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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 09/11/2025. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 1-17 and 19-20 from which claims 13 and 15 are withdrawn remain pending for consideration.
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.
Claims 1-12, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vormedal (US 20030172670 A1) in view of Thomas (DE202021100693U1).
Regarding claim 1, Vormedal teaches a refrigerated display cabinet (shelved cupboard Fig. 1) with two-area display compartment (understood to be the refrigerated volume of the shelved cupboard Figs. 1-2), comprising: a containment structure (corresponds to the disclosed “four vertical wall sections and two horizontal end sections” in paragraph [0024]) defining a product display compartment (understood to be the refrigerated volume of the shelved cupboard Figs. 1-2), divided by a shelf (bottom shelf 12 Fig. 2) in a lower area (area between shelf 21 and bottom shelf 12 Fig. 2) and in an upper area (area between bottom shelf 12 and top shelf 12 Fig. 2), and an access opening (opening 1 Fig. 2) to the product display compartment (Fig. 2), wherein the containment structure comprises an air inlet mouth (inlet of ducting section 3 Fig. 2) and an air outlet mouth (nozzle 10 Fig. 2) both in communication with the product display compartment (Figs. 1-2 where the inlet of ducting section 3 and nozzle 10 are fluidly connected to the refrigerated volume of the shelved cupboard); a channel (ducting arrangement 3-10 Fig. 2) that fluidically connects the air inlet mouth with the air outlet mouth (Figs. 1-2) so as to direct a first flow of refrigerated air (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Vormedal) through the air outlet mouth towards the air inlet mouth (Figs. 1-2) along at least one portion of the access opening (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Vormedal) in the form of an air curtain (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Vormedal), wherein said channel contains a plurality of fans (fans 16 and 17 Fig. 2), and wherein said channel is in communication with the lower area of the product display compartment (Fig. 1) to directly introduce a second flow of refrigerated air (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Vormedal) in the lower area of the product display compartment (Fig. 1), wherein said plurality of fans is divided into two groups (top and bottom group Fig. 2), wherein a first group (lower fan 17 Fig. 1) is configured to generate a third flow of refrigerated air (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Vormedal) towards the lower area of the product display compartment (Fig. 1) and a second group (upper fan 16 Fig. 1) is configured to generate a fourth flow of refrigerated air (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Vormedal) towards the air outlet mouth (Fig. 1), and wherein said refrigerated display cabinet comprises a control unit (disclosed “automatic controls” in paragraph [0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
898
943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Vormedal teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein said channel contains at least one evaporator connected to a refrigeration circuit, wherein said plurality of fans is arranged downstream of the evaporator with respect to an air flow direction in the channel, the first group is a first group of fans, the second group is a second group of fans, the control unit programmed to adjust a speed of the first group of fans independently of a speed of the second group of fans so as to adjust a flow rate of the third flow of refrigerated air towards the lower area of the product display compartment independently of a flow rate of the fourth flow of refrigerated air towards the air outlet mouth, and wherein the channel is divided by partitions into a plurality of conduits, wherein each of said conduits is configured to direct airflow from a set of channels of said evaporator to a respective one of the first or second group of fans”.
However, Thomas teaches wherein a channel (air duct 17 Fig. 4 and paragraph [0050] corresponds to the channel of Vormedal) contains at least one evaporator (heat exchanger 3 Fig. 2 and paragraph [0040]) connected to a refrigeration circuit (corresponds to the disclosed “compression refrigeration machine” in paragraph [0006]), wherein a plurality of fans (fans 4.1, 4.1’, 4.2, and 4.2’ Fig. 2 correspond to the plurality of fans of Vormedal) is arranged downstream of the evaporator (Fig. 2) with respect to an air flow direction in the channel (the direction of airflows L1-L2 illustrated in Figs. 2 and 4), a first group (the group formed by the pairing of fans 4.1 and 4.1’ Fig. 2 corresponds to the first group of Vormedal) is a first group of fans (Fig. 2), a second group (the group formed by the pairing of fans 4.2 and 4.2’ Fig. 2 corresponds to the second group of Vormedal) is a second group of fans (Fig. 2), a control unit (control unit 20 Fig. 1 corresponds to the control unit of Vormedal) programmed to adjust a speed of the first group of fans (paragraph [0043]) independently of a speed of the second group of fans (paragraph [0043]) so as to adjust a flow rate of a third flow of refrigerated air (paragraphs [0043] to [0044] and Fig. 4 where the portion of airflow L1 that is illustrated between shelves 12’ and 12’’ corresponds to the third flow of refrigerated air of Vormedal) towards a lower area of the product display compartment (the portion of cooling chamber section 2.1 Fig. 2 that is located below shelf 12’ corresponds to the lower area of the product display compartment of Vormedal) independently of a flow rate of a fourth flow of refrigerated air (paragraphs [0043] to [0044] and Figs. 2 and 4 where the portion of airflow L2 that flows out of celling 13 corresponds to the third flow of refrigerated air of Vormedal) towards an air outlet mouth (the air outlet opening on ceiling 13 Fig. 4 corresponds to the air outlet mouth of Vormedal), and wherein the channel is divided by partitions (vertical supports 7.1, 8.1, and 10.1 Fig. 2 and paragraph [0053]) into a plurality of conduits (corresponds to the conduits used by airflows L1 and L2), wherein each of said conduits is configured to direct airflow from a set of channels of said evaporator (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Thomas) to a respective one of the first or second group of fans (Fig. 2 of Thomas) to individually adjust a cooling area temperature (paragraphs [0043] and [0044]).
PNG
media_image2.png
599
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Vormedal to include “wherein said channel contains at least one evaporator connected to a refrigeration circuit, wherein said plurality of fans is arranged downstream of the evaporator with respect to an air flow direction in the channel, the first group is a first group of fans, the second group is a second group of fans, the control unit programmed to adjust a speed of the first group of fans independently of a speed of the second group of fans so as to adjust a flow rate of the third flow of refrigerated air towards the lower area of the product display compartment independently of a flow rate of the fourth flow of refrigerated air towards the air outlet mouth, and wherein the channel is divided by partitions into a plurality of conduits, wherein each of said conduits is configured to direct airflow from a set of channels of said evaporator to a respective one of the first or second group of fans” in view of the teachings of Thomas to individually adjust a cooling area temperature.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein said channel comprises a first section (lower ducting section 4 Fig. 1 of Vormedal) arranged at a base of said refrigerated display cabinet (Fig. 1 of Vormedal where the base of the shelved cupboard corresponds to the disclosed base), a second section (ducting sections 5 and 8 Fig. 1 of Vormedal) arranged on a rear wall of said refrigerated display cabinet (Fig. 1 of Vormedal where the rear wall of the shelved cupboard corresponds to the disclosed rear wall) in a position (Fig. 1 of Vormedal) opposite said access opening (Fig. 1 of Vormedal) and a third section (upper ducting section 9 Fig. 1 of Vormedal) arranged at a top of said refrigerated display cabinet (Fig. 1 of Vormedal where the top of the shelved cupboard corresponds to the disclosed top), and wherein said air inlet mouth is in communication with said first section (Fig. 1 of Vormedal), said evaporator and said plurality of fans being arranged in said second section (Fig. 4 of Thomas where the vertical portion of air duct 17 corresponds to the second section of Vormedal), and said air outlet mouth being in communication with said third section (Fig. 1 of Vormedal).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein said second section of the channel is divided into a lower section (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Vormedal), which extends from the first section up to a height of said shelf (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Vormedal), and into an upper section (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Vormedal), which extends from the height of said shelf up to the third section (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Vormedal).
PNG
media_image3.png
816
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein said evaporator is housed in the lower section of said second section (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Thomas), and said plurality of fans is housed in the lower section of said second section (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Thomas) at the height of said shelf (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Thomas), in a connection area (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Thomas) between the lower section and the upper section (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Thomas).
PNG
media_image4.png
785
852
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach comprising an air space (lower portion of ducting section 8 Fig. 1 of Vormedal located between shelf 21 and bottom shelf 12) obtained between a rear panel of the product display compartment (corresponds to the front wall of ducting section 8 Figs. 1 and 3 of Vormedal) and the lower section of the second section of said channel (Fig. 1 of Vormedal).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein said channel is in communication with the lower area of the product display compartment (Fig. 1 of Vormedal) by means of a first connection opening (bottom perforation 13 Figs. 1 and 3 of Vormedal) obtained on the rear panel of the product display compartment (Fig. 3 of Vormedal).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein said first connection opening puts the lower area of the product display compartment in communication with said air space (Fig. 1 of Vormedal), and wherein said air space is in communication with the second section of said channel by means of the first group of fans (Fig. 1 of Vormedal).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein said first connection opening is obtained below said shelf (Fig. 1 of Vormedal).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein said shelf is a blowing shelf (Figs. 1 and 3 of Vormedal) fluidically connected to said channel by a second connection opening (corresponds to the opening on the front wall of ducting section 8 Figs. 1 and 3 of Vormedal that is connected to the outlet of piping 8’) obtained on a rear panel of the product display compartment (corresponds to the front wall of ducting section 8 Figs. 1 and 3 of Vormedal).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein the refrigerated display cabinet comprises an air space (ducting section 8 Fig. 1 of Vormedal) formed between the rear panel of the product display compartment and the lower section of the second section of said channel (Fig. 1 of Vormedal), wherein said second connection opening puts said blowing shelf in communication with said air space (Fig. 1 of Vormedal where ducting section 8 is in fluid communication with shelf 12 through piping 8’), and wherein said air space is in communication with the second section of said channel by means of the first group of fans (Fig. 1 of Vormedal).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the fans of the first group are arranged alternately with the fans of the second group along a main axis (Fig. 2 of Thomas where spatial axis 50 corresponds to the disclosed main axis) of the refrigerated display cabinet (Fig. 2 of Thomas).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein said plurality of fans consists of axial fans (referring Figs. 2 and 4 of Thomas, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the directions of air flows L1 and L2 as illustrated are parallel to the axial rotations of the fans which is indicative of axial fans).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the evaporator is a finned evaporator (Fig. 2 of Thomas) which internally defines through internal parallel fins (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Thomas), arranged orthogonally (Fig. 2 of Thomas) with respect to a main axis (room axis 50 Fig. 2 of Thomas) of the refrigerated display cabinet (refrigerated cabinet Fig. 4 of Thomas corresponds to the refrigerated display cabinet of Vormedal), parallel passage channels (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Thomas) for passage of air flow (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Thomas) and is arranged inside said channel (Fig. 4 of Thomas) so that the parallel passage channels are aligned with the air flow direction along said channel (Figs. 2 and 4 of Thomas).
PNG
media_image5.png
484
832
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach wherein the third flow of refrigerated air is at least a portion of the second flow of refrigerated air (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Vormedal).
PNG
media_image6.png
440
727
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach wherein the fourth flow of refrigerated air is at least a portion of the first flow of refrigerated air (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Vormedal).
PNG
media_image7.png
466
858
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vormedal, in view of Thomas, and in further view of Nooli et al. (US 20170340138 A1, herein after referred to as Nooli).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein each of the fans of the first group is associated with a deflector configured to divert the second flow of refrigerated air coming from the evaporator from said channel towards the lower area of the product display compartment”.
However, Nooli teaches wherein each of the fans of a first group (each blower 304 Fig. 4 of the disclosed “plurality of blowers 304” in paragraph [0031] corresponds to each of the fans of the first group of Thomas) is associated with a deflector (deflectors 306 Fig. 4 and paragraph [0031]) configured to divert a second flow of refrigerated air (the disclosed “airflow” in paragraph [0031] corresponds to the second flow of refrigerated air of Vormedal) coming from an evaporator (cooling heat exchanger 302 Fig. 4 corresponds to the evaporator of Thomas) from a channel (return airflow region 314 Fig. 2 corresponds to the channel of Vormedal) towards a lower area (corresponds to the disclosed “multiple locations” in paragraph [0031]) of a product display compartment (product support system 200 Fig. 2 corresponds to the product display compartment of Vormedal) to channel the generated cold air in a specific area of interest.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein each of the fans of the first group is associated with a deflector configured to divert the flow of refrigerated air coming from the evaporator from said channel towards the lower area of the product display compartment” in view of the teachings of Nooli to channel the generated cold air in a specific area of interest.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vormedal, in view of Thomas, and in further view of Copeland et al. (US 20100033923 A1, herein after referred to as Copeland).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the conduits coupled with the fans of the first group intercept a different number of parallel passage channels of said evaporator with respect to a number of parallel passage channels intercepted by the conduits coupled with the fans of the second group proportionately to power required by the areas of the product display compartment”.
However, Copeland teaches wherein a conduit (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Copeland) coupled with fans of a first group (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Copeland) intercept a different number of parallel passage channels (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Copeland) of an evaporator (the disclosed “heat exchanger” in paragraph [0009] corresponds to the evaporator of Thomas) with respect to a number of parallel passage channels (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Copeland) intercepted by a conduit coupled with fans of a second group (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Copeland) proportionately to power (disclosed “cooling capacity” in paragraph [0010]) required by areas (Part A211 and Part B213 Fig. 2 correspond to the areas of Vormedal) of a product display compartment (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Copeland) to increase the cooling capacity in a specific area of the product display compartment (paragraph [0010]).
PNG
media_image8.png
710
1200
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the conduits coupled with the fans of the first group intercept a different number of parallel passage channels of said evaporator with respect to a number of parallel passage channels intercepted by the conduits coupled with the fans of the second group proportionately to power required by the areas of the product display compartment” in view of the teachings of Copeland to increase the cooling capacity in a specific area of the product display compartment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's arguments on page 6 that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it is noted that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant' s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner has met all requirements establishing a prima facie case: all factual findings required by Graham were supplied in the previous and present Actions; the references are related art, and Applicant has supplied no evidence that there is no reasonable expectation of success; all claim limitations were met in the previous and present Actions, and Applicant has merely made the allegation that the limitations are not met, and thus has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified elements in the first action fail to meet the claimed limitations or to how the identified elements are otherwise distinguishable from the claimed limitations. Neither has Applicant supplied any evidence or argument addressing any failure of Examiner's application of the TSM test, pursuant to current governing law (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Further, motivation was provided in all present and previous combinations of references. Although a specific motivation may not have been explicitly stated within one of the references, the motivation was not improper, and provided in accordance with the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test (TSM). As such, Examiner's use of these facts as a motivation statement is in compliance with the requirements of the TSM test, since the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) test should be flexibly applied and the teaching, suggestion, or motivation need not be written within the reference. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US 2007); Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Lab., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex Parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 7 that no combination of the used prior arts teaches or suggests “wherein the channel is divided by partitions into a plurality of conduits, wherein each of said conduits is configured to direct airflow from a set of channels of said evaporator to a respective one of the first or second group of fans” as recited by amended claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
As previously presented in the above rejection of claim 1, Thomas teaches wherein a channel (air duct 17 Fig. 4 and paragraph [0050]) is divided by partitions (vertical supports 7.1, 8.1, and 10.1 Fig. 2 and paragraph [0053]) into a plurality of conduits (corresponds to the conduits used by airflows L1 and L2), wherein each of said conduits is configured to direct airflow from a set of channels of said evaporator (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Thomas) to a respective one of a first (the group formed by the pairing of fans 4.1 and 4.1’ Fig. 2 ) or second group of fans (the group formed by the pairing of fans 4.2 and 4.2’ Fig. 2) to individually adjust a cooling area temperature (paragraphs [0043] and [0044]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763