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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention III (claim 186) in the reply filed on October 16, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 130-137, 139-146, and 149, withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 186 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.
Claim 186 recites the limitation "the difference" in line 16, “the measured temperature” in line 17, and “the sensors” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
With further respect to claim 186, the claim requires “the difference between the measured temperature from at least two of the sensors is below a threshold indicative of completion of phase change material retained within the sealed volume from a liquid to a solid”. As claimed it appears that the controller would need to determine a difference between the measure temperature from the at least two sensors (i.e. if one sensor read 35°F and the other read 36°F, the difference between these two temperatures would be 1°F) and then this difference must be indicative of a phase transition of the phase change material. However, according to Applicant’s specification, the temperature of each of the sensors must indicate a phase change and not a difference between the measured temperatures. See paragraphs [0099-0101] of Applicant’s originally filed specification. Accordingly, claim 186 is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty, see MPEP 2173.03. Since claim 186 is internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification relating to the composition of the beverage, the claim is therefore indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “ a measured temperature from at least two of the plurality of temperature sensors are both below a threshold value indicative of completion of phase change transition of the phase change material retained within the sealed volume from a liquid to a solid.”
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.
Claim 186 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2016/066980 to Van Beek et al. hereinafter referred to as Van Beek, in view of WO2018016238 to Tsuno, hereinafter referred to as Tsuno.
In reference to claim 186, Van Beek as modified Tsuno disclose the claimed invention.
A passive thermally controlled shipping container (it should be noted that the claim does not further specify, define, or limit what, if any, additional structure is required in order to be "a shipping container" beyond that previously recited, of which Van Beek discloses, as detailed below), comprising:
(a) a container having walls (6A) defining an enclosed chamber (6) wherein one of the walls comprises an access door (2, see figure 1),
(b) thermal insulation lining the chamber (insulated casing 1, see figure 3) to define a thermally insulated chamber (6),
(c) a phase change thermal control panel (13) lining the thermally insulated chamber to define a thermal controlled chamber (6), the phase change thermal control panel (13) defining a sealed volume containing a supply of phase change material (14),
(d) a plurality of sensors (18, note Van Beek teaches “sensor(s)”, page 8 lines 26-28 implying a plurality of sensors) effective for measuring and transmitting the phase of spatially separated zones (note that when there are a plurality of sensors, the sensors would necessarily be separated by space as it is physically impossible for two solid objects to occupy the same space) of the phase change material retained within the sealed volume while the phase change thermal control panel remains in the thermally insulated chamber, and
(e) a controller (16) operable for periodically receiving the transmitted measured temperatures from the plurality of temperature sensors throughout a thermal conditioning period and discontinuing thermal conditioning of the phase change thermal control panel while the phase change thermal control panel remains in the thermally insulated chamber when a measurement from at least two of the plurality of sensors are both below a threshold value indicative of completion of phase change transition of the phase change material retained within the sealed volume from a liquid to a solid, see page 8 lines 22-30.
Note that Applicant’s specification appears to define the enclosed chamber 1291, and thermally insulated chamber 1292, and thermal controlled chamber 1293, as the same chamber (see figure 1). Accordingly, it is appropriate to define the chamber (6) of Van Beek as the enclosed chamber, thermally insulated chamber, and thermal controlled chamber.
Van Beek fails to disclose that the sensors are temperature sensors.
Tsuno teaches that in the art of payload cooling devices that it is a known method to determine the temperature of a PCM by use of temperature sensor (140). This is strong evidence that modifying Van Beek as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., determine the phase of the PCM through actual temperature measurements instead of electrical conductivity). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Van Beek by Tsumo such that sensor(s) 18 were temperature sensors instead of electrical conductivity sensors since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of determining the phase of the PCM by temperature.
Further note that claim limitation of the controller is a controller for discontinuing thermal conditioning and not a controller configured to perform the claimed operation. A controller for performing a function is much broader than a controller configured to control a specific operation. Nearly any controller is capable of being programmed to meet such functionality whereas a controller configured to perform a specific programming must include code and instructions to so perform. As such, the controller of Van Beek as modified by Tsuno would be perfectly capable of performing the claimed function with appropriate code or instructions and meets the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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 at 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 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763