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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the European Patent Office on 07/29/2022. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP22187961.2 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 02/10/2026. The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-20 remain pending for consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-9, 11-13, and 19-20 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “wherein matching the cooling capacity comprises turning off and/or turning on one or more of the plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit, based on the calculated volume, to achieve a desired cooling capacity to control cooling of the cargo container” and “wherein matching the cooling capacity comprises turning off and/or turning on one or more of the plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit, based on the calculated volume, to achieve a desired cooling capacity to control cooling of the cargo container” which render the claim indefinite because the claim as written leave the structure/function ambiguous in nature as it become difficult to tell if the claim is referencing a previously claimed element/function or disclosing an element/function in addition to the previously claimed element/function.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a plurality of compressors” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “one or more compressors of a plurality of compressors” will be interpreted as -- one or more compressors of the plurality of compressors --
Claim 18 recites the limitations “adjusting a cooling capacity of the transport refrigeration unit based on the calculated volume to control the cooling of the cargo container, wherein adjusting comprises turning off and/or turning on one or more of a plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit” and “adjusting a cooling capacity of the transport refrigeration unit based on the calculated volume to control the cooling of the cargo container, wherein adjusting comprises turning off and/or turning on one or more of a plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit” which render the claim indefinite because the claim as written leave the structure/function ambiguous in nature as it become difficult to tell if the claim is referencing a previously claimed element/function or disclosing an element/function in addition to the previously claimed element/function.
Claims 9, 11-13, and 19-20 are also rejected due to dependency.
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 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanya et al. (US20230364967A1, herein after referred to as Subrahmanya), in view of Donnellan (US20240025229A1), and in further view of Wu et al. (CN114719489A, herein after referred to as Wu).
Regarding claim 1, Subrahmanya teaches a method (processing flow 3200 Fig. 32A) of operating a transport refrigeration system (transport unit 20 Fig. 21A), comprising: using a sensor (proximity sensor 2005A Fig. 21B) to determine a distance (paragraph [0310]) between a mobile bulkhead (bulkheads 25A and 25B Fig. 21A) in a cargo container (interior of transport unit 20 Fig. 21A) and a heat-absorbing heat exchanger (heat exchanger coils 205 Fig. 2A) of a transport refrigeration unit (remote heat exchanger unit 200 Fig. 21A) arranged to cool the cargo container (Fig. 21A).
Subrahmanya teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the method comprising calculating a volume of a first compartment of the cargo container based upon the determined distance; and matching a cooling capacity of the transport refrigeration unit to the calculated volume of the first compartment”.
However, Donnellan teaches a method (the method illustrated in Fig. 3 corresponds to the method of Subrahmanya) comprising calculating a volume (paragraph [0012]) of a first compartment of a cargo container (zone 6a Fig. 1 where refrigerated transport unit 2 corresponds to the cargo container of Subrahmanya) based upon a determined distance (paragraph [0012] where the disclosed “dimension” corresponds the determined distance of Subrahmanya); and matching a cooling capacity of a transport refrigeration unit (disclosed “target volumetric flow rate” in paragraph [0012] where evaporator module 20a Fig. 1 corresponds to the transport refrigeration unit of Subrahmanya) to the calculated volume of the first compartment (paragraph [0012]) to provide a good heat exchange refrigeration efficiency (paragraph 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Subrahmanya to include “the method comprising calculating a volume of a first compartment of the cargo container based upon the determined distance; and matching a cooling capacity of the transport refrigeration unit to the calculated volume of the first compartment” in view of the teachings of Donnellan to provide a good heat exchange refrigeration efficiency.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method comprising: wherein matching the cooling capacity comprises turning off and/or turning on one or more of a plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit, based on the calculated volume, to achieve a desired cooling capacity to control the cooling of the cargo container”.
However, Wu teaches a method (the method disclosed in paragraph [80] corresponds to the method of Subrahmanya) comprising: wherein matching a cooling capacity (the disclosed “cooling capacity” of the compressors in paragraph [80] corresponds to the cooling capacity of Donnella) comprises turning off (paragraph [82]) or turning on (paragraph [80]) one or more of a plurality of compressors (compressors 110 Fig. 2) of a transport refrigeration unit (thermostat system 100 Fig. 2 corresponds to the transport refrigeration unit of Subrahmanya), based on a calculated volume (the disclosed “calculated heat load” in paragraph [79] corresponds to the calculated volume of Donnellan since the heat load is a function of the “size of the target area”), to achieve a desired cooling capacity (corresponds to the cooling generated after the correct number of compressors have been started paragraph [80]) to control a cooling (paragraph [79]) of a cargo container (the disclosed “aircraft” in paragraph [79] corresponds to the cargo container of Subrahmanya) to improve the overall stability of the refrigeration system (paragraph [9]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method comprising: wherein matching the cooling capacity comprises turning off and/or turning on one or more of a plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit, based on the calculated volume, to achieve a desired cooling capacity to control the cooling of the cargo container” in view of the teachings of Wu to improve the overall stability of the refrigeration system.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach further comprising comparing the determined distance between the mobile bulkhead and the heat-absorbing heat exchanger to a predetermined minimum blowing distance (disclosed “threshold distance” in paragraph [0369] of Subrahmanya); and shutting down or preventing operation of the transport refrigeration unit (paragraphs [0369] and [0370] of Subrahmanya) if the determined distance is less than the predetermined minimum blowing distance (paragraphs [0369] and [0370] of Subrahmanya, here a person skilled in the art would recognize that the bulkhead being within the threshold distance means that the bulkhead is at a distance that equal or less than the threshold distance since step 3235 of Fig. 32A considers a situation where the bulkhead is at a distance that is beyond the threshold distance).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach further comprising: determining if the transport refrigeration unit is capable of conditioning the calculated volume (paragraph [0037] of Donnellan where it is disclosed that controller 16 Fig. 1 determines whether or not the refrigeration system is operational for a particular zone).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach further comprising detecting a status (steps 3215, 3225, and 3235 in Fig. 32A of Subrahmanya) of the mobile bulkhead; and operating the transport refrigeration system based upon the detected status (steps 3220, 3230, and 3240 in Fig. 32A of Subrahmanya).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach further comprising: calculating a cargo volume (paragraph [0012] of Donnellan) based upon the determined distance (paragraph [0012] of Donnellan) between the mobile bulkhead (Fig. 1 of Donnellan where bulkhead 10a corresponds to the bulkhead of Subrahmanya) and the heat-absorbing heat exchanger (Fig. 1 where evaporator 11 corresponds to the heat-absorbing heat exchanger of Subrahmanya); and associating the calculated cargo volume with products therein (paragraph [0003] of Donnellan where it is disclosed that each zone or in other words each calculated volume is refrigerated based on the cargo that it contains) and storing the association and calculated cargo volume (paragraph [0007] of Donnellan where it is disclosed the use of a database of predetermined zone flow parameters).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the transport refrigeration system is configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Fig. 32A of Subrahmanya).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the mobile bulkhead comprises a plurality of partial bulkheads (bulkheads 25A and 25B Fig. 21A of Subrahmanya), and wherein the method further comprises: determining a status of each of the plurality of partial bulkheads (corresponds to the distance between the sensor and bulkheads 25A-25B as described in paragraph [0310] of Subrahmanya); and operating the transport refrigeration system based on the determined status of each of the plurality of partial bulkheads (paragraph [0310] of Subrahmanya).
Regarding claim 8, Subrahmanya teaches a transport refrigeration system (transport unit 20 Fig. 21A) comprising a cargo container (interior of transport unit 20 Fig. 21A), a transport refrigeration unit (remote heat exchanger unit 200 Fig. 21A) arranged to condition the cargo container (Fig. 21A), a mobile bulkhead (bulkheads 25A and 25B Fig. 21A) for partitioning a space (Fig. 21A) within the cargo container, and a sensor (proximity sensor 2005A Fig. 21B), wherein the sensor is operable to determine a distance (paragraph [0310]) between the mobile bulkhead and a heat-absorbing heat exchanger (heat exchanger coils 205 Fig. 2A) of the transport refrigeration unit.
Subrahmanya teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the transport refrigeration system is configured to: calculate a volume of a first compartment of the cargo container based upon the determined distance; match a cooling capacity of the transport refrigeration unit to the calculated volume of the first compartment”.
However, Donnellan teaches a transport refrigeration system (TRS 8 Fig. 1 corresponds to the system of Subrahmanya) is configured to: calculate a volume (paragraph [0012]) of a first compartment of a cargo container (zone 6a Fig. 1 where refrigerated transport unit 2 corresponds to the cargo container of Subrahmanya) based upon a determined distance (paragraph [0012] where the disclosed “dimension” corresponds the determined distance of Subrahmanya); match a cooling capacity of a transport refrigeration unit (disclosed “target volumetric flow rate” in paragraph [0012] where evaporator module 20a Fig. 1 corresponds to the transport refrigeration unit of Subrahmanya) to the calculated volume of the first compartment (paragraph [0012]) to provide a good heat exchange refrigeration efficiency (paragraph 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Subrahmanya to include “the transport refrigeration system is configured to: calculate a volume of a first compartment of the cargo container based upon the determined distance; match a cooling capacity of the transport refrigeration unit to the calculated volume of the first compartment” in view of the teachings of Donnellan to provide a good heat exchange refrigeration efficiency.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein matching the cooling capacity comprises turning off and/or turning on one or more of a plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit, based on the calculated volume, to achieve a desired cooling capacity to control cooling of the cargo container”.
However, Wu teaches wherein matching a cooling capacity (the disclosed “cooling capacity” of the compressors in paragraph [80] corresponds to the cooling capacity of Donnella) comprises turning off (paragraph [82]) or turning on (paragraph [80]) one or more of a plurality of compressors (compressors 110 Fig. 2) of a transport refrigeration unit (thermostat system 100 Fig. 2 corresponds to the transport refrigeration unit of Subrahmanya), based on a calculated volume (the disclosed “calculated heat load” in paragraph [79] corresponds to the calculated volume of Donnellan since the heat load is a function of the “size of the target area”), to achieve a desired cooling capacity (corresponds to the cooling generated after the correct number of compressors have been started paragraph [80]) to control a cooling (paragraph [79]) of a cargo container (the disclosed “aircraft” in paragraph [79] corresponds to the cargo container of Subrahmanya) to improve the overall stability of the refrigeration system (paragraph [9]).
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 matching the cooling capacity comprises turning off and/or turning on one or more of a plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit, based on the calculated volume, to achieve a desired cooling capacity to control cooling of the cargo container” in view of the teachings of Wu to improve the overall stability of the refrigeration system.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the system is configured to compare the determined distance between the mobile bulkhead and the heat-absorbing heat exchanger to a predetermined minimum blowing distance (disclosed “threshold distance” in paragraph [0369] of Subrahmanya), and shut down or prevent operation of the transport refrigeration unit (paragraphs [0369] and [0370] of Subrahmanya) if the determined distance is less than the minimum blowing distance (paragraphs [0369] and [0370] of Subrahmanya, here a person skilled in the art would recognize that the bulkhead being within the threshold distance means that the bulkhead is at a distance that equal or less than the threshold distance since step 3235 of Fig. 32A considers a situation where the bulkhead is at a distance that is beyond the threshold distance).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the system is configured to determine if the transport refrigeration unit is capable of conditioning the calculated volume (paragraph [0037] of Donnellan where it is disclosed that controller 16 Fig. 1 determines whether or not the refrigeration system is operational for a particular zone).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the system is configured to detect a status (steps 3215, 3225, and 3235 in Fig. 32A of Subrahmanya) of the mobile bulkhead, and operate the transport refrigeration system based upon the detected status (steps 3220, 3230, and 3240 in Fig. 32A of Subrahmanya).
Regarding claim 18, Subrahmanya teaches a method (processing flow 3200 Fig. 32A) of operating a transport refrigeration system (transport unit 20 Fig. 21A), comprising: using a sensor (proximity sensor 2005A Fig. 21B) to determine a distance (paragraph [0310]) between a mobile bulkhead (bulkheads 25A and 25B Fig. 21A) in a cargo container (interior of transport unit 20 Fig. 21A) and a heat-absorbing heat exchanger (heat exchanger coils 205 Fig. 2A) of a transport refrigeration unit (remote heat exchanger unit 200 Fig. 21A) arranged to cool the cargo container (Fig. 21A).
Subrahmanya teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the method comprising calculating a volume of a first compartment of the cargo container based upon the determined distance”.
However, Donnellan teaches a method (the method illustrated in Fig. 3 corresponds to the method of Subrahmanya) comprising calculating a volume (paragraph [0012]) of a first compartment of a cargo container (zone 6a Fig. 1 where refrigerated transport unit 2 corresponds to the cargo container of Subrahmanya) based upon a determined distance (paragraph [0012] where the disclosed “dimension” corresponds the determined distance of Subrahmanya) to provide a good heat exchange refrigeration efficiency (paragraph 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Subrahmanya to include “the method comprising calculating a volume of a first compartment of the cargo container based upon the determined distance” in view of the teachings of Donnellan to provide a good heat exchange refrigeration efficiency.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method comprising: adjusting a cooling capacity of the transport refrigeration unit based on the calculated volume to control the cooling of the cargo container, wherein adjusting comprises turning off and/or turning on one or more of a plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit”.
However, Wu teaches a method (the method disclosed in paragraph [80] corresponds to the method of Subrahmanya) comprising: adjusting a cooling capacity (disclosed “cooling capacity” of the compressors in paragraph [80]) of a transport refrigeration unit (thermostat system 100 Fig. 2 corresponds to the transport refrigeration unit of Subrahmanya) based on a calculated volume (the disclosed “calculated heat load” in paragraph [79] corresponds to the calculated volume of Donnellan since the heat load is a function of the “size of the target area”) to control a cooling (paragraph [79]) of a cargo container (the disclosed “aircraft” in paragraph [79] corresponds to the cargo container of Subrahmanya), wherein adjusting comprises turning off (paragraph [82]) or turning on (paragraph [80]) one or more of a plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit (compressors 110 Fig. 2) to improve the overall stability of the refrigeration system (paragraph [9]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method comprising: adjusting a cooling capacity of the transport refrigeration unit based on the calculated volume to control the cooling of the cargo container, wherein adjusting comprises turning off and/or turning on one or more of a plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit” in view of the teachings of Wu to improve the overall stability of the refrigeration system.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach further comprising comparing the determined distance between the mobile bulkhead and the heat-absorbing heat exchanger to a predetermined minimum blowing distance (disclosed “threshold distance” in paragraph [0369] of Subrahmanya); and shutting down or preventing operation of the transport refrigeration unit (paragraphs [0369] and [0370] of Subrahmanya) if the determined distance is less than the predetermined minimum blowing distance (paragraphs [0369] and [0370] of Subrahmanya, here a person skilled in the art would recognize that the bulkhead being within the threshold distance means that the bulkhead is at a distance that equal or less than the threshold distance since step 3235 of Fig. 32A considers a situation where the bulkhead is at a distance that is beyond the threshold distance).
Claims 5, 12, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanya, Donnellan, and Wu as applied to claims 1, 8, and 18 above, and further in view of Buisine et al. (EP3241724A1, herein after referred to as Buisine).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, the combined teachings teach further comprising: comparing the determined distance between the mobile bulkhead and the heat-absorbing heat exchanger to a predetermined threshold (disclosed “threshold distance” in paragraph [0369] of Subrahmanya).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “outputting a warning indicator if the determined distance is less than the predetermined threshold”.
However, Buisine teaches outputting a warning indicator (corresponds to the disclosed “alarm signals” in paragraph [0019]) if the determined distance (the distance between partition 26 Fig. 1 and floor 18 Fig. 1 when partition 26 is in the raised state as disclosed in paragraph [0019] corresponds to the predetermined distance of Subrahmanya) is less than the predetermined threshold (the distance between partition 26 Fig. 2 and floor 18 Fig. 2 when partition 26 is lowered as illustrated in Fig. 2 corresponds to the predetermined threshold of Subrahmanya) to prevent activation of the refrigeration system when the configuration of the cargo container is improper.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “outputting a warning indicator if the determined distance is less than the predetermined threshold” in view of the teachings of Buisine to prevent activation of the refrigeration system when the configuration of the cargo container is improper.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the system is configured to compare the determined distance between the mobile bulkhead and the heat-absorbing heat exchanger to a predetermined threshold (disclosed “threshold distance” in paragraph [0369] of Subrahmanya).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “output a warning indicator if the determined distance is less than the predetermined threshold”.
However, Buisine teaches a system (refrigerating body 10 Fig. 1 corresponds to the system of Subrahmanya) is configured to output a warning indicator (corresponds to the disclosed “alarm signals” in paragraph [0019]) if the determined distance (the distance between partition 26 Fig. 1 and floor 18 Fig. 1 when partition 26 is in the raised state as disclosed in paragraph [0019] corresponds to the predetermined distance of Subrahmanya) is less than the predetermined threshold (the distance between partition 26 Fig. 2 and floor 18 Fig. 2 when partition 26 is lowered as illustrated in Fig. 2 corresponds to the predetermined threshold of Subrahmanya) to prevent activation of the refrigeration system when the configuration of the cargo container is improper.
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 “output a warning indicator if the determined distance is less than the predetermined threshold” in view of the teachings of Buisine to prevent activation of the refrigeration system when the configuration of the cargo container is improper.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising selecting one or more compressors of a plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit to cool the cargo container based on the determined distance between the mobile bulkhead and the heat-absorbing heat exchanger”.
However, Buisine teaches further comprising selecting one compressor (disclosed “first compressor” in paragraph [0018]) of a plurality of compressors (disclosed “first compressor” and “second compressor” in paragraph [0018]) of a transport refrigeration unit (refrigerating body 10 Fig. 1 corresponds to the transport refrigeration unit of Subrahmanya) to cool a cargo container (loading space 22 Fig. 1 corresponds to the cargo container of Subrahmanya) based on a determined distance (paragraph [0058] and Fig. 1 where the distance between partition 26 and first evaporator 66 corresponds to the determined distance of Subrahmanya) between a mobile bulkhead (partition 26 Fig. 1 corresponds to the mobile bulkhead of Subrahmanya) and a heat-absorbing heat exchanger (heat exchange body 66a Fig. 1 corresponds to the absorbing heat exchanger of Subrahmanya) to obtain uniform temperature regulation inside the loading space (paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “further comprising selecting one or more compressors of a plurality of compressors of the transport refrigeration unit to cool the cargo container based on the determined distance between the mobile bulkhead and the heat-absorbing heat exchanger” in view of the teachings of Buisine to obtain uniform temperature regulation inside the loading space.
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the status of the mobile bulkhead comprises one of: an open position or a closed position of the mobile bulkhead”.
However, Buisine teaches wherein a status of the mobile bulkhead (the position of partition 26 Fig. 1 corresponds to the status of the mobile bulkhead of Subrahmanya) comprises one of: an open position (the position of partition 26 shown in Fig. 1) or a closed position (the position of partition 26 shown in Fig. 2) of the mobile bulkhead to ease the insertion and removal of the goods in the different sections of the cargo container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “wherein the status of the mobile bulkhead comprises one of: an open position or a closed position of the mobile bulkhead” in view of the teachings of Buisine to ease the insertion and removal of the goods in the different sections of the cargo container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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