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 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.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 10-17 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “the minimum distance being between 500mm and 1000mm”. The metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear because it is unclear if the minimum distance is a range of minimum distances and thus the distance can be any distance greater than 500 mm to greater than 1000mm or if the distance between the support surface and cooling plate is only 500mm to 1000 mm. Phrased another way, a minimum distance of 500mm between the plate and support surface would appear to mean the distance between the support surface and cooling plate can be any distance greater than 500 mm. For purposes of examination “the minimum distance being between 500mm and 1000mm” will read on any distance between the support surface and the cooling plate greater than 500 mm to greater than 1000 mm.
Claim(s) 2-8, 10-11, and 13-17 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6-8, 10, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleist (US 2,570,250) in view of Akashi et al. (US 5,450,297).
Per claim 12, Kleist teaches a method of cooling or heating fluids using a cooling or heating device (fig. 1) which includes a housing (“housing”, col. 1, line 42), a plurality of cooling plates (“freezing plates”, col. 2, line 7) arranged inside the housing (see figure 1), the cooling plates each comprising
a cooling channel (via space inside 18) for guiding a cooling or heating medium through the cooling plates (“refrigerant”, col. 2, lines 16);
a container support surface (lowest inner surface of housing) inside the housing, wherein the cooling plates are arranged so as to provide a minimum distance between the cooling plates and the container support surface (see annotated figure below of figure 2) such that a first container can be placed on the container support surface without touching the cooling plates (a properly sized first container can be placed on the container support surface without touching the cooling plates); and
a first air blower (upper 60 shown in figure 2) arranged in the housing,
the method comprising:
blowing air (via 60) onto the cooling plates (“freezing plates”, col. 2, line 7) using the first air blower (60) arranged in the housing (“housing”, col. 1, line 42); and cooling or heating the air inside the housing by guiding the cooling or heating medium through the cooling channels disposed inside the cooling plates which are arranged inside the housing (col. 2, line 49 through col. 3, line 15)
but fails to explicitly teach
the minimum distance being between 500 mm and 1000mm
arranging the first container inside the housing on the container support surface which is separated from the cooling plates by the minimum distance such that the first container does not touch the cooling plates, the first container containing a fluid to be heated or cooled.
PNG
media_image1.png
535
881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the Examiner take OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to place containers of fluids (i.e. beverages) on a container support surface (i.e. floor) of a refrigerator in order to advantageously provide easy access to the container. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a first container on the container support surface inside the housing, the first container containing a fluid to be cooled in order to advantageously provide easy access to the first container.
In the Office Action dated 7/29/2025, the Examiner took Official Notice that placing containers of fluids on container support surfaces is old and well known in the refrigerator art. 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.
Assuming arguendo, that it is not old and well known to place containers of fluids (i.e. beverages) on a container support surface (i.e. floor) of a refrigerator, Akashi teaches a method of cooling fluids including arranging a first container (17) on a container support surface (12) inside a housing (400), the first container (17) containing a fluid (“food”, to clarify, foods stored in refrigerator are also considered beverages/liquids) to be cooled for providing easier visibility to the first container (col. 6, lines 40-42). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a first container on a container support surface inside a housing, the first container containing a fluid to be cooled, as taught by Akashi in the invention of Kleist, in order to advantageously provide easier visibility to the first container (col. 6, lines 40-42).
Regarding the minimum distance between the support surface (i.e. floor) and the cooling plate being between 500 mm and 1000mm, per MPEP 2143, section I, paragraph A, “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” The minimum distance between the cooling plate and the support surface is disclosed and having the minimum distance between the two structure being at least 500 mm (the minimum distance required by the claim limitation) provides clearance between the support surface and the cooling plate for structures greater than 500 mm. Further, having the distance be at a minimum of 500 mm would not change the respective function of the support surface or the cooling plate and the support surface and the cooling plate would yield nothing more than a predicable result of providing clearance for structures placed on the support surface that are at least 500mm. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the minimum distance between the support surface and the cooling plate to be at least 500 mm in order to advantageously provide clearance for structures greater than 500 mm. Further the minimum distance between the support surface and the cooling plate being between 500 mm and 1000mm (i.e. at least 500 mm) is recognized by the Examiner to be a very broad value, and a value that an ordinary skilled artisan would have found obvious at the time of the invention.
Regarding the touching of the first container and the cooling plates, per MPEP 2144, section IV, paragraph A, “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”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrange the first container on the container support surface inside the housing such that the first container does not touch the cooling plates in order to advantageously prevent damage to the first container.
Per claim 2, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Kleist, as modified, teaches wherein in the blower of air using the first air blower (upper 60 shown in figure 2), the first air blower blows the air along an imaginary first air blower axis, and wherein the first air blower is arranged in the housing such that the imaginary first air blower axis leads through the cooling plates or through the spaces between the cooling plates (see annotated figure below of figure 2 of Kleist).
PNG
media_image2.png
301
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 3, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Kleist, as modified, teaches wherein the cooling plates (“freezing plates”, col. 2, line 7) are arranged inside the housing so as to be parallel to each other, or the cooling plates are arranged inside the housing in a substantially horizontal configuration (see figure 2 of Kleist).
Per claim 6, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Kleist, as modified, teaches wherein the cooling plates are arranged above the container support surface (see figure 2).
Per claim 7, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Kleist, as modified, teaches blowing air using a second air blower (lower 60) arranged in the housing, wherein the second air blower (lower 60) inside the housing blows air along an imaginary second air blower axis (see annotated figure below), and wherein the imaginary second air blower axis intersects a space above the container support surface (see annotated figure below) and the first container (17 of Akashi) on the support surface (12 of Akashi).
When the Akashi first container on the support surface is combined with the second air blower, the imaginary second blower axis, the support surface, and the housing of Kleist, as modified, the result is blowing air onto the first container using the second air blower arranged in the housing, as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
323
745
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claim 8, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Kleist, as modified, teaches providing the cooling or heating medium to the cooling plates (to clarify, a compressor is considered a pump because the compressor pumps cooling and/or heating medium through the system).
Per claim 10, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Kleist, as modified, teaches wherein the housing comprises a flap (7) for opening and closing the housing.
Per claim 14, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 7. Further, Kleist, as modified, teaches wherein the space intersected by the imaginary second air blower axis (see annotated figure in the rejection of claim 7) is between the container support surface (see annotated figure in the rejection of claim 7) and the cooling plates (“freezing plates”, col. 2, line 7).
Per claim 15, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 8. Further, Kleist, as modified, teaches providing of the cooling or heating medium to the cooling plates is performed by an apparatus (figure 6) comprising pipes (34) for establishing fluid communication between the apparatus and the cooling channel of the cooling plates (see figure 6).
Per claim 16, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 15. Further, Kleist, as modified, teaches the first air blower (upper 60) and the apparatus (figure 6) for providing the cooling or heating medium such that the first air blower and the apparatus for providing the cooling or heating medium are active at the same time (col. 4, lines 4-21) but fails to explicitly teach controlling, with a controller.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to use controllers to optimize system operations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the system with a controller in order to advantageously optimize operation of the system.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleist (US 2,570,250) in view of Akashi et al. (US 5,450,297) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Moller (EP 2 902 736).
Per claims 4-5, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Kleist teaches wherein the cooling plates (“freezing plates”, col. 2, line 7) are mounted movably in the housing (“The plates may, if desired, be made removable”, col. 2, lines 23-24),
wherein the method further comprises moving cooling plates relative to each other between first relative positions and second relative positions (i.e. installed/removed) but fails to explicitly teach wherein first distances present between neighboring cooling plates in the first relative positions are large enough to admit a second container between two neighboring plates, the second containing the fluid or a further fluid to be cooled or heated, and second distances present between the neighboring cooling plates in the second relative positions are smaller than in the first relative positions and not zero (claim 4), wherein the cooling or heating device includes a drivetrain, and wherein the moving of the cooling plates from the first relative positions to the second relative positions is performed by the drivetrain (claim 5).
However, Moller teaches a cooling device wherein first distances (3a-3p) present between neighboring cooling plates (2a-2q) in first relative positions large enough to admit a second container (“product”, pg. 1, eight paragraph of translation) between the neighboring plates containing a fluid or a further fluid to be cooled (see figure 2), and second distances present between the neighboring cooling plates in second relative positions are smaller than in first relative positions (“moving two adjacent freezer plates 2 away from each other”, pg. 6, second to last paragraph of translation) (claim 4), wherein the cooling device includes a drivetrain (5), and wherein the moving of the cooling plates from the first relative positions to the second relative positions is performed by the drivetrain (5) (claim 5) for quick and even cooling (pg. 6, third to last paragraph 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 first distances present between neighboring cooling plates in first relative positions large enough to admit a second container between the neighboring cooling plates containing a fluid or a further fluid to be cooled, and second distances present between the neighboring cooling plates in second relative positions smaller than in the first relative positions zero (claim 4), wherein the cooling device includes a drivetrain, wherein the moving of the cooling plates from the first relative positions to the second relative positions is performed by the drivetrain (claim 5), as taught by Moller in the invention of Kleist, as modified, in order to advantageously provided quick and even cooling (pg. 6, third to last paragraph of translation).
Per claim 13, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 4. Further, Kleist, as modified, teaches the second distances between he neighboring cooling plates in the second relative positions and the first relative positions but fails to explicitly teach wherein the second distances present between the neighboring cooling plates are smaller than the first relative positions but greater than zero.
However, adjusting the distances between the neighboring plates determines the accommodating space for containers. Further, per MPEP 2144.04 “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”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide wherein the second distances present between the neighboring cooling plates are smaller than the first relative positions but greater than zero in order to advantageously optimize accommodations for containers.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleist (US 2,570,250) in view of Akashi et al. (US 5,450,297) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Cutting et al. (US 2020/0107993).
Per claim 11, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Kleist, as modified, teaches cooling or heating the fluid contained in the first container (17 of Akashi) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the fluid contained in the first container is a fluid which occurs in or results from a bio-pharmaceutical production process.
However, Cutting teaches a cooling device for cooling a fluid which result from a bio-pharmaceutical production process (para. 0001) for efficiently shipping bio-pharmaceutical products (para. 0002). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide use a cooling device for cooling a fluid which results from a bio-pharmaceutical production process, as taught by Cutting in the invention of Kleist, in order to advantageously efficiently ship bio-pharmaceutical products (para. 0002).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleist (US 2,570,250) in view of Akashi et al. (US 5,450,297) and Cutting et al. (US 2020/0107993)as applied to the claims above and further in view of Harms et al. (US 5,364,385).
Per claim 17, Kleist, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 11. However, Kleist, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the cooling or heating of the fluid contained in the first container comprises freezing or thawing the fluid contained in the first container.
However, Harms teaches a blood thawing system wherein a cooling or heating of a fluid contained in a first container (10) comprises freezing or thawing of the fluid contained in the first container (“The height and width of the ducts 130 substantially corresponds to the height and width of a bag 10, and each pair of ducts 130 is spaced apart by a distance sufficient to receive a vertically oriented blood bag 10 therebetween, thus defining a vertical thawing chamber 136”, col. 8, lines 46-51) for rapidly thawing blood (col. 4, lines 6-9) in a medical treatment facility. 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 or heating of a fluid contained in a first container comprises freezing or thawing of the fluid contained int eh first container, as taught by Harms, in the invention of Kleist, as modified, in order to advantageously rapidly thaw blood (col. 4, lines 6-9) in a medical treatment facility.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 7, fifth paragraph, that Kleist does not disclose the specific dimensions of the minimum distance between the cooling plate and support surface being between 500 mm and 1000 mm; per MPEP 2143, section I, paragraph A, “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” A minimum distance between the cooling plate and the support surface is disclosed and having a container placed on a support surface of a refrigerator is also disclosed. Having the minimum distance between the two structures being at least 500 mm (the minimum distance required by the claim limitation) provides clearance between the support surface and the cooling plate for structures greater than 500 mm. Akashi discloses that it is known to place structures (i.e. containers) on support surface of refrigerators. Further, having the distance be at a minimum of 500 mm would not change the respective function of the support surface or the cooling plate and the support surface and the cooling plate would yield nothing more than a predicable result of providing clearance for structures placed on the support surface that are at least 500mm. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the minimum distance between the support surface and the cooling plate to be at least 500 mm in order to advantageously provide clearance for structures greater than 500 mm. Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 7, second to last paragraph, that Akashi does not disclose a plate freezer or a minimum distance; Akashi was not relied upon to disclose a plate freezer or a minimum distance. Akashi was relied upon to disclose that it is known to place container on a bottom surface (i.e. floor) of a refrigerator. Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
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
Prosecution Insights