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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
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:
central heat reject subsystem in claim 1.
Attachment mechanism in claim 1.
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.
Central heat reject subsystem is interpreted to cover one or more of a central vent fan able to provide airflow to outside of the vehicle; and a liquid cooling loop as per claim 2; and equivalents thereof.
Attachment mechanism is interpreted to cover flexible ducting as per claim 3; and equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii (US 20200393186 A1) in view of Furcoiu (US 20210102647 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Horii discloses a vehicle #18 (Fig. 1, 4, and 7) for transporting one or more actively cooled totes ([Note: The phrase “for transporting one or more actively cooled totes” is considered an intended use limitation. See Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQe2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation")], the vehicle comprising:
a central heat reject subsystem #16 operable to reject heat from the one or more actively cooled totes ([0028]); and
an attachment mechanism #13 for moving heat from the one or more actively cooled totes to the central heat reject subsystem (best seen in Fig. 4; [0028]).
Horii does not disclose wherein the attachment mechanism for moving the heat comprises one or more of (i) one or more compressible gaskets that can seal a duct to one of the one or more actively cooled totes; and (ii) one or more spring-loaded mechanisms to aid the connection of the one or more actively cooled totes.
In the field of attachment mechanism, Furcoiu teaches an attachment mechanism (Fig. 3) comprising one or more of (i) one or more compressible gaskets #270a & #270b that can seal a duct #102b ([0046]); and (ii) one or more spring-loaded mechanisms #284b ([0051]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Horii with the claimed arrangement above; in a similar manner as taught by Furcoiu.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have facilitated installation of the attachment mechanism to the system during installation. Other benefit includes ensuring the system is properly sealed during installation (see Furcoiu [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 2:
Horii as modified discloses all the limitations.
Horii further discloses wherein the central heat reject subsystem comprises one or more of:
a central vent fan #25 able to provide airflow to outside of the vehicle (see Fig. 4); and
a liquid cooling loop #22.
Regarding claim 3:
Horii as modified discloses all the limitations.
Horii further discloses wherein the attachment mechanism for moving the heat comprises flexible ducting (see duct #13 in Fig. 4. By definition, all materials have some level of flexibility. Thus, “flexible ducting” is broad enough to encompass structure #13 of Horii).
Regarding claim 6:
Horii as modified discloses all the limitations.
Horii further discloses one or more dampers #36 ([0040] & [0043]) that can reduce air from moving back into the vehicle when a tote location is not occupied.
Note: the limitation “that can reduce air from moving back into the vehicle when a tote location is not occupied” constitutes an intended use limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed invention. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114/Il. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.)
Regarding claim 7:
Horii as modified discloses all the limitations.
Horii further discloses a support structure operable to hold the one or more actively cooled totes (best seen in Fig. 7; [0050]); where the attachment mechanism for moving heat from the one or more actively cooled totes to the central heat reject subsystem is integrated into the support structure (see #13a-b; Fig. 7, [0050]).
Regarding claim 8:
Horii as modified discloses all the limitations.
Horii further discloses wherein the support structure comprises hollow channels (see #13a-b; Fig. 7, [0050]).
Regarding claim 10:
Horii as modified discloses all the limitations.
Horii further discloses one or more vents #37a to improve air inlet from outside (see Fig. 2 & 7: #37a improve air inlet from outside container #11).
Regarding claim 11:
Horii as modified discloses all the limitations.
Horii further discloses wherein the one or more vents #37a are angled to increase an amount of air coming in as the vehicle travels faster (see Fig. 7: 37A is angled at 90 degrees with respect to #13a).
Note: the limitation “to increase an amount of air coming in as the vehicle travels faster” constitutes an intended use limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed invention. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114/Il. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.)
Regarding claim 12:
Horii as modified discloses all the limitations.
Horii further discloses one or more vents in the back of the vehicle (see Fig. 1; vent from #16 that communicates with #10).
Regarding claims 13-14:
Examiner notes that the limitations of claims 13-14 are not required by the claims, as claims 13-14 are directly related to an alternative and optional feature of claim 2. Since Horii discloses the first alternative of a central vent fan #25 able to provide airflow to outside of the vehicle (see Fig. 4), the limitation pertaining to the second alternative (the liquid cooling loop) becomes alternative and optional; therefore, not required by the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following claim is drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, is presented to applicant for consideration:
A vehicle for transporting one or more actively cooled totes, the vehicle comprising:
a central heat reject subsystem operable to reject heat from the one or more actively cooled totes; and
an attachment mechanism for moving heat from the one or more actively cooled totes to the central heat reject subsystem
wherein the attachment mechanism for moving the heat comprises:
one or more compressible gaskets that can seal a duct to one of the one or more actively cooled totes;
one or more spring-loaded mechanisms to aid the connection of the one or more actively cooled totes;
wherein the central heat reject subsystem comprises:
a central vent fan able to provide airflow to an outside of the vehicle; and
a liquid cooling loop;
wherein the liquid cooling loop comprises a liquid cold plate stationary in the vehicle, said liquid cold plate operable to mate to the one or more actively cooled totes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection set forth herein.
See 103 section above for the elaborated rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spirkowyc (US 5215337 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, 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.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights