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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted (US 2017/0108260 – previously cited) in view of FOR1 (DE 202009006298U1 – previously cited) and Jessie (US 11,026,532).
Regarding claim 1, Ansted teaches a container (see Title) comprising:
a main interior compartment (see compartment in Fig. 1);
at least one divider disposed within the main interior compartment, the at least one divider defining at least two divided compartments within the main interior compartment (160, Fig. 1, see paragraph [0024]);
a thermal control system configured to maintain a temperature controlled zone within at least one of the divided compartments (see Fig. 9, see paragraphs [0069]-[0075]); and
a processor (see paragraph [0067]),
control the thermal control system to reconfigure the temperature controlled zone (see steps 900-940, Fig. 9).
Ansted does not teach a sensor configured to detect the at least one divider; the processor being programmed to: determine a position of the at least one divider, based on output from the sensor. FOR1 teaches a fridge/freezer (FOR1, Title) which features a compartment that can be divided by a partition, wherein the removal/position of a partition can be detected by a sensor (FOR1, 12, see Description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted with a sensor configured t detect the at least one divider and determine a position of the at least one divider, as taught by FOR1, in order to accurately maintain control over the container.
Ansted as modified does not teach that the thermal control system comprises a temperature detectors in each of the at least two divided compartments, obtain, via the temperature temperatures, temperatures in at least one new compartment, determine a temperature target for each of the at least one new compartment that is preset by a user of the container.
Jessie teaches a controlled delivery box (Jessie, Title) which features multiple compartments (Jessie, Fig. 3 at least which shows multiple compartments with different foods) wherein each compartment has a temperature sensor (Jessie, 80, Fig. 3, see col. 6, lines 15-33) and further determines a target temperature for each compartment (Jessie, col. 9, lines 24-38, see Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a temperature detectors in each of the at least two divided compartments, obtain, via the temperature temperatures, determine a temperature target for each of the at least one new compartment that is preset by a user of the container, as taught by Jessie, in order to provide greater control over the different compartments and to provide more accurate control over the desired temperatures.
Through the combination of references, Ansted as modfied teaches “in response to the at least one divider being removed or moved to form at least one new compartment, control the thermal control system to reconfigure the temperature controlled zone” as FOR1 teaches the divider being able to be detected if removed, and Ansted teaches the resultant control already. Further, through the combination with Jessie, “determine a temperature target for each of the at least one new compartment that is preset by the user of the container….to meet the temperature target for each of the at least one new compartment” as the formation of new compartments is taught through the combination and Jessie teaches controlling compartments to their desired target temperatures.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted (US 2017/0108260 – previously cited) in view of FOR1 (DE 202009006298U1 – previously cited) further in view of Jessie (US 11,026,532) and Shin (US 2008/0000256).
Regarding claim 6, Ansted a container system comprising:
a main interior compartment (see compartment in Fig. 1);
a divider configured to be disposed within the main interior compartment, the divider defining two divided compartments within the main interior compartment when placed in the main interior compartment (160, Fig. 1, see paragraph [0024]);
a thermal control system configured to maintain a temperature controlled zone within the main compartment (see Fig. 9, see paragraphs [0069]-[0075]); and
a processor (see paragraph [0067]), the processor being programmed to: determine that divider has been placed inside the main compartment, based on output from the sensor, and
control the thermal control system to reconfigure the temperature controlled zone when the divider is placed in the main interior compartment (see steps 900-940, Fig. 9).
Ansted does not teach a sensor configured to detect the divider when the divider is placed in the main interior compartment. FOR1 teaches a fridge/freezer (FOR1, Title) which features a compartment that can be divided by a partition, wherein the removal/position of a partition can be detected by a sensor (FOR1, 12, see Description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted with a sensor configured t detect the at least one divider and determine a position of the at least one divider, as taught by FOR1, in order to accurately maintain control over the container.
Jessie teaches a controlled delivery box (Jessie, Title) which features multiple compartments (Jessie, Fig. 3 at least which shows multiple compartments with different foods) wherein each compartment has a temperature sensor (Jessie, 80, Fig. 3, see col. 6, lines 15-33) and further determines a target temperature for each compartment (Jessie, col. 9, lines 24-38, see Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a temperature detectors in each of the at least two divided compartments, obtain, via the temperature temperatures, determine a temperature target for each of the at least one new compartment that is preset by a user of the container, as taught by Jessie, in order to provide greater control over the different compartments and to provide more accurate control over the desired temperatures.
Through the combination of references, Ansted as modified teaches “in response to the at least one divider being removed or moved to form at least one new compartment, control the thermal control system to reconfigure the temperature controlled zone” as FOR1 teaches the divider being able to be detected if removed, and Ansted teaches the resultant control already. Further, through the combination with Jessie, “determine a temperature target for each of the at least one new compartment that is preset by the user of the container….to meet the temperature target for each of the at least one new compartment” as the formation of new compartments is taught through the combination and Jessie teaches controlling compartments to their desired target temperatures.
Ansted as modified does not teach a fan vent separately provided for each of the at least two divided compartments. Shin teaches a refrigerator (Shin, Title) with multiple compartments (Shin, 110, 120, Fig. 3) wherein each compartment features a fan and fan vent (Shin, 112, 122, Fig. 3, paragraph [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a fan vent for each of the at least two divided compartments, as taught by Shin, in order to enhance the airflow in each compartment as desired.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted in view of FOR1 and Jessie, further in view of FOR2 (WO2018228815A1 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Ansted as modified teaches the container according to claim 1, further comprising an access door configured to enclose the main interior compartment (Ansted, 120, Fig. 1, paragraph [0024]).
Ansted as modified does not teach that the sensor is a time-of-flight sensor, and the sensor is disposed on the access door. FOR2 teaches a cooling device which features a time of flight sensor arranged on the door of the device (FOR2, Description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a time of flight sensor disposed on the access door, as taught by FOR2, as FOR2 teaches that the use of time of flight sensors arranged on a door is known in the art to detect contact between elements of the device (FOR2, claims, Description).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted in view of FOR1, Jessie, and Shin, further in view of FOR2 (WO2018228815A1 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Ansted as modified teaches the container system according to claim 6, further comprising an access door configured to enclose the main interior compartment (Ansted, 120, Fig. 1, paragraph [0024]). Ansted as modified does not teach that the sensor is a time-of-flight sensor, and the sensor is disposed on the access door. FOR2 teaches a cooling device which features a time of flight sensor arranged on the door of the device (FOR2, Description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a time of flight sensor disposed on the access door, as taught by FOR2, as FOR2 teaches that the use of time of flight sensors arranged on a door is known in the art to detect contact between elements of the device (FOR2, claims, Description).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted (US 2017/0108260 – previously cited) in view of FOR1 (DE 202009006298U1 – previously cited), Putcha (US 2019/0016267 – previously cited), and Jessie (US 11,026,532).
Regarding claim 11, Ansted teaches a container comprising:
a main interior compartment (see compartment in Fig. 1);
at least one divider disposed within the main interior compartment, the at least one divider defining at least two divided compartments within the main interior compartment (160, Fig. 1, see paragraph [0024]);
a thermal control system configured to maintain a temperature controlled zone within at least one of the divided compartments (see Fig. 9, see paragraphs [0069]-[0075]); and
a processor (see paragraph [0067]), and
store information on the position of the at least one divider, and transmit the stored information to a server or a user terminal device.
Ansted does not teach a sensor configured to detect the at least one divider; the processor being programmed to: determine a position of the at least one divider, based on output from the sensor, and store information on the position of the at least one divider.
FOR1 teaches a fridge/freezer (FOR1, Title) which features a compartment that can be divided by a partition, wherein the removal/position of a partition can be detected by a sensor (FOR1, 12, see Description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted with a sensor configured to detect the at least one divider and determine a position of the at least one divider, as taught by FOR1, in order to accurately maintain control over the container.
Ansted as modified does not teach transmit the stored information to a server or a user terminal device. Putcha a truck compartment that has position sensors to detect the position of divider panels (Putcha, sensor 128 and divider 116, paragraph [0035]) and the data is stored electronically on a database (Putcha, paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with transmitting and storing the information to a server, as taught by Putcha, in order to optimize the system over time by having the past information accessible to review over time.
Jessie teaches a controlled delivery box (Jessie, Title) which features multiple compartments (Jessie, Fig. 3 at least which shows multiple compartments with different foods) wherein each compartment has a temperature sensor (Jessie, 80, Fig. 3, see col. 6, lines 15-33) and further determines a target temperature for each compartment (Jessie, col. 9, lines 24-38, see Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a temperature detectors in each of the at least two divided compartments, obtain, via the temperature temperatures, determine a temperature target for each of the at least one new compartment that is preset by a user of the container, as taught by Jessie, in order to provide greater control over the different compartments and to provide more accurate control over the desired temperatures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed to a different application and do not pertain to the previous rejection at all. However, the Examiner has examined the amendments to the claim and presents them above for Applicant and their Representative. As there are no arguments regarding the previous action, please see the rejection above for how the rejection addresses the amendments, as they required new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8-10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-5 are objected based on their dependency to claim 3.
Claims 9-10 are objected based on their dependency to claim 8.
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 NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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 (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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763