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 .
The claims received 11/24/2025 are entered. Claims 2-4, 12, and 19 are cancelled. Claims 10 and 17-18 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/2024.
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) 1-2, 5-9, 11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessells et al (US 6,755,041) in view of Schumacher et al (US 11,794,551).
Regarding claim 1, Wessells discloses a transport refrigeration system comprising:
a container (1:7 “truck trailer”);
a plurality of component levels including a power source comprising a fuel cell (40a or 40b) configured to produce electrical power, and at least one load connected to and operable to receive electrical power from the power source, the at least one load including a refrigeration unit (20) having a refrigerant circuit through which a refrigerant is circulated;
wherein at least one of the plurality of component levels comprises a plurality of modules (modules includes fuel cells and motors powered, 26,88, 90, 92, etc.);
wherein the power source includes a plurality of power source modules (40a and 40b) movable with the container.
Regarding the fuel source; Wessells does not explicitly state a fuel source however a fuel cell requires fuel to operate as is well understood. Thus a fuel source is inherent.
Alternatively, in the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that it is old and well known to provide a fuel source to a fuel cell. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Wessells with a fuel source for each fuel cell in order to allow for extended operation.
Wessels lacks a plurality of load modules corresponding to a plurality of distinct zones.
Schumacher discloses a multi-zone transport climate control system (MTCS; 7:14-15) including a plurality of load modules (166, 168a, and 168b); and wherein the refrigeration unit is operably coupled to a container (172), the container having a plurality of distinct zones (172a, 172b, and 172c), each zone of the plurality of zones being associated with a corresponding load module of the plurality of load modules (7:29-35), and wherein each zone has a different temperature set point (7:35-38 “separately and independently control environmental condition(s)”);
wherein a different power source module of the plurality of power source modules is operably coupled to a load module associated with a zone of the plurality of zones (Schumacher provides for a plurality of parallel power sources 212, 214, 216, and 218 all are connected to the plurality of zones).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Wessels with a plurality of zones of separate and independent environment as taught by Schumacher in order to transport goods having differing storage requirements, e.g. frozen and refrigerated goods. Further while Schumacher merely describes the remote units as including “evaporators (not shown)” (7:50) that said units also include the corresponding components to properly operate, namely fans as in Wessel. Further regarding a temperature set point, as discussed in Schumacher the environment of the zones is independently controllable. The "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art. In other words the claim does not require that the zones are set to a different temperature set point, but rather that they are capable of being separately set. Still further as Schumacher provides for a plurality of different power source modules to power the plurality of load modules of the respective zones, it follows to provide a plurality of power source modules of Wessells in combination to power the plurality of load modules of the plurality of zones in order to offer several benefits: redundancy, power load management, reduced size power source modules, and partial load operation.
Regarding claim 5, Wessells discloses the refrigeration unit further comprises a plurality of electrical loads, each of the plurality of electrical loads being a distinct load module (26, 88, 90, and 92).
Regarding claim 6, Wessells discloses the plurality of electrical loads of the refrigeration unit further comprises a controller (42), a compressor (24), and at least one fan assembly (50), wherein a first load module includes the controller and a second load module includes at least one of the compressor and the at least one fan assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Wessells and Schumacher further disclose the at least one load module of the plurality of load modules is associated with a component separate from the refrigeration unit, the component being a lift gate of the container (Schumacher 6:55-65).
Still further/alternatively Wessells states that “various electrically powered components in the system” are powered (3:46-50).
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that it is known to power electrical loads with a power source. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Wessels with at least one load further comprises a load separate from the refrigeration unit in order to power other elements of the system for example climate control of the vehicle cabin (separate from the load climate control), transport monitoring equipment (GPS, etc.), cabin user comforts (radio, device charging, etc.) or any other electrical load present within the system in order to increase the utility of the power source.
Regarding claim 8, Wessells discloses, each of the plurality of power source modules (40a and 40b) is operably coupled to a respective one of the plurality of load modules.
Regarding claim 9, Wessells discloses each of the plurality of power source modules is operably coupled to each of the plurality of load modules (shown in figure 2 the power source modules are coupled to their respective load modules).
Regarding claims 11, 13, and 15-16, Wessells as modified at claim 1 (modification to provide a fuel source for each fuel cell) discloses wherein the fuel source includes a plurality of fuel source modules, each of the plurality of fuel source modules being operably coupled to a respective power source module of the plurality of power source modules, and each of the plurality of power source modules being operably coupled to a respective load module of the plurality of load modules, a configuration of each of the plurality of fuel source modules varying based on the respective load module coupled thereto (the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art. For example configuring a fuel cell to be on or off based on a coupling of a load is an operation).
Regarding claim 14, Wessells discloses the system of claim 13 but is silent concerning a location of the fuel source relative to the refrigeration system.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that it is old and well known to provide fuel source, e.g. fuel tanks, underneath of a trailer or remote from the vehicle entirely, e.g. at a fueling station. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided fuel tanks in a position suspended from the underneath of the trailer in order to allow storage of a large quantity of fuel or to have connected to a fueling station in order to supply fuel to the vehicle. Both examples are remote from the refrigeration system.
Additionally, regarding limitations drawn to “at a loading dock”, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art. Thus by merely parking the transport vehicle at a loading dock the remote fuel tanks of the trailer (discussed above) are at a loading dock.
Alternatively the examiner takes official notice that refueling at a loading dock is old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a fuel source at a loading dock in order to refuel while cargo is loaded/unloaded thereby decreasing system downtime.
Response to Arguments
The remarks received 11/24/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts that Wessells does not provide suggestion as to how to determine what components are powered by a respective fuel cell. However Schumacher discloses the use of a plurality of power source modules where different power source modules are operably coupled to a load module associated with a zone of the plurality of zones. In other words as the power source modules of Schumacher are operably coupled to all of the zones different power source modules are coupled to the respective zones. In combination of Wessells a similar array of the fuel cell power source modules are provided in order to achieve similar benefits.
Further while applicant discusses the Schumacher reference, Wessels discloses the power sources are movable with the container.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schumacher et al (US 11,554,638; US 11376992) and Lattin (US 10,723,202) disclose multi-zone transport refrigeration systems.
Thomas (US 10,240,847), Schumacher et al (US11,554,638), Liao et al (US 11,554,629), and She et al (US 11,976,862) disclose plural different power sources for use in transport refrigeration systems.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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 on 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights