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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 7/17/2025. Claims 13-26 are cancelled. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been maintained. Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 27-39 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
§ 112(b)
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 7 and 31 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 7 and 31, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master-Bilt (Master-Bilt Refrigeration Solutions, Endless Glass Door Merchandisers Brochure, 15 June 2023, [retrieved on 20 Sept 2025]. Retrieved from Internet Archive < https://web.archive.org/web/20230615120958/https:/master-bilt.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Endless-Merchandisers-Brochure.pdf>) in view of Nishihata (WO2012153518A1) and Leucke (US2462115A).
Regarding Claim 1, Master Built teaches a refrigerated display case system [Endless Glass Door Merchandisers, p. 1], comprising:
a display case that defines an inner volume configured to store one or more perishable items [merchandising area, where 100% product pack-out space falls within the visible merchandising area; p. 4, Maximum Merchandising Area]; and
a closed-circuit refrigeration system [where the endless glass door merchandisers are refrigerators that use refrigerant; p.1-2], comprising:
a condensing unit [see annotated Figure from p.3 below] configured to sit on a top surface of the display case [where the semi-self-contained refrigeration system places the condensing unit on top of the case; p.3, Choice of Remote or Semi-Self-Contained Refrigeration Systems, annotated Figure from p.4] and comprising at least one compressor [see annotated Figure from p.3 below] and at least one condenser assembly [see annotated Figure from p.3 below];
a cooling assembly [where the evaporator coils are mounted in the bottom of the merchandiser; p.3, Choice of Remote or Semi-Self-Contained Refrigeration Systems] that comprises at least one cooling coil positioned in a bottom portion of the display case opposite the top surface of the display case [where the evaporator coils are mounted in the bottom of the merchandiser, see annotated Figure from p.4 below; p.3, Choice of Remote or Semi-Self-Contained Refrigeration Systems] and configured to circulate an airflow [AIR FLOW, Figure from p.4] from the inner volume [Refrigerated Pack-Out Space, Figure from p.4] through the at least one cooling coil to cool the airflow with a liquid phase of a refrigerant supplied from the condensing unit [where the airflow circulates through a front panel at the bottom of the refrigerated pack-out space; where evaporator coils are mounted in the bottom of the merchandiser; p.3, Choice of Remote or Semi-Self-Contained Refrigeration Systems], but
Master-Bilt does not explicitly teach at least one fan positioned in a bottom portion of the display case opposite the top surface of the display case, the at least one fan further configured to circulate the cooled airflow to the inner volume to adjust or maintain a temperature of the inner volume;
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p.1, lines 10-11] where at least one fan [internal fan 8, Figure 1] is positioned in a bottom portion of the display case opposite the top surface of the display case [where fan 8 is a part of cooling unit 10 installed at the bottom rear portion of freezer compartment 4 next to evaporator 9, Figure 1]; the at least one fan further configured to circulate the cooled airflow to the inner volume to adjust or maintain a temperature of the inner volume [where evaporator 9 is adjacent fan 8 forming cooling unit 10; p.5, 193-201; p.8, lines 322-327]; where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., cooling of perishable goods by ensuring air flow through the evaporator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have where at least one fan positioned in a bottom portion of the display case opposite the top surface of the display case, the at least one fan further configured to circulate the cooled airflow to the inner volume to adjust or maintain a temperature of the inner volume in view of the teachings of Nishihata where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., cooling of perishable goods by ensuring air flow through the evaporator .
Master-Bilt does not explicitly teach a liquid line coupled to an inlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit, the liquid line configured to circulate the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condensing unit to the at least one cooling coil; and a rigid suction line coupled to an outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit, and extending between the cooling assembly and the condensing unit external to the display case, the suction line comprising at least two bends between the outlet and the condensing unit configured to circulate a vapor phase of the refrigerant from the at least one cooling coil to the condensing unit.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p.1, lines 10-11] including a liquid line [a capillary 32, Figure 1; p.8, lines 322-327] coupled to an inlet of the at least one cooling coil [evaporator 9, Figure 1] and to the condensing unit [compressor 11 and condenser, not shown, in installation surface 28, Figure 2; p. 3, p. 5, lines 202-206], the liquid line configured to circulate the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condensing unit to the at least one cooling coil [where discharge refrigerant 104 is condensed and liquified in a condenser and the pressure is reduced in the capillary 32; p.8, lines 322-327]; and a rigid suction line [where suction pipe 33 connects between evaporator 9 and compressor 11, Figure 2; p.5, lines 212-222; where suction pipe 33 is copper, Figure 3; p.5, lines 212-222] coupled to an outlet of the at least one cooling coil [evaporator 9, Figure 1] and to the condensing unit [compressor 11, Figure 1], and extending between the cooling assembly and the condensing unit external to the case [where the suction pipe 33 protrudes from the back panel 26, through a cutout in the back panel, to connect with compressor 11, annotated Figure 3], the suction line comprising at least two bends between the outlet and the condensing unit [annotated Figure 3] configured to circulate a vapor phase of the refrigerant from the at least one cooling coil to the condensing unit [where the liquid refrigerant is evaporated in evaporator 9 and gasified; p.8, lines 322-327; where suction pipe 33 connects evaporator 9 and compressor 11, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., cooling of perishable goods through connecting the condensing unit and evaporator with conduits according to the vapor compression cycle for the refrigeration and providing flexibility to the connection with the compressor [Nishihata, p.5 line 223 – p.6, line 224].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have a liquid line coupled to an inlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit, the liquid line configured to circulate the liquid phase of the refrigerant from the condensing unit to the at least one cooling coil; and a rigid suction line coupled to an outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit, and extending between the cooling assembly and the condensing unit external to the display case, the rigid suction line comprising at least two bends between the outlet and the condensing unit configured to circulate a vapor phase of the refrigerant from the at least one cooling coil to the condensing unit in view of the teachings of Nishihata where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., cooling of perishable goods through connecting the condensing unit and evaporator with conduits according to the vapor compression cycle for the refrigeration and providing flexibility to the connection with the compressor [Nishihata, p.5 line 223 – p.6, line 224].
The combined teachings do not teach where the at least two bends of the rigid suction line are configured to flex to maintain a connection of the rigid suction line to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit in response to movement of the condensing unit from the top surface of the display case.
However, Luecke teaches a freezing cabinet where the refrigerating apparatus can be removed without uncoupling refrigerant conduits [col. 1, lines 10-15] where the at least two bends of the suction line [conduit 25, Figure 2; col. 1, lines 15-29] configured to flex to maintain a connection of the rigid suction line to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil [evaporator 23, Figure 2] and to the condensing unit [compressor unit 15 which includes compressor 17 and condenser 18, Figure 2] in response to movement of the condensing unit from the case [where high pressure and low pressure conduits of surplus length accommodated by bending or coiling the conduits permit relative displacement of the evaporator and the compressor without breaking the continuity of the conduits; col. 1, lines 15-29] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., facilitating maintenance by allowing the compressor unit to be moved separately from the evaporator without disconnection [Luecke, col. 3, line 60 – col. 4, line 17 ].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the at least two bends of the rigid suction line configured to flex to maintain a connection of the rigid suction line to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit in response to movement of the condensing unit from the top surface of the display case in view of the teachings of Luecke where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., facilitating maintenance by allowing the compressor unit to be moved separately from the evaporator without disconnection [Luecke, col. 3, line 60 – col. 4, line 17 ].
Claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “…to maintain a connection of the rigid suction line to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit in response to movement of the condensing unit from the top surface of the display case.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the rigid suction line is copper.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where the rigid suction line is copper [where suction pipe 33 is copper, Figure 3; p.5, lines 212-222; where rigid is interpreted in light of copper] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing flexibility to the connection with the compressor [Nishihata, p.5 line 223 – p.6, line 224].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have where the rigid suction line is copper in view of the teachings of Nishiahata where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing flexibility to the connection with the compressor [Nishihata, p.5 line 223 – p.6, line 224].
Regarding Claim 6, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the display case has a height of less than 80 inches [where without the runner the overall height of the semi-self-contained models is 79-3/4 inches; p.2, Table, Overall Height*].
Regarding Claim 8, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the at least two bends comprise: a first bend in a first plane of a first radius; and a second bend in the first plane of a second radius different than the first radius.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where the at least two bends [where suction pipe 33 snakes along back panel 26, Figure 3; p.5, lines 212-222] comprise: a first bend in a first plane [back panel 26, Figure 1] of a first radius [see annotated Figure 3 below]; and a second bend in the first plane of a second radius different than the first radius [where the second bend is smaller than the first bend; see annotated Figure 3 below] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, introducing bends to a pipe, to a known device, the suction line of a compressor, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., improving the flexibility of the suction pipe [Nishihata, p.5, line 223 – p. 6, line 224].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have where the liquid line comprises a capillary tube in view of the teachings of Nishihata where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, i.e., improving the flexibility of the suction pipe [Nishihata, p.5, line 223 – p. 6, line 224].
Regarding Claim 10, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the liquid line comprises a capillary tube.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where the liquid line comprises a capillary tube [capillary 32 from compressor 11 to evaporator 9, Figure 2; p. 5, lines 193-201] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., providing a low-cost passive method of reducing the pressure of the compressor discharge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have where the liquid line comprises a capillary tube in view of the teachings of Nishihata where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, i.e., providing a low-cost passive method of reducing the pressure of the compressor discharge.
Regarding Claim 11, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where a shelf is configured to couple to the display case and support the condensing unit while the rigid suction line is coupled to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where a shelf [machine panel 28, Figure 3] is configured to couple to a refrigerated case [inner body 13, Figure 3] and support the condensing unit [compressor 11 and condenser, not shown, in installation surface 28, Figure 2; p. 3, p. 5, lines 202-206] while the rigid suction line [suction pipe 33, Figure 3] is coupled to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil [evaporator 9, Figure 2] and to the condensing unit [at compressor 11, Figure 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., minimizing the height of the overall refrigeration system [Nishihata, p. 2, lines 47-55]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where a shelf is configured to couple to the display case and support the condensing unit while the rigid suction line is coupled to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit in view of the teachings of Nishihata where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e., minimizing the height of the overall refrigeration system [Nishihata, p. 2, lines 47-55]
Regarding Claim 12, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 11 and does not teach where the shelf is configured to support the condensing unit at a distance below the top surface of the display case.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where the shelf [where machine room panel 28, Figure 3] is configured to support the condensing unit [compressor 11 and condenser(not shown), Figure 3; p. 5, lines 202-206] at a distance below the top surface of the refrigerated case [where a minimum gap is required to prevent compressor 11 from contacting the top surface of cover 34, Figure 3; p.8 line 348 – p.9, line 360] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., minimizing the height of the overall refrigeration system [Nishihata, p. 2, lines 47-55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the shelf is configured to support the condensing unit at a distance below the top surface of the display case in view of the teachings of Nishihata where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e., minimizing the height of the overall refrigeration system [Nishihata, p. 2, lines 47-55]
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master-Bilt in view of Nishihata (WO2012153518A1) and Leucke (US2462115A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Shaprio et al. (US20150257549A1).
Regarding Claims 3-5, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the refrigerant is R290 and a critical charge of R290 between 100 and 300 grams.
However, Shaprio teaches a modular refrigeration system for a merchandiser utilizing a low charge hydrocarbon refrigerant [0015] where the refrigerant is R290 [where the refrigeration system includes a charge of hydrocarbon such as propane; 0015] and includes a critical charge of R290 between 100 and 300 grams [where the refrigerant loop 110 has a refrigerant charge limit of no more than 150 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant such as propane; 0020] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., providing a low-cost refrigerant while minimizing safety risks by following EPA regulations to have a refrigeration charge of no more than 150 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant in each refrigeration circuit [Shaprio, 0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have where the refrigerant is R290 and the system has a critical charge of R290 between 100 and 300 grams in view of the teachings of Shaprio where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, i.e., providing a low-cost refrigerant while minimizing safety risks by following EPA regulations to have a refrigeration charge of no more than 150 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant in each refrigeration circuit [Shaprio, 0004].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master-Bilt in view of Nishihata (WO2012153518A1) and Leucke (US2462115A) as applied to claim 6 above and in further view of Friend (US20220087446A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 and does not teach where the condensing unit has a height of between about 11 and 18 inches.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where the condensing unit [compressor 11 and condenser (not shown), Figure 3; p. 5, lines 202-206] height depends on the design of the compressor [where the height of the compressor is largely determined by the electric element and compression element, p. 9, line 386 – p.10, line 405] where it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply routine optimization to modify the condensing unit height to the claimed range as Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range to the function of the system [where the height of the display case with the condensing unit on the top surface of the display cabinet can be taller than a standard door and where the condensing unit can sit lower than the top surface of the cabinet when moving the system, Applicant Specification, 0043;0047], and the results would have been predictable, i.e., decreasing the height of the condenser unit to provide a more compact system for lower capacity cooling requirements [Nishihata, p. 9, line 386 – p.10, line 405].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the condensing unit has a height of between about 11 and 18 inches in view of the teachings of Nishihata where the claimed range lacks criticality and where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to yield predicable results, i.e., decreasing the height of the condenser unit to provide a more compact system for lower capacity cooling requirements [Nishihata, p. 9, line 386 – p.10, line 405].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master-Bilt in view of Nishihata (WO2012153518A1) and Leucke (US2462115A) as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Huang (CN204941850U).
Regarding Claim 9, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 and does not teach where the first radius is between 3 and 6 inches, and the second radius is between 10 and 12 inches.
However, Huang teaches a compressor [0002] where the first radius is between 3 and 6 inches, and the second radius is between 10 and 12 inches [where the curvature of the bend of the horizontal pipe section 44 at one end is greater than the curvature of the bend of the horizontal pipe section 44 at the other end, and the minimum radius of the contour line of the horizontal pipe section 44 is greater than or equal to 10 mm, Figure 3; 0050], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable to achieve a recognized result i.e., reducing flow resistance by providing smooth arc transitions [Huang, 0055].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the first radius is between 3 and 6 inches, and the second radius is between 10 and 12 inches in view of the teachings of Huang where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., reducing flow resistance by providing smooth arc transitions [Huang, 0055].
Claims 27-32 and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master-Bilt (Master-Bilt Refrigeration Solutions, Endless Glass Door Merchandisers Brochure, 15 June 2023, [retrieved on 20 Sept 2025]. Retrieved from Internet Archive < https://web.archive.org/web/20230615120958/https:/master-bilt.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Endless-Merchandisers-Brochure.pdf>) in view of Nishihata (WO2012153518A1) and Shaprio et al. (US20150257549A1).
Regarding Claim 27, Master-Bilt teaches a refrigerated display case system [Endless Glass Door Merchandisers, p. 1], comprising:
a display case that defines an inner volume configured to store one or more perishable items [where 100% product pack-out space falls within the visible merchandising area; p. 4, Maximum Merchandising Area]; and
a closed-circuit refrigeration system [where the endless glass door merchandisers are refrigerators that use refrigerant; p.1-2], comprising:
a condensing unit configured to sit on a top surface of the display case [where the semi-self-contained refrigeration system places the condensing unit on top of the case; p.3, Choice of Remote or Semi-Self-Contained Refrigeration Systems and annotated Figure from p.4] and comprising at least one compressor [see annotated Figure from p.3 below] and at least one condenser assembly [see annotated Figure from p.3 below];
a cooling assembly mounted in a plenum [see annotated Figure from p.4] at a bottom end of the display case opposite the top surface [where the evaporator coils are mounted in the bottom of the merchandiser, see annotated Figure from p.4 below; p.3, Choice of Remote or Semi-Self-Contained Refrigeration Systems] and separated from the inner volume by a perforated panel [see annotated Figures from p.1 and p.3 below, where the airflow circulates through a front panel at the bottom of the refrigerated pack-out space], the cooling assembly comprising at least one cooling coil [evaporator coils; p.3, Choice of Remote or Semi-Self-Contained Refrigeration Systems] and
Master-Bilt does not explicitly teach at least one fan configured to circulate an airflow from the inner volume through the at least one cooling coil to cool the airflow with a liquid phase of refrigerant supplied from the condensing unit, the at least one fan further configured to circulate the cooled airflow to the inner volume to adjust or maintain a temperature of the inner volume;
a liquid line coupled to an inlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit, the liquid line configured to circulate the liquid phase of propane from the condensing unit to the at least one cooling coil; and
a copper suction line coupled to an outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit, and coupled between the cooling assembly and the condensing unit external to the display case, the copper suction line comprising at least two radiused bends between the outlet and the condensing unit and configured to circulate a vapor phase of the propane from the at least one cooling coil to the condensing unit, each the at least two radiused bends positioned in a plane parallel to a back panel of the display case.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where at least one fan [internal fan 8, Figure 1] configured to circulate an airflow from the inner volume [where fan 8 is a part of cooling unit 10 installed at the rear of freezer compartment 4, Figure 1] through the at least one cooling coil [evaporator 9 where cooling unit 10 is composed of fan 8 and evaporator 9, Figure 1; p. 1, lines 31-36] to cool the airflow with a liquid phase of refrigerant supplied from the condensing unit [compressor 11 and condenser (not shown); p.8, lines 322-327], the at least one fan further configured to circulate the cooled airflow to the inner volume to adjust or maintain a temperature of the inner volume [where low temperature cold air is distributed by a damper (not shown) to cool each chamber; p. 8, lines 322-327];
a liquid line [a capillary 32, Figure 1; p.8, lines 322-327] coupled to an inlet of the at least one cooling coil [evaporator 9, Figure 1] and to the condensing unit [compressor 11 and condenser, not shown, in installation surface 28, Figure 2; p. 3, p. 5, lines 202-206], the liquid line configured to circulate the liquid phase of refrigerant from the condensing unit to the at least one cooling coil [where discharge refrigerant 104 is condensed and liquified in a condenser and the pressure is reduced in the capillary 32; p.8, lines 322-327]; and
a copper suction line [where suction pipe 33 connects between evaporator 9 and compressor 11, Figure 2; p.5, lines 212-222; where suction pipe 33 is copper, Figure 3; p.5, lines 212-222] coupled to an outlet of the at least one cooling coil [evaporator 9, Figure 1] and to the condensing unit [compressor 11, Figure 1], and coupled between the cooling assembly and the condensing unit external to the case [where the suction pipe 33 protrudes from the back panel 26, through a cutout in the back panel, to connect with compressor 11, annotated Figure 3] the copper suction line comprising at least two radiused bends between the outlet and the condensing unit [annotated Figure 3] and configured to circulate a vapor phase of the refrigerant from the at least one cooling coil to the condensing unit [where the liquid refrigerant is evaporated in evaporator 9 and gasified; p.8, lines 322-327; where suction pipe 33 connects evaporator 9 and compressor 11, Figure 1], each of the at least two radiused bends positioned in a plane parallel to a back panel of the display case [where suction pipe 33 snake along back panel 26, Figure 3; p.5, lines 212-222], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., cooling of perishable goods through connecting the condensing unit and evaporator with conduits according to the vapor compression cycle for the refrigeration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Master-Bilt to a at least one fan configured to circulate an airflow from the inner volume through the at least one cooling coil to cool the airflow with a liquid phase of refrigerant supplied from the condensing unit, the at least one fan further configured to circulate the cooled airflow to the inner volume to adjust or maintain a temperature of the inner volume;
a liquid line coupled to an inlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit, the liquid line configured to circulate the liquid phase of propane from the condensing unit to the at least one cooling coil; and
a copper suction line coupled to an outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit, the copper suction line comprising at least two radiused bends between the outlet and the condensing unit and configured to circulate a vapor phase of the propane from the at least one cooling coil to the condensing unit, each the at least two radiused bends positioned in a plane parallel to a back panel of the display case.
in view of the teachings of Nishihata where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., cooling of perishable goods through connecting the condensing unit and evaporator with conduits according to the vapor compression cycle for the refrigeration.
Further, the combined teachings do not teach the refrigerant is propane.
However, Shaprio teaches a modular refrigeration system for a merchandiser utilizing a low charge hydrocarbon refrigerant [0015] where the refrigerant is R290 [where the refrigeration system includes a charge of hydrocarbon such as propane; 0015] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements for another and yield predictable results, i.e., providing a lower-cost eco-friendly refrigerant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the refrigerant is propane in view of the teachings of Shaprio where the substitution of two elements for another would have yielded predictable results, i.e., providing a lower-cost eco-friendly refrigerant.
Regarding Claim 28, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 27 and does not teach a critical charge of the propane.
However, Shaprio teaches a modular refrigeration system for a merchandiser utilizing a low charge hydrocarbon refrigerant [0015] where the refrigerant is R290 [where the refrigeration system includes a charge of hydrocarbon such as propane; 0015] and includes a critical charge [where the refrigerant loop 110 has a refrigerant charge limit of no more than 150 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant such as propane; 0020] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements for another and yield predictable results, i.e., providing a low-cost refrigerant while following EPA regulations to have a refrigeration charge of no more than 150 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant in each refrigeration circuit [Shaprio, 0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the refrigerant is propane and the system has a critical charge in view of the teachings of Shaprio where the substitution of two elements for another would have yielded predictable results, i.e., providing a low-cost refrigerant while following EPA regulations to have a refrigeration charge of no more than 150 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant in each refrigeration circuit [Shaprio, 0004].
Regarding Claim 29, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 28 and does not teach where the critical charge of the propane is 300 grams.
However, Shaprio teaches a modular refrigeration system for a merchandiser utilizing a low charge hydrocarbon refrigerant [0015] where the refrigerant is propane [where the refrigeration system includes a charge of hydrocarbon such as propane; 0015] and includes a critical charge of 300 grams [where EPA regulations require a refrigeration charge of no more than 150 grams and a modular merchandiser may have two refrigeration loops in parallel such that the total refrigerant charge would be 300; 0004;0005] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., providing a low-cost refrigerant while complying with EPA regulations to have a refrigeration charge of no more than 150 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant in each refrigeration circuit [Shaprio, 0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have where the refrigerant is R290 and the system has a critical charge of R290 between 100 and 300 grams in view of the teachings of Shaprio where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, i.e., providing a low-cost refrigerant while minimizing safety risks by following EPA regulations to have a refrigeration charge of no more than 150 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant in each refrigeration circuit [Shaprio, 0004].
Regarding Claim 30, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 27 and further teaches the display case [visible merchandising area; p. 3] has a height of less than 80 inches [where the overall height of self-contained models is 79-3/4 inches in height excluding the skid runner; Table at bottom of p.2].
Regarding Claim 31, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of Claim 30 and further teaches where the overhead shroud for the condensing unit is covered by a 20 inches tall shroud [p.3] implying that the condensing unit is less than 20 inches but does not explicitly teach where the condensing unit has a height of between about 11 and 18 inches.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where the condensing unit [compressor 11 and condenser (not shown), Figure 3; p. 5, lines 202-206] height depends on the design of the compressor [where the height of the compressor is largely determined by the electric element and compression element, p. 9, line 386 – p.10, line 405] where it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply routine optimization to modify the condensing unit height to the claimed range as Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range to the function of the system [where the height of the display case with the condensing unit on the top surface of the display cabinet can be taller than a standard door and where the condensing unit can sit lower than the top surface of the cabinet when moving the system, Applicant Specification, 0043;0047], and the results would have been predictable, i.e., decreasing the height of the condenser unit to provide a more compact system for lower capacity cooling requirements [Nishihata, p. 9, line 386 – p.10, line 405].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the condensing unit has a height of between about 11 and 18 inches in view of the teachings of Nishihata where the claimed range lacks criticality to the overall height and where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to yield predicable results, i.e., decreasing the height of the condenser unit to provide a more compact system for lower capacity cooling requirements [Nishihata, p. 9, line 386 – p.10, line 405],
Regarding Claim 32, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 27 and does not teach where the at least two bends comprise: a first bend of a first radius; and a second bend of a second radius different than the first radius.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where the at least two bends [where suction pipe 33 snakes along back panel 26, Figure 3; p.5, lines 212-222] comprise: a first bend of a first radius [see annotated Figure 3 below]; and a second bend of a second radius different than the first radius [where the second bend is smaller than the first bend; see Annotated Figure 3 below], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., ensuring a desired length of the conduits in a compact space [p.5, lines 212-222]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the at least two bends comprise: a first bend of a first radius; and a second bend of a second radius different than the first radius in view of the teachings of Nishihata where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, i.e., ensuring a desired length of the conduits in a compact space [p.5, lines 212-222]
Regarding Claim 34, The refrigerated display case system of claim 27, wherein the liquid line comprises a capillary tube.
Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where the liquid line comprises a capillary tube [capillary 32 from compressor 11 to evaporator 9, Figure 2; p. 5, lines 193-201] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., providing a low-cost passive method of reducing the pressure of the compressor discharge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the liquid line comprises a capillary tube in view of the teachings of Nishihata where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, i.e., providing a low-cost passive method of reducing the pressure of the compressor discharge.
Regarding Claim 35, Master-Bilt teaches the invention of claim 27 and does not teach a shelf configured to couple to the display case and support the condensing unit while the copper line is coupled to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where a shelf [machine panel 28, Figure 3] is configured to couple to a refrigerated case [inner body 13, Figure 3] and support the condensing unit [compressor 11 and condenser, not shown, in installation surface 28, Figure 2; p. 3, p. 5, lines 202-206] while the rigid suction line [suction pipe 33, Figure 3] is coupled to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil [evaporator 9, Figure 2] and to the condensing unit [at compressor 11, Figure 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., minimizing the height of the overall refrigeration system [Nishihata, p. 2, lines 47-55]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where a shelf is configured to couple to the display case and support the condensing unit while the rigid suction line is coupled to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit in view of the teachings of Nishihata where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e., minimizing the height of the overall refrigeration system [Nishihata, p. 2, lines 47-55]
Regarding Claim 36, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 35 and does not teach the shelf is configured to support the condensing unit at a distance below the top surface of the display case.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where the shelf [where machine room panel 28, Figure 3] is configured to support the condensing unit [compressor 11 and condenser(not shown), Figure 3; p. 5, lines 202-206] at a distance below the top surface of the refrigerated case [where a minimum gap is required to prevent compressor 11 from contacting the top surface of cover 34, Figure 3; p.8 line 348 – p.9, line 360] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., minimizing the height of the overall refrigeration system [Nishihata, p. 2, lines 47-55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the shelf is configured to support the condensing unit at a distance below the top surface of the display case in view of the teachings of Nishihata where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e., minimizing the height of the overall refrigeration system [Nishihata, p. 2, lines 47-55]
Regarding Claim 37, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 28 and does not teach the critical charge of the propane is 150 grams.
However, Shaprio teaches a modular refrigeration system for a merchandiser utilizing a low charge hydrocarbon refrigerant [0015] where the refrigerant is propane [where the refrigeration system includes a charge of hydrocarbon such as propane; 0015] and includes a critical charge of 150 grams [where the refrigerant loop 110 has a refrigerant charge limit of no more than 150 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant such as propane; 0020] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., providing a low-cost refrigerant while complying with EPA regulations to have a refrigeration charge of no more than 150 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant in each refrigeration circuit [Shaprio, 0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings have where the refrigerant is R290 and the system has a critical charge of R290 between 100 and 300 grams in view of the teachings of Shaprio where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, i.e., providing a low-cost refrigerant while minimizing safety risks by following EPA regulations to have a refrigeration charge of no more than 150 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant in each refrigeration circuit [Shaprio, 0004].
Regarding Claim 38, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 27 and does not teach wherein the at least two bends comprise: a first bend of a first radius; a second bend of a second radius different than the first radius; and a third bend between the second bend and a suction of the at least one compressor.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where the at least two bends [where suction pipe 33 snakes along back panel 26, Figure 3; p.5, lines 212-222] comprise: a first bend of a first radius [see annotated Figure 3 below]; and a second bend of a second radius different than the first radius [where the second bend is smaller than the first bend; see annotated Figure 3 below]; and a third bend [see annotated Figure 3 below] between the second bend and a suction of the at least one compressor [between second bend and compressor 11, annotated Figure 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., ensuring a desired length of the conduits in a compact space [p.5, lines 212-222]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have wherein the at least two bends comprise: a first bend of a first radius; a second bend of a second radius different than the first radius; and a third bend between the second bend and a suction of the at least one compressor in view of the teachings of Nishihata where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, i.e., ensuring a desired length of the conduits in a compact space [p.5, lines 212-222]
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master-Bilt in view of Nishihata (WO2012153518A1) and Shaprio et al. (20150257549) as applied to claim 32 above and in further view of Huang (CN204941850U).
Regarding Claim 33, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 32 and does not teach where the first radius is between 3 and 6 inches, and the second radius is between 10 and 12 inches.
However, Huang teaches a compressor [0002] where the first radius is between 3 and 6 inches, and the second radius is between 10 and 12 inches [where the curvature of the bend of the horizontal pipe section 44 at one end is greater than the curvature of the bend of the horizontal pipe section 44 at the other end, and the minimum radius of the contour line of the horizontal pipe section 44 is greater than or equal to 10 mm, Figure 3; 0050], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable to achieve a recognized result i.e., reducing flow resistance by providing smooth arc transitions [Huang, 0055].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the first radius is between 3 and 6 inches, and the second radius is between 10 and 12 inches in view of the teachings of Huang where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., reducing flow resistance by providing smooth arc transitions [Huang, 0055].
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master-Bilt in view of Nishihata (WO2012153518A1) and Shaprio et al. (US20150257549A1) as applied to claim 27 above and in further view of Leucke (US2462115A)
Regarding Claim 39, Master-Bilt, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 27 and does not teach copper suction lines with two bends.
However, Nishihata teaches a refrigerator [p. 1, lines 10-11] where the suction line is rigid and copper [where suction pipe 33 is copper, Figure 3; p.5, lines 212-222; where rigid is interpreted in light of copper] and comprises at least two bends [where suction pipe 33 snake along back panel 26, Figure 3; p.5, lines 212-222; see annotated Figure 3 below] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., ensuring a desired length of the conduits in a compact space [p.5, lines 212-222]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have wherein copper suction lines have two bends in view of the teachings of Nishihata where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable, i.e., ensuring a desired length of the conduits in a compact space [p.5, lines 212-222]
The combined teachings further do not teach where each of the at least two bends of the copper suction line is configured to flex to maintain a connection of the copper suction line to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit in response to movement of the condensing unit from the top surface of the display case.
However, Luecke teaches a freezing cabinet where the refrigerating apparatus can be removed without uncoupling refrigerant conduits [col. 1, lines 10-15] where the at least two bends of the suction line [conduit 25, Figure 2; col. 1, lines 15-29] configured to flex to maintain a connection of the rigid suction line to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil [evaporator 23, Figure 2] and to the condensing unit [compressor unit 15 which includes compressor 17 and condenser 18, Figure 2] in response to movement of the condensing unit from the case [where high pressure and low pressure conduits of surplus length accommodated by bending or coiling the conduits permit relative displacement of the evaporator and the compressor without breaking the continuity of the conduits; col. 1, lines 15-29] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., facilitating maintenance by allowing the compressor unit to be moved separately from the evaporator without disconnection [Luecke, col. 3, line 60 – col. 4, line 17 ].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the at least two bends of the rigid suction line configured to flex to maintain a connection of the rigid suction line to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit in response to movement of the condensing unit from the top surface of the display case in view of the teachings of Luecke where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., facilitating maintenance by allowing the compressor unit to be moved separately from the evaporator without disconnection [Luecke, col. 3, line 60 – col. 4, line 17 ].
Claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “…to maintain a connection of the rigid suction line to the outlet of the at least one cooling coil and to the condensing unit in response to movement of the condensing unit from the top surface of the display case.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
738
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
736
954
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
571
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
797
839
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 1 of the remarks, Applicant argues in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 7 and 31 for using the term “about” that inches is a standard unit of measurement and those of ordinary skill in the art of condensing units as described would understand an acceptable range of height of components of a refrigeration system, especially when the range is relatively small. Applicant's arguments have been fully reconsidered but they are not persuasive. In particular, the recitation of “a height of between about 11 and 18 inches” renders the claims indefinite because, although inches is a standard unit of measurement, the extent outside of the range of 11 and 18 inches is unclear where the criticality of the condenser height is not established and the specification lacks some standard for measuring the tolerance intended. The applicant may overcome the rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure. Accordingly, the rejection of record is considered proper and remain.
On page 1-2 of the remarks, Applicant argues in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-12 and 27-39 that amended claims 1 and 27 are patentable over the cited art because the Office Action has not shown that each and every feature of these claims is disclosed or that the claims, as a whole would have been obvious. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Accordingly, the rejections of record is considered proper and remain. Please refer to the rejections of claim 1 and claim 27 above in view of Master-Bilt.
On page 2 of the remarks, Applicant requests a telephone conference with the Examiner. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-12 and 28-39 except for their dependence upon claims 1 and 27. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
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 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763