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:
“storage detection device” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “storage detection device” and the functional language attributed the “storage detection device” includes: “detect a state of stored food in the freezing storage space.”
Structure “read into” the claims from the specification to support the claimed functional language includes “as an infrared sensor capable of scanning temperature distribution in the freezing storage space of the storage box 240, or may be configured as a plurality of independent infrared sensors (each infrared sensor is configured to detect a temperature of a certain region in the freezing storage space)” See Paragraph [0041]
“opening-closing detector” in claim 7
The generic placeholder is “opening-closing detector” and the functional language attributed the “opening-closing detector” includes: “detect an opening-closing state of the storage box.”
No structure of the detector is found in the specification as originally filed.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “opening-closing detector”, however, there is insufficient disclosure provided in the Specification to describe these claimed terms. As a result, the specification fails to provide sufficient disclosure in full, clear, concise, and exact terms such that any person skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention. Based on the lack of detail provided by the original disclosure, it is determined that the claimed subject matter is not presented in such a way as to reasonably convey to a skilled artisan that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 8-9 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jiang (CN 111043826) as cited by applicant with references made to attached machine translation.
A refrigerator (See Fig 1) with a freezing storage device comprising: a cabinet (box 10) provided therein with a storage compartment for achieving a freezing storage function (13 cold storage compartment for freezing) ;
the freezing storage device arranged in the storage compartment and comprising: a storage box (14) having a freezing storage space defined therein ("the cabinet 10 includes a plurality of storage liners 14, and the storage liner 14 defines a storage compartment. The storage compartment may
be a cold storage compartment, a temperature changing compartment, or a freezing compartment.", See Paragraph [0056]);
a storage detection device provided in the storage box and configured to detect a state of stored food in the freezing storage space (camera 50 take pictures of the interior of the storage liner 14 and compares the images to identify if and where new food has been placed, See Paragraphs [0060]-[0061]);
and a plurality of groups of electromagnetic coils (multiple coils 15, See Paragraphs [0064]) transversely arranged outside the storage box in parallel (See Fig 2, with each coil transversely arranged outside the storage box 14) and configured to determine a corresponding magnetic field application mode according to the state of the stored food ( it is convenient to only activate the electromagnets 15 that form a magnetic field in the space where new food is placed, without having to activate the electromagnets 15 corresponding to other spaces where no new food is placed, See Paragraph [0073], Paragraphs [0081]-[0093]), the magnetic field application mode comprising: stopping of generation of the magnetic field, starting of part of the plural groups of electromagnetic coils, and complete starting of the plural groups of electromagnetic coils. (The magnetic field would be stopped and only part of the groups of coils would be activated. See Paragraphs [0092]-[0102])
Regarding claim 2, Fig 2 shows the coils being oppositely arranged and would be connected in either parallel or series as it must be one of the two.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al (CN 111043826) in view of Jin (CN 107965960) as cited by applicant with references made to attached machine translation.
The teachings of Jiang have been discussed above. Jiang fail to disclose, regarding claim 3, the freezing storage device further comprises: a magnetic frame made of a magnetic material, fitted over the storage box and configured to allow the magnetic field to pass through the magnetic frame to complete a closed loop of a magnetic line; Regarding claim 4, a plurality of first bosses arranged at intervals in a transverse direction of the storage box are formed on an inner side of a top wall of the magnetic frame, and each first boss is configured to arrange the first coil of one group of electromagnetic coils; second bosses arranged opposite to the first bosses are formed on an inner side of a bottom wall of the magnetic frame, and each second boss is configured to arrange the second coil of one group of electromagnetic coils
Jin discloses, regarding claim 3, a storage box (sample chamber 104, figure 1) provided in a space enclosed by the magnetic frame (in a space enclosed by the frame on the outer portion of the four coils, as shown on figure 1) and defining a freezing storage space (a freezing zone containing the frozen sample, abstract); and a plurality of groups of electromagnetic coils (coils, abstract and as shown on figure 1) arranged on an inner surface of the magnetic frame (on the inner surface of the frame, as shown on figure 1) and configured to form magnetic fields (alternating magnetic field, abstract) with magnetic pole directions (plurality of electromagnet module is used for generating a plurality of direction, abstract) at a set angle in the freezing storage space (alternating magnetic field at least intersecting in the freezing zone, abstract), the magnetic fields passing through the magnetic frame to complete closed loops of magnetic lines (it is interpreted that the magnetic fields passes through the outer frame to generate a plurality of directions to complete the field by intersecting into the freezing zone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device in the teachings of Jiang to include a storage box provided in a space enclosed by the magnetic frame and defining a freezing storage space; and a plurality of groups of electromagnetic coils arranged on an inner surface of the magnetic frame and configured to form magnetic fields with magnetic pole directions at a set angle in the freezing storage space, the magnetic fields passing through the magnetic frame to complete closed loops of magnetic lines in view of the teachings of Jin in order to yield the predictable results of inducing the organisms to appear with fine ice crystals in the freezing process.
It would have been obvious to adapt Jiang in further view of Jin to provide the first and second bosses as bosses are standard terms in the art for mounting electromagnetic coils to a frame. They are typically cylindrical as they are used in mounting an electromagnetic coil for a motor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/7/2026