DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I (claims 1-6), species 16 (Fig. 16) in the reply filed on 12/5/2025 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 7-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. See the interview summary dated 12/17/2025 where the applicant agreed to examination of claim 1 without the recitation, “affixed to the chamber in direct contact”, to avoid a notice of non-responsive amendment, as the elected species does not read on this recitation.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged, however, not all of the claimed subject matter is supported in the parent application and this prevents any earlier filing date for claims 1-6 than 1/26/2023. The claimed subject matter not supported in the previous applications, includes at least: that the heat exchanger performs a release of air from the housing and that the operable life of the refrigerator unit is an amount of time the unit has left with the cold chamber remaining below the upper end of the selected temperature range and that the system microprocessor adjusts settings of the refrigerator unit based on the operable life.
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) 1-6 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.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “a bezel” is indefinite for being unclear what structure is encompassed by the structure. The specification does nothing to explain what features or qualities qualify a structure to be a bezel. For present examination it is presumed to be at least a surface in the housing.
The recitation, “removable” are indefinite as it is unclear what structure is required to make the shelf considered removable. It is noted that there is no limitation on the tools used, and even structures that are formed integrally can be removed with the appropriate tools and therefore it is unclear what is and is not included by the term and it is unclear how the term limits the structure of the shelf.
The recitation, “wherein the heat exchanger releases air through the air exhaust” is indefinite for attributing a functional capability to the heat exchanger which is only performed by the air exhaust of the housing. The disclosure does not support that the heat exchanger performs the recited function and the claim explicitly states that the housing air exhaust provides a release of air. Therefore the recitation is unclear.
The recitations, “near an upper end” and “near a lower end” are indefinite since it is unclear what temperature range is encompassed by “near”. Such is a relative term just as ugly, tall, and small which only have relative meaning and have no absolute meaning. Therefore, the requisite “nearness” is unclear.
The recitation, “the refrigeration unit” lacks proper antecedent basis. The recitation appears first in the paragraph discussing the cloud computer. Thereafter the refrigeration unit is mentioned several times and it is unclear what structure is required by the recitation of the refrigeration unit and what structure is the system (see the preamble). Further see the section on claim interpretation below.
The recitation, “the unit has left” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the unit”.
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.
Claim limitation “refrigeration unit” 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 specification does not describe how to interpret the language and does not make clear what features are necessary and sufficient to meet the term and what features are additional and optional features. 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. For present examination, a refrigeration unit is merely a housing.
Claim limitation “an assembly” 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 specification does not describe how to interpret the language and does not make clear what features are necessary and sufficient to meet the term and what features are additional and optional features. 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. For present examination, an assembly is interpreted as merely a chamber and a thermoelectric cooler as claimed.
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 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, 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 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.
Claims 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miros (WO 2016/181223) in view of Welle (US 2008/0022696). See the 112 rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted and as far as supported. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Miros teaches a refrigeration unit system (see whole disclosure as identified below) comprising:
a refrigeration unit (refrigerator, para. 40) having a housing including a front panel (fig. 1b), a back panel (Fig. 1d), two side panels (opposite each other), a bottom panel (opposite the top, para. 47), and a bezel (para. 47) having an air exhaust (para. 47, ventilated air exhaust);
a plurality of air intake slots (para. 44);
an assembly (internal space, TE) having a cold chamber (internal space Fig. 1a”) central to the assembly, the assembly comprising a thermoelectric module (TE module, para. 52), wherein the module (TE module) is configured for conduction of a heat away from the cold chamber (internal space), wherein the cold chamber (internal space) comprises a shelf (shelf, Fig. 5a) removable (para. 54) from the cold chamber (internal space);
insulation (para. 50) surrounding the cold chamber (internal space) and arrayed so as to create a sealed and insulated environment (para. 50);
a heat flow system (heat exchanger, cold plate, hot plate) comprising a heat exchanger (para. 29, 52-53), a cold plate (cold plate, para. 52), and a heat conducting plate (para. 53 hot plate), wherein the heat exchanger (heat exchanger) comprises fins (Fig. 4b) to cool the refrigeration unit system, wherein the heat conducting plate (hot plate) and the heat exchanger (heat exchanger) are connected via heat pipes (heat pipes, para. 53) configured to conduct the heat away from the heat conducting plate (hot plate, para. 53) to the heat exchanger (heat exchanger), wherein air is released from the air exhaust (para. 47) after passing through the heat exchanger (heat exchanger), wherein the thermoelectric module (TE) is in mechanical contact (para. 53) with the heat conducting plate (hot plate) and the cold plate (cold plate), wherein the thermoelectric module (TE) is mounted to the cold plate (cold plate) by a mounting frame (para. 52), wherein the thermoelectric module (TE) is compressed against the cold plate (cold plate), wherein the heat conducting plate (hot plate) is between the cold plate (cold plate) and the heat exchanger (heat exchanger), wherein the cold plate (cold plate) is between the cold chamber (internal space) and the thermoelectric module (TE);
a fan (fan, para. 53), wherein the heat exchanger (heat exchanger) is coupled to the fan (fan), and wherein the fan (fan) is configured to circulate cooling air (from outside of the housing) over the fins of the heat exchanger (heat exchanger);
thermal probes (probes, para. 14) attached to the cold chamber (internal space), the heat exchanger (heat exchanger), and exposed to an ambient environment (para. 14) having an ambient temperature (para. 14), wherein the probes (probes) are configured to monitor system temperature states (para. 14);
a system microprocessor (para. 14 system microprocessor), wherein the system microprocessor (system microprocessor) monitors the system temperature states (para. 14 temperature states) and performs a cooling algorithm (para. 14) based on the system temperature states (states, para. 14) when the refrigeration unit system is powered by a rechargeable battery (para. 16) in the system housing (refrigerator), wherein the system microprocessor (system microprocessor) sets a target temperature (para. 69 chamber temperature set-point) near an upper end of a selected temperature range (para. 69) when a mains power is not connected to a mains power connector (para. 69 when running on battery, system not connected to a mains power connector), and wherein the system microprocessor (system microprocessor) sets the target temperature (para. 68 set-point) near a lower end of the selected temperature range (para. 68) when the mains power is connected to the mains power connector (when refrigeration is running on mains power);
a cloud computer (para. 79 cloud server) in satellite data communication (para. 79) with the refrigeration unit (refrigerator), wherein the cloud computer (cloud server) receives data of a location (para. 79 location) of the refrigeration unit (refrigerator), a battery charge level (para. 79) of the refrigeration unit (refrigerator), the selected temperature range (para. 80), an internal temperature inside of the refrigerator unit (para. 79), and the ambient temperature outside of the refrigerator unit (para. 79 external temperature), wherein the system microprocessor (system microprocessor) calculates a remaining time of operable life (para. 80 estimated time remaining) of the refrigerator unit (refrigerator) using the data of the internal temperature (para. 80 internal temperature) inside of the refrigeration unit (refrigerator) and the ambient temperature (external temperature, para. 80) outside of the refrigerator unit (refrigerator), wherein the operable life (estimate time remaining) comprises an amount of time the refrigerator unit (refrigerator) has left (para. 80) wherein the cold chamber (internal space) will remain below a maximum temperature (para. 80).
Miros does not appear to explicitly teach that the maximum temperature of operable life is necessarily set to be the upper end of the selected temperature range (see battery operation set point para. 69). In addition, Miros does not appear to explicitly teach that the refrigeration unit system is configured so the system microprocessor (system microprocessor) adjusts settings of the refrigerator unit (refrigerator) based on the operable life, rather the system of Miros appears to rely on communicating with a user and having the user consider this information and decide how to adjust settings (para. 81-87).
However, Montuoro teaches (see whole disclosure, including figs. 13, 14) a refrigeration system (53, para. 60) that is powered by AC power source (70) and a battery (54) and further teaches that when the system microprocessor (66) senses a 28connection to AC mains power (para. 80), the system microprocessor (66) sets a temperature set point to a lower end of a selected temperature range (Fig. 13, 14; para. 95, see optimal temperature which is a relatively lower temperature), and wherein when the system 30microprocessor (66) is not connected to AC mains power (when AC power is off, para. 94, 96, 97, and battery power is provided), the system microprocessor (66) sets the temperature set points near an upper end of a selected temperature 2range (set to warmer set points to lower power requirements, para. 94, 96. 97).
Therefore, since Montruoro teaches that the system is configured to adjust settings automatically, and in situations where the upper end of the selected temperature range is already selected to be a highest temperature that the refrigerated products being refrigerated are desired to be exposed to while the refrigerator unit is traveling and operating on battery power, then it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system microprocessor to set the maximum temperature of operable life to be the value of the upper end of the selected temperature range of battery operation for the purpose of automatically extending the battery life by operating at a higher temperature that is still acceptable for the products at hand and lowers the power demands on the battery.
In regard to claims 2-3, Miros teaches that the cold chamber (internal space) comprises aluminum sheet metal (para. 45).
In regard to claim 4, Miros does teach that the insulation is closed cell foam but does not explicitly teach that the closed cell foam is polyurethane foam. However, official notice is taken that polyurethane foam is routine and ordinary insulation, therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the insulation to be polyurethane foam for the purpose of providing a mechanically sound and good sealing insulator.
In regard to claim 5, Miros teaches that the algorithm runs the thermoelectric module by pulsing the refrigeration unit system between on and off states (para. 64).
In regard to claim 6, Miros teaches that the system microprocessor (system microprocessor) can sense a connection of the system to AC mains power and simultaneously charge the battery while running the thermoelectric module (TE) in order to cool the cold chamber (internal space) (para. 17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
December 17, 2025