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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “65” has been used to designate both “supply unit”, “compression/decompression device” and “compression unit”. 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. 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.
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:
“holding unit” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “holding unit” and the functional language attributed the “holding unit” includes: “configured to hold a ripening object.”
Structure “read into” the claims from the specification to support the claimed functional language includes “a hollow fiber membrane, metal organic framework as in claims 6 and 7.”
“desorption unit” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “desorption unit” and the functional language attributed the “desorption unit” includes: “configured to desorb the ripening component.”
It is not clear if the structure from the specification could be read into the claims. Paragraphs [0119] and [0120] state the desorption unit includes a heating unit or a compression unit. As these terms both use “unit”, they do not qualify as reciting structure in light of 112(f). The specification also states the heating unit and compression unit may be part of the adjuster.
“supply unit” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “supply unit” and the functional language attributed the “supply unit” includes: “configured to supply the ripening component.”
Structure “read into” the claims from the specification to support the claimed functional language is not found in the specification as originally filed. It is requested that applicant specifically point out which structure, with support from the specification, is included in the term “supply unit”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 recite “desorption unit” (claim 1) “supply unit” (claim 2). However, there is insufficient disclosure provided in the Specification to describe these claimed terms. As a result, the specification fails to provide sufficient disclosure in full, clear, concise, and exact terms such that any person skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention. Based on the lack of detail provided by the original disclosure, it is determined that the claimed subject matter is not presented in such a way as to reasonably convey to a skilled artisan that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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.
Regarding claims 1-17, claim limitations “desorption unit” (claim 1) “supply unit” (claim 2) has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses the word “means” or a generic placeholder coupled with functional language, but it is modified by some structure or material that is ambiguous regarding whether that structure or material is sufficient for performing the claimed function. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 13 recites “outside”. However, it is not clear what the term “outside” is referring to. Outside of which element?
Claim 15 recites “outside air”. A reference point for the air is not given. It is not clear which air “outside air” is referring to. Ambient air outside the device? Outside the target space?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wahlby et al (US 2015/0219383).
Regarding claim 1, Wahlby discloses, A ripening control device (10) configured to ripen an object stored in a target space the ripening control device comprising:
a holding unit configured to hold a ripening component that is generated from the object and ripens the object (storage chamber 12 holds the ripening component which is generated from the object such as a banana, See Paragraph [0050]);
a desorption unit configured to desorb the ripening component held in the holding unit from the holding unit (ethylene absorber 18 absorbs the ripening component from the storage chamber 12, See Abstract);
and a supply unit configured to supply the ripening component desorbed by the desorption unit into the target space (Supply unit 26 and recirculation circuit 20 supply the ripening component, See Paragraph [0045], [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Wahlby discloses, a ripening control unit configured to control operations of the desorption unit and the supply unit (control unit 30 operates the desorber 18 and the supply unit 26, See Abstract and Paragraph [0052]), wherein the target space includes a first target space and a second target space, and the ripening control unit executes a first mode in which the ripening component generated from the object in the second target space and held in the holding unit is supplied to the first target space. (The control unit operates switching valves 21 and 25 for supplying the ripening component to either a first chamber 12 or a second chamber 14, See Paragraphs [0020], [0022], [0064]-, [0066]) Regarding claim 4, air outlet 121 discharges the gas out of the target space 12. Regarding claim 5 and 8, chamber 19 would store part of the ripening component ethylene. Regarding claim 9, a heater 17 heats the holding unit 18. Regarding claim 11, a sensor detects the concentration of the ripening component. (See Paragraph [0054]) Regarding claim 12, the control unit would contain the adjusting unit as it controls the level of the ripening component. (See Paragraph [0056]) Regarding claim 14, a sensor detects the concentration of the ripening component which depends on a state of the object and controls the operation of the device appropriately. (See Paragraph [0056]) Regarding claim 15, the device supplies air from chamber 19 which would be different from composition of outside air into the target space. Regarding claims 16 and 17, (Fig.1 and [0037]-[0038]) schematically shows a cabinet 2 (claim 16:"a container") comprising the ripening control system 10 ("the ripening control device") and a storage chambers 12 and 14 ("a container body having the target space therein"); as well as a refrigerator 1 (claim 17: "a freezer") comprising a ripening control system 10 ("ripening control device") and a freezing compartment 4 ("a refrigeration apparatus configured to cool the target space").
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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) 3, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlby et al (US 2015/0219383) in view of Nabori et al (JP 2005-80558), applicant provided machine translation.
The teachings of Wahlby have been discussed above. Wahlby fails to disclose, regarding claim 3, the control unit executes a second mode in which the ripening component in the first space is supplied to the second target space.
Nabori discloses Chamber A and Chamber B defining two target spaces. The exhaust port supplies the ripening agent from Chamber A to Chamber B. (See Paragraphs [0010]-[0015]) It would have ben obvious, at the time of the invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the control unit executes a second mode in which the ripening component in the first space is supplied to the second target space for supplying a ripening component to a second chamber in order to collect the gas from the ripening object.
Wahlby fails to disclose the hollow fiber membrane or metal organic framework. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a hollow fiber membrane or metal organic framework, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlby et al (US 2015/0219383) in view of Dinh et al (US 5,452,581).
The teachings of Wahlby have been discussed above. Wahlby fails to disclose, the desorption unit has a compression unit configured to compress the holding unit.
Dinh discloses, a compression unit for the ripening component which would be involved with a desorption unit. (See Column 5, Lines 50 – Column 6, Line 15) The compression is done in order to remove residual water from the ethylene. It would have been obvious to adapt Wahlby in view of Dinh to provide the compression unit for removing water from the gas during the recirculation process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as well as any 112 deficiencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/13/2026