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 .
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:
“Heating elements for heating at least one of the compartments” in claim 1. Paragraph 6 page 4 of applicant’s specification states that the kind of heating element is not limited and provides an example of resistance heating with an auxiliary heater.
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.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular food or groceries" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shelfs" in line 11. The claim recites “at least one shelf” in multiple lines of the claim before and after said limitation. It is unclear if the claim is limited to 2 or more shelfs due to limitation “the shelfs” or if “at least one shelf” is the intended limitation.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cooling unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "food-safe material" in line 1. It is unclear what material would constitute a food-safe material.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Marcelo et al. (PGPUB US 2022/0354313 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Marcelo teaches a courier delivery box (figures 1 and 6) for transporting deliveries (abstract), in particular food or groceries, the courier delivery box being configured to be removably attached to a motorized and/or human-powered vehicle (par. 19), the courier delivery box comprises: a housing; an interior for storing the deliveries (Figures 1 and 6 area encompassed by walls 20e); and a door 20b for providing access to the interior of the courier delivery box; wherein the courier delivery box further comprises at least one shelf 21; at least two shelf positioning structures 20e for providing a plurality of positions for the shelfs in the interior of the courier delivery box, wherein the at least one shelf is removably inserted in one of said shelf positioning structures such that the interior of the courier delivery box can be variably subdivided into a plurality of compartments by selectively inserting the at least one shelf into the shelf positioning structures (par. 32); heating elements 10 for heating at least one of the compartments; and at least one functional unit (par. 42: compartment 22 housing on side or top with battery and electronics) arranged at a side of the courier delivery box, wherein the at least one functional unit comprises an electronics unit including a power supply.
Regarding claim 2, Marcelo teaches wherein the electronics unit includes a heating control unit for controlling the heating elements, or wherein the courier delivery box comprises a second functional unit, the second functional unit is a heating control unit for controlling the heating elements. (par. 42: controller 23 for controlling the heating elements.)
Regarding claim 3, Marcelo teaches wherein the courier delivery box comprises a third functional unit, the third functional unit is an ambient unit including a fan for air exchange between at least one of the compartments and the environment. (par. 22 and 42: Fan 24)
Regarding claim 6, Marcelo teaches wherein at least one of the functional units (VT/CB) is of a modular configuration so that it can be coupled to and decoupled from the courier delivery box. (par. 34 and figure 3)
Regarding claim 13, Marcelo teaches wherein the heating elements are located in an upper portion of the interior of the courier delivery box for heating at least the uppermost compartment of the courier delivery box. (figures 1-7 teach heating elements in upper portion of uppermost compartment.)
Regarding claim 17, Marcelo teaches wherein the door is hinged to the housing so as to be pivotable about a vertical axis and/or the door has a handle. (figures 1-7)
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 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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcelo et al. (PGPUB US 2022/0354313 A1) in view of Jessie (PGPUB# US 2020/0128991 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Marcello does not explicitly teach wherein the courier delivery box comprises a fourth functional unit, the fourth functional unit is a cooling unit including a cooling aggregate for cooling at least one of the compartments.
However, Jesse teaches a similar food delivery box. (abstract) Jesse teaches that it is advantageous to provide cooling device with a compressor into the system that also includes a heating unit in order to selectively control the environment based on the need of food being delivered. (par. 29-31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the cooling unit/compressor of Jesse, into the food delivery box of Marcello, in order to selectively control the environment based on the need of food being delivered as taught by Jesse.
Regarding claim 5, Marcello does not explicitly teach wherein the cooling aggregate includes a compressor.
However, Jesse teaches a similar food delivery box. (abstract) Jesse teaches that it is advantageous to provide cooling device with a compressor into the system that also includes a heating unit in order to selectively control the environment based on the need of food being delivered. (par. 29-31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the cooling unit/compressor of Jesse, into the food delivery box of Marcello, in order to selectively control the environment based on the need of food being delivered as taught by Jesse.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcelo et al. (PGPUB US 2022/0354313 A1) and Jessie (PGPUB# US 2020/0128991 A1) in view of Lee (KR101847555)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Marcelo and Jessie does not explicitly teach wherein at least the cooling unit is of the modular configuration.
However, Lee teaches a food distribution box for heating and cooling arrangements. Lee teaches that it is beneficial to make the units modular in order to allow for quick and easy replacement of the units. (abstract)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the modular functionality of Lee, into the food delivery box of Marcello in view of Jessie, in order to allow for quick and easy replacement of the units as taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Marcelo and Jessie does not explicitly teach wherein the cooling unit is removably attached to the ambient unit such that the air being drawn from the environment and supplied to at least one of the compartments by the fan can be cooled by the cooling unit.
However, Lee teaches a food distribution box for heating and cooling arrangements. Lee teaches that it is beneficial to make the units modular in order to allow for quick and easy replacement of the units. (abstract)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the modular functionality of Lee, into the food delivery box of Marcello in view of Jessie, in order to allow for quick and easy replacement of the units as taught by Lee. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have coupled the cooling units to the ventilation fan of Marcello as Marcello relies on the ventialation fan to feed the heating units air for convective heat transfer. (par. 22)
Claims 9-12, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcelo et al. (PGPUB US 2022/0354313 A1) .
Regarding claim 9, Marcello does not explicitly teach wherein the electronics unit has a hinged cover panel.
However, Marcello teaches a door/lid 22b for covering the enclosure 22. Marcello teaches that a door/lid 20b is attached by a hinge. (par. 32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the hinge both doors/lids of Marcello as it provides a conventional, simple, and easy mechanism for consistent controlling access through a door.
Regarding claim 10, Marcello does not explicitly teach wherein the hinged cover panel comprises a gasket.
However, examiner takes official notice that use of a gasket for providing a tight environment proof seal is known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a door gasket to all door/lid closures of Marcello, in order to provide an environment proof seal.
Regarding claim 11, Marcello does not explicitly teach wherein the electronics unit forms a cable routing gap at a lower part of the hinged cover panel for routing a cable to the electronics unit through the cable routing gap.
However, Marcello provides for one or more gaps 22c in the electronics enclosure 22 to route a power supply cable. (par. 42 and figures 6 and 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routed the cable anywhere to exit the enclosure 22 of Marcelo including anywhere in the door 22b as Marcello teaches the need to supply power external of the enclosure to inside the enclosure. Rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided. See MPEP 2144.04 VI
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Marcello does not explicitly teach wherein the electronics unit includes a lock for locking the hinged cover panel, and wherein the courier delivery box further comprises a door lock for locking the door.
However, examiner takes official notice that it is known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied locks doors to prevent undesired access to locations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied locks to any of the doors/lids of Marcella, in order to prevent undesired access to locations.
Regarding claim 15, Marcello does not explicitly teach wherein the interior of the courier delivery box is lined with a food-safe material.
However, Marcello teaches that it is known in the art to provide plastic coatings and lining in similar food delivery systems. (par. 10, 12, 14, and 18)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plastic coating on any part of the walls/compartments of Marcello as it is known in the art the plastic coatings provide a durable surface for use in food storage devices.
Regarding claim 16, Marcello does not explicitly teach wherein the courier delivery box is temperature-insulated.
However, Marcello teaches that it is known in the art to provide insulation in similar food delivery systems. (par. 10, 12, 14, and 18)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have insulation provided around the walls/compartments of Marcello as it is known in the art that insulation provides for a more controlled environment for storing food.
Regarding claim 18, Marcello does not explicitly teach wherein the outside of the housing and/or of the door is/are finished with metal.
However, Marcello teaches that the food storage device can be encompassed within a vehicle. (par. 38: Vehicles as shown in figure 5 would be framed/made with metal.) Marcello further teaches coating with aluminum canvas. (par. 32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have finished the box of Marcelo with metal, as metal is known to provide structural integrity to the box.
Regarding claim 20, Marcello does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one shelf is composed of a perforated metal sheet or a temperature insulating plastic board.
However, Marcello teaches polystyrene (temperature insulating) as a suitable construction material for forming the delivery box. (par. 32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the shelfs of Marcello from polystyrene as Marcello identifies such a material as a suitable construction material for the delivery box.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcelo et al. (PGPUB US 2022/0354313 A1) in view of Joshi et al. (PGPUB# US 2006/0130498 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Marcello does not explicitly teach wherein the courier delivery box further comprises at least one ionizer for purifying the air inside of at least one of the compartments.
However, Joshi teaches a system for storing food. (abstract figure 1) Joshi teaches the use of an ionizer to treat the air inside the storage compartment. Joshi teaches that this is done to limit bacteria growth resulting in premature spoiling of food. (par. 3-5 and 18)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the ionizer of Joshi, into one or more compartments of Marcello, in order to limit bacteria growth resulting in premature spoiling of food as taught by Joshi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761