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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 11/14/2025. Claims 1-5, 7-20 are pending with claim 6 cancelled and claims 11-20 withdrawn.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites “a propulsion system associated with the container” which introduces new matter because the specification only describes a propulsion system associated with the tractor in paragraphs 44-45, 48.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas (US Pat. 10,240,847).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses a transport refrigeration system comprising: a tractor (20); a container (40) removably connectable to the tractor (container 40 removably connectable to tractor 20); a refrigeration unit (TRU 15) for conditioning a compartment (cooled compartment of trailer 40) of the container; a first power system associated with the container (photovoltaic cells, battery pack, trailer power management system; Fig. 5) and operably coupled to the refrigeration unit (electric TRU system), wherein the refrigeration unit is operable by the first power system when the container is separated from the tractor (column 7, lines 46-54); a second power system (diesel truck engine, power take-off generator, truck power management system; Fig. 5) associated with the tractor (20), wherein one or more components are shared between the first power system and the second power system (shared components via connected truck power management system and trailer power management system); and a fuel source (diesel fuel powering diesel truck engine) usable by the first power system arranged at the tractor (diesel tractor with power take-off generator generates electricity to charge trailer batteries of the first power system; Figs. 7-8; column 10, lines 24-49).
Regarding claim 7, Thomas discloses the transport refrigeration system of claim 1, wherein the first power system further comprises an auxiliary fuel source mounted to the container (PV cells 90, fuel cell 80 or electrical generator 85 configured on trailer), the first power source being connectable to the auxiliary fuel source (column 7, lines 30-56).
Regarding claim 8, Thomas discloses the transport refrigeration system of claim 1, wherein the first power system further comprises an auxiliary power source mounted to the container (PV cells 90, fuel cell 80 or electrical generator 85 configured on trailer), the auxiliary power source being operably couplable to the refrigeration unit (column 7, lines 30-56).
Regarding claim 9, Thomas discloses the transport refrigeration system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first power system and the second power system is connectable to an auxiliary power source (3 phase power source, Fig. 7) located remotely from the container (column 10, lines 24-34).
Regarding claim 10, Thomas discloses the transport refrigeration system of claim 9, wherein the auxiliary power source (three phase power source) is one of a power grid and a hydrogen filling station (Fig. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US Pat. 10,240,847) in view of Turlapati et al. (US 2023/0302922).
Regarding claim 2, Thomas discloses the transport refrigeration system of claim 1, wherein the first power system includes a first power source (80) and the second power system (diesel truck engine, power take-off generator, truck power management system; Fig. 5) includes a second power source (diesel truck engine), the first power source comprising a fuel cell (column 7, lines 40-51).
Thomas does not explicitly teach both the first power source and the second power source comprising a fuel cell.
Turlapati teaches the concept of a transport refrigeration system that utilizes a plurality of fuel cell modules (14) as well as a battery energy source (158) that supplies power to the traction motor (162) of the vehicle as well as cabin cooling (paragraph 61) in a manner far more environmentally friendly than conventional power systems such as an internal combustion engine (paragraph 45). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize having the second power system associated with the propulsion of the tractor be powered by a fuel cell power source would provide for a more environmentally friendly source of power for driving the propulsion system of the tractor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the transport refrigeration system of Thomas to have both the first power source and the second power source comprising a fuel cell taught by Turlapati in order to utilize a more environmentally friendly source of power for driving the tractor.
Regarding claim 3, Thomas as modified discloses the transport refrigeration system of claim 2, and the teachings of Turlapati when combined with Thomas further teaches a single fuel source (150, Fig. 2A) and is operably coupled to both the first power source (fuel cell powering refrigeration system or cooling system) and the second power source (fuel cell powering traction motor of Turlapati).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas as modified discloses the transport refrigeration system of claim 2, and Thomas further teaches wherein the first power system includes at least one first power electronics device (trailer power management system) connected to the first power source and operable to deliver power from the first power source to the refrigeration unit (TRU) and further teaches the second power system includes at least one second power electronics device (truck power management system) connected to the second power source and operable to deliver power from the second power source to at least one subsystem of the tractor (truck DC batter system).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas as modified discloses the transport refrigeration system of claim 2, and Thomas further teaches a propulsion system (truck engine) associated with the container (truck engine generates electricity for batteries of container).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 6, filed 11/14/2025, with respect to claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 2-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Turlapati does not disclose the fuel cell as claimed. This is not found persuasive in view of Thomas and Turlapati as discussed in the rejection above.
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 JOSEPH F TRPISOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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.
/JOSEPH F TRPISOVSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights