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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the claimed not shown subject matter have been fully considered but they are only partially persuasive. Specifically, Applicant did not address the claimed not shown subject matter objection maintained below.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the previously set forth rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered, but are moot. Applicant is arguing about features added to the claims in an amendment, which are addressed in the new/modified grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment, below.
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 the gearbox is provided on the generator side of the magnetic coupling” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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: “electrical energy storage device” (i.e. device [generic placeholder] for electrical energy storage [functional language]) in claim 2.
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. In the case of electrical energy storage device, one or more batteries are found to be the corresponding structure in the disclosure.
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.
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) 1-2, 4, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesling (EP 3427992: cited by Applicant: partial English Machine Translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Kiesling discloses a transport refrigeration system (1) [see at least refrigerated vehicle #2] comprising:
a transportation refrigeration unit [see at least cooling device #10]; and
a generator (13) [see at least generator #22] coupled to a wheel axle (7A) of the transport refrigeration system via a coupling (11, 21) [see at least impeller wheel #16/shaft #26/magnetic coupling #24], wherein the generator is configured to be driven to generate electricity by rotation of the wheel axle and to supply that electricity to the transportation refrigeration unit [see at least paragraph [0011]], the wheel axle extending between two wheels of the transport refrigeration system [see at least Figure 2, impeller wheel #16/shaft #26/magnetic coupling #24 and associated axle is between the two wheels #6];
a gearbox coupled between the wheel axle and the generator, the gearbox being rotationally coupled to the wheel axle and to the generator [see at least paragraphs [0035]; [0012]], and the wheel axle being rotationally coupled to two wheels of the transport refrigeration system [Examiner notes that the wheel #16 rotates with the two wheels #6, and thus, the wheel axle is rotationally coupled to the two wheels #6];
wherein the coupling is a magnetic coupling [see at least magnetic coupling #24; paragraph [0044]], and
wherein the generator (13) is a rotational generator [see at least paragraph [0014]: rotor of generator is indicative of a rotational generator].
Kiesling does not disclose and the rotational axis of the generator is aligned with the wheel axle (7A).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the rotational axis of the generator is aligned with the wheel axle (7A) would result in a difference in function of the Kiesling system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Kiesling, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed alignment. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed alignment solves any stated problem, indicating that “[t]he rotational axis of the generator may be aligned with or offset from the wheel axle” [see paragraph [0021]], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the alignment as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
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 system of Kiesling with and the rotational axis of the generator is aligned with the wheel axle (7A) as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Regarding claim 2, Kiesling further disclsoes comprising an electrical energy storage device connected to the generator and to the transportation refrigeration unit [see at least paragraphs [0046]; [0016]], the electrical energy storage device being configured to receive and store some or all of the electrical energy from the generator and to provide electrical power to the transportation refrigeration unit [see at least paragraphs [0046]; [0016]].
Regarding claim 4, Kiesling is silent regarding wherein the gearbox is provided on a same side of the magnetic coupling as the generator.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the gearbox on a same side of the magnetic coupling as the generator would result in a difference in function of the Kiesling system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Kiesling, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed position. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed position solves any stated problem, indicating that the gearbox can be provided on either the generator side or the wheel axle side of the coupling [see paragraphs [0019]-[0020]], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the location as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
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 system of Kiesling with wherein the gearbox is provided on a same side of the magnetic coupling as the generator as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Regarding claim 12, Kiesling further discloses wherein the magnetic coupling is configured to transmit a torque [see at least paragraphs [0044]-[0045]].
Kiesling is silent regarding wherein the magnetic coupling is configured to transmit a torque in the range of 35 Nm - 400 Nm.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the magnetic coupling with configured to transmit a torque in the range of 35 Nm - 400 Nm would result in a difference in function of the Kiesling system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Kiesling, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed magnetic coupling torque range. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed magnetic coupling torque range solves any stated problem, indicating that the magnetic coupling may be configured to transmit torque in the range of 35 Nm - 400 Nm or torque in the range of 35 Nm - 300 Nm [see at least paragraph [0041]], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the claimed magnetic coupling torque range such that it produces an unexpected result.
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 system of Kiesling with wherein the magnetic coupling is configured to transmit a torque in the range of 35 Nm - 400 Nm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesling as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dombrovski et al. (US 6,054,788: previously cited).
Regarding claims 5-8, Kiesling is silent regarding wherein the magnetic coupling is an axial magnetic coupling (11); wherein the magnetic coupling is a radial magnetic coupling (21); wherein the magnetic coupling is a synchronous magnetic coupling (11); wherein the magnetic coupling is an asynchronous magnetic coupling (11).
However, axial, radial, synchronous, and asynchronous magnetic couplings are all old and well-known in the art, as evidenced by Dombrovski et al. (see at least column 1, lines 5-19; column 1, lines 44-64).
Further, there is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the magnetic coupling as an axial magnetic coupling would result in a difference in function of the Kiesling system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Kiesling, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed magnetic coupling shape/type. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed magnetic coupling shape/type solves any stated problem, indicating that the magnetic coupling may be axial, radial, synchronous, asynchronous, with housing, without housing, with barrier, without barrier, with adjustable gap, with fixed gap [see at least paragraphs [0022], [0025], [0025], [0027], [0028], [0030], [0033], [0038], [0039],[0040]], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the claimed magnetic coupling shape/type such that it produces an unexpected result.
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 system of Kiesling with wherein the magnetic coupling is an axial magnetic coupling (11), a radial magnetic coupling (21), a synchronous magnetic coupling (11), or an asynchronous magnetic coupling (11) as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).), and since, as evidenced by Dombrovski et al., each type was known in the art and were all art recognized alternatives selectable according to need by one having ordinary skill in the art (see at least Dombrovski et al. column 1, lines 5-19; column 1, lines 44-64).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesling as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of No Name (GB 678,135: previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Kiesling further discloses wherein the magnetic coupling has a generator side and a wheel axle side (see at least Figure 3, one side of coupling #24 is on the side of generator #22 and the other is on the side connecting to the wheel axle).
Kiesling is silent regarding and wherein the generator side of the magnetic coupling is situated in a housing (12) and/or the wheel axle side of the magnetic coupling is situated in a housing (10).
However, providing a magnetic coupling with one or both sides within a housing was old and well-known in the art, as evidenced by No Name (see at least Figure 3, radial magnetic coupling #12 within sealed housing #13; page 1, lines 88-92).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the magnetic coupling of Kiesling with and wherein the generator side of the magnetic coupling is situated in a housing (12) and/or the wheel axle side of the magnetic coupling is situated in a housing (10), since, as evidenced by No Name, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of preventing the ingress of water/debris.
Additionally/alternatively there is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the magnetic coupling with and wherein the generator side of the magnetic coupling is situated in a housing (12) and/or the wheel axle side of the magnetic coupling is situated in a housing (10) would result in a difference in function of the Kiesling system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Kiesling, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed magnetic coupling shape/type. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed magnetic coupling shape/type solves any stated problem, indicating that the magnetic coupling may be axial, radial, synchronous, asynchronous, with housing, without housing, with barrier, without barrier, with adjustable gap, with fixed gap [see at least paragraphs [0022], [0025], [0025], [0027], [0028], [0030], [0033], [0038], [0039],[0040]], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the claimed magnetic coupling shape/type such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, also/alternatively have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Kiesling with and wherein the generator side of the magnetic coupling is situated in a housing (12) and/or the wheel axle side of the magnetic coupling is situated in a housing (10) as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).).
Regarding claim 11, Kiesling is silent regarding comprising a barrier (10, 11) situated in a gap between two sides of the magnetic coupling.
However, providing a magnetic coupling with one or both sides within a housing was old and well-known in the art, as evidenced by No Name (see at least Figure 3, radial magnetic coupling #12 within sealed housing #13; page 1, lines 88-92: the housing will provide a gap between the two sides of the coupling).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the magnetic coupling of Kiesling with comprising a barrier (10, 11) situated in a gap between two sides of the magnetic coupling, since, as evidenced by No Name, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of preventing the ingress of water/debris.
Additionally/alternatively, there is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the magnetic coupling with comprising a barrier (10, 11) situated in a gap between two sides of the magnetic coupling would result in a difference in function of the Kiesling system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Kiesling, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed magnetic coupling shape/type. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed magnetic coupling shape/type solves any stated problem, indicating that the magnetic coupling may be axial, radial, synchronous, asynchronous, with housing, without housing, with barrier, without barrier, with adjustable gap, with fixed gap [see at least paragraphs [0022], [0025], [0025], [0027], [0028], [0030], [0033], [0038], [0039],[0040]], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the claimed magnetic coupling shape/type such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, also/alternatively have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Kiesling with comprising a barrier (10, 11) situated in a gap between two sides of the magnetic coupling as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesling as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lehde (US 2,807,734: previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Kiesling is silent regarding wherein a gap between two sides of the magnetic coupling is adjustable.
However, providing a magnetic coupling with wherein a gap between two sides of the magnetic coupling is adjustable, as evidenced by Lehde (see at least column 1, lines 34-47; column 4, lines 14-27).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the magnetic coupling of Kiesling with wherein a gap between two sides of the magnetic coupling is adjustable, since, as evidenced by Lehde, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for adjustable torque transmission.
Additionally/alternatively, there is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the magnetic coupling with a gap between two sides of the magnetic coupling is adjustable would result in a difference in function of the Kiesling system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Kiesling, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed magnetic coupling shape/type. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed magnetic coupling shape/type solves any stated problem, indicating that the magnetic coupling may be axial, radial, synchronous, asynchronous, with housing, without housing, with barrier, without barrier, with adjustable gap, with fixed gap [see at least paragraphs [0022], [0025], [0025], [0027], [0028], [0030], [0033], [0038], [0039],[0040]], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the claimed magnetic coupling shape/type such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, also/alternatively have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Kiesling with wherein a gap between two sides of the magnetic coupling is adjustable as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesling as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gongate (WO 2020/117467: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 17, Kiesling does not disclose wherein the two wheels support a trailer of the transport refrigeration system.
It is noted, however, that there are finite number of locations available for providing the cargo compartment of a transport refrigeration system. In this regard, it is noted that Gongate teaches a transport refrigeration system with two wheels rotationally coupled to a generator, wherein the two wheels support a cargo trailer of the transport refrigeration system (see at least Figure 3, wheels #102 coupled to generator #104, both on trailer #146).
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 transport refrigeration system of Kiesling with wherein the two wheels support a trailer of the transport refrigeration system, since, as taught by Gongate, such location is a suitable and known location for providing the cargo compartment of a transport refrigeration system (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for different vehicles to tow the transport refrigeration system.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesling (EP 3427992: cited by Applicant: partial English Machine Translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 14, Kiesling discloses a method of assembling a transportation refrigeration system (1) [see at least refrigerated vehicle #2], the method comprising:
providing a transportation refrigeration unit [see at least cooling device #10: thus it is provided];
coupling, via a coupling (11), a generator (13) to a wheel axle (7A) of the transport refrigeration system such that the generator is configured to be driven to generate electricity by rotation of the wheel axle [see at least impeller wheel #16/shaft #26/magnetic coupling #24; paragraph [0011]], the wheel axle extending between two wheels of the transport refrigeration system [see at least Figure 2, impeller wheel #16/shaft #26/magnetic coupling #24 and associated axle is between the two wheels #6]; and
connecting the generator to the transportation refrigeration unit such that the generator is configured to supply the electricity to the transportation refrigeration unit [see at least paragraph [0011]];
coupling a gearbox between the wheel axle and the generator, the gearbox being rotationally coupled to the wheel axle and to the generator [see at least paragraphs [0035]; [0012]], and the wheel axle being rotationally coupled to two wheels of the transport refrigeration system [Examiner notes that the wheel #16 rotates with the two wheels #6, and thus, the wheel axle is rotationally coupled to the two wheels #6];
wherein the coupling is a magnetic coupling [see at least magnetic coupling #24; paragraph [0044]]; and
wherein the generator (13) is a rotational generator [see at least paragraph [0014]: rotor of generator is indicative of a rotational generator].
Kiesling does not disclose and the rotational axis of the generator is aligned with the wheel axle (7A).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the rotational axis of the generator is aligned with the wheel axle (7A) would result in a difference in function of the Kiesling system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the method of Kiesling, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed alignment. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed alignment solves any stated problem, indicating that “[t]he rotational axis of the generator may be aligned with or offset from the wheel axle” [see paragraph [0021]], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the alignment as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
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 method of Kiesling with and the rotational axis of the generator is aligned with the wheel axle (7A) as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesling (EP 3427992: cited by Applicant: partial English Machine Translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 16, Kiesling discloses a transport refrigeration system (1) [see at least refrigerated vehicle #2] comprising:
a transportation refrigeration unit [see at least cooling device #10]; and
a generator (13) [see at least generator #22] coupled to a wheel axle (7A) of the transport refrigeration system via a coupling (11, 21) [see at least impeller wheel #16/shaft #26/magnetic coupling #24], wherein the generator is configured to be driven to generate electricity by rotation of the wheel axle and to supply that electricity to the transportation refrigeration unit [see at least paragraph [0011]];
a gearbox coupled between the wheel axle and the generator, the gearbox being rotationally coupled to the wheel axle and to the generator [see at least paragraphs [0035]; [0012]], and the wheel axle being rotationally coupled to two wheels of the transport refrigeration system [Examiner notes that the wheel #16 rotates with the two wheels #6, and thus, the wheel axle is rotationally coupled to the two wheels #6];
wherein the coupling is a magnetic coupling [see at least magnetic coupling #24; paragraph [0044]], and
wherein the generator (13) is a rotational generator [see at least paragraph [0014]: rotor of generator is indicative of a rotational generator].
Kiesling does not disclose and the rotational axis of the generator is aligned with the wheel axle (7A).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the rotational axis of the generator is aligned with the wheel axle (7A) would result in a difference in function of the Kiesling system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Kiesling, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed alignment. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed alignment solves any stated problem, indicating that “[t]he rotational axis of the generator may be aligned with or offset from the wheel axle” [see paragraph [0021]], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the alignment as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
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 system of Kiesling with and the rotational axis of the generator is aligned with the wheel axle (7A) as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Kiesling is silent regarding wherein the gearbox is provided on a same side of the magnetic coupling as the generator.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the gearbox on a same side of the magnetic coupling as the generator would result in a difference in function of the Kiesling system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Kiesling, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed position. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed position solves any stated problem, indicating that the gearbox can be provided on either the generator side or the wheel axle side of the coupling [see paragraphs [0019]-[0020]], and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the location as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
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 system of Kiesling with wherein the gearbox is provided on a same side of the magnetic coupling as the generator as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
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