg. 3, lines 22-23 of translation).
Regarding the absorbing the spillage from a vial, Heroux teaches a portable medical load carrier wherein a cooling chamber (70) absorbs, at a bottom of the cooling chamber (70), any spillage of a fluid from a vial (60) (para. 0035) for instances of breakage of the vial (para. 0035). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a cooling chamber having absorb, at a bottom of the cooling chamber, any spillage of a fluid from a vial, as taught by Heroux in the combined teachings, in absorb the fluid in instances of breakage of a vial (para. 0035)
Claims 5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon (KR-101889069) in view of Okanlawon (GB 2515514) and Cunningham (US 2008/0178623) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Moon et al. (US 2019/0195547).
Per claim 5, Hoon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hoon teaches a controller (250) to set and regulate temperature inside said cooling chamber (pg. 7, sixth para.) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is a proportional integral derivative (PID) controller.
However, PID controllers are old and well known temperature regulation controllers. For example, Moon teaches a portable cooling system that uses a PID controller (para. 0070) for maintain a temperature within a desired setpoint within a reasonable limit (para. 0070). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a PID controller, as taught by Moon in the invention of Hoon, as modified, in order to advantageously maintain a temperature within a desired setpoint within a reasonable limit (para. 0070).
Claim 16 recites similar limitations as claim 1, 5, and 12 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and 5 and is rejected to in a similar manner.
Regarding the weight, one skilled in the art would know that as weight increases the shipping costs of the device will also increase. Therefore the weight is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the weight of the device is increased the shipping costs of the device will increase. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the operating weight was disclosed in the prior art by Hoon, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of the operating weight by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the operating weight disclosed by Hoon, as modified, being less than 8 kilograms.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoon (KR-101889069) in view of Okanlawon (GB 2515514) and Cunningham (US 2008/0178623) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Alexander et al. (US 2019/0323756) and Huisman (US 2018/0335247).
Per claim 8, Hoon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 6. Further, Hoon, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein said vacuum flask is thermally sealed with said TEA by configuring the TEA in a collar of thermal insulation, the collar configured to hold said vacuum flask by means of the helical screw threads, wherein said helical screw threads are configured on said collar and said vacuum flask so as to interact with each other to form the screwing mechanism.
However, Alexander teaches a portable cooling system wherein said vacuum flask (120) is thermally sealed with a TEA (200) by configuring the TEA in a collar (upper region of 120) of thermal insulation (128), for maintaining a desired temperature for long periods of time (para. 0007). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a vacuum flask thermally sealed with a TEA by configuring the TEA in a collar of thermal insulation, as taught by Alexander in the invention of Hoon, as modified, in order to advantageously maintain a desired temperature for long periods of time. (para. 0007).
Regarding the helical screw thread, Huisman teaches a portable liquid cooling device including a collar (34) configured to hold to a container (44) by means of helical screw threads (see figure 2), wherein the helical screw threads are configured on said collar and said container (see figure 2) so as to interact with each other to form a screwing mechanism (“The sidewall 46 has a top section 54 that extends from a top edge 56 to a shoulder 58 and is threaded on an outer surface 59”, para. 0019) for extending the capacity of the cooler (para. 0012). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a collar configured to hold a container by means of helical screw threads, wherein said helical screw threads are configured on said collar and said container so as to interact with each other to form a screwing mechanism, as taught by Huisman in the combined teachings, in order to advantageously extend the capacity of the cooler (para. 0012).
When the threaded collar of Huisman is combined with the collar and vacuum flask of Hoon, as modified, the result is wherein the helical screw threads are configured on said collar and on said vacuum flask so as to interact with each other to from the screwing mechanism, as claimed.
Per claim 9, Hoon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 6. Further, Hoon, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein said vacuum flask is thermally sealed with said TEA in a collar of thermal insulation, the collar configured to hold said vacuum flask by means of the helical screw threads.
Regarding sealing the vacuum flask to the TEA, Alexander teaches a portable cooling system wherein said vacuum flask (120) is thermally sealed with a TEA (200) by configuring the TEA in a collar (upper region of 120) of thermal insulation (128) for maintaining a desired temperature for long periods of time (para. 0007). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a vacuum flask thermally sealed with a TEA by configuring the TEA in a collar of thermal insulation, as taught by Alexander in the invention of Hoon, as modified, in order to advantageously maintain a desired temperature for long periods of time. (para. 0007).
Regarding the threading of the collar, Huisman teaches a portable liquid cooling device including a collar (34) configured to hold to a container (44) by means of helical screw threads (thread of 14) for extending the capacity of the cooler (para. 0012). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a collar configured to hold to a container by means of helical screw threads, as taught by Huisman in the combined teachings, in order to advantageously extend the capacity of the cooler (para. 0012).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. 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.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763