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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a sensing system comprising an oxygen sensor, a humidity sensor, and a temperature sensor” and “a control unit” in claim 1, “wires” in claim 2 and “food tray” in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification, in ¶ 0019 and 0044, recites “an air-cooled semiconductor plane refrigerator” and appears meant to be read “an air-cooled semiconductor plate refrigerator”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objection
Regarding claim 7, this claim is objected to because of the following informalities: this claim recites “…an air-cooled semiconductor plane refrigerator …” should be “…an air-cooled semiconductor plate refrigerator …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means”, or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means”, or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a plasma activated droplet generation device” in claim 1, wherein the generic place holder “device” is preceded by the functional word “plasma activated droplet generation” without sufficient recitation of what the “plasma activated droplet generation device” structurally entails.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Structural support for “plasma activated droplet generation device” can be found in ¶ 0035 of the specification and claim 2, wherein it is described to be a structure comprising a water mist flow channel and electrodes that discharge plasma to ionizing the mist flowing in the channel.
Thus, the “plasma activated droplet generation device” is interpreted to be any structure that has plasma discharging electrodes with a water mist flow channel that can ionize the flowing water mist in the channel by discharging plasma therein and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Further, although “atomization device”, “refrigeration device” and “control unit” of claim 1 are formulated as a limitation to be interpreted under § 112(f), they are NOT, since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand them to be a generic atomizer or humidifier, fridge and controller, respectively.
Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term “means” or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., “humidifier”, “fridge” or “controller”), or (2) otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function, See MPEP § 2181.I.C.
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 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) 1 and 6 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US 2006/0130498 A1), hereinafter “Joshi”, in view of Li et al. (CN 105983129 A) and hereinafter “Li”.
Regarding claim 1, Joshi discloses a fresh food preservation equipment (food preservation system 10, FIG.1) comprising:
a preservation box formed with a cavity therein (food compartment 12, FIG.1);
an atomization device mounted on the preservation box for outputting water mist (a moisture generator 18 mounted on the food compartment 12 for forming fine water mist of minute particles, (0020 and see FIG.1));
a refrigeration device mounted on the preservation box for reducing temperature inside the cavity (a refrigeration device 54 mounted on the food compartment 12 to cool the compartment, (0015, 0033 and see FIG.1)).
a sensing system (sensors 22, 24,26 and 28, see FIG.1) comprising an oxygen sensor, a humidity sensor, and a temperature sensor for monitoring oxygen concentration, temperature, and humidity in the cavity, respectively (the ozone sensor 22, the humidity sensor 24 and the temperature sensor 28 for monitoring concentration of ozone (described as more chemically active oxygen), humidity, and temperature in the compartment, respectively, (0013 – 0018 and see FIG.1)); and
a control unit (a controller 32, see FIG.1) electrically connected with the atomization device, the refrigeration device, and the sensing system, respectively, (the controller 32 is electrically connected with the moisture generator 18, the ozone generator 16, the refrigeration device 54 , and the sensors (22, 24,26 and 28), respectively, (0013 – 17 and FIG.1)), for controlling operation of ozone generator according to oxygen concentration information returned by the oxygen sensor, controlling operation of the atomization device according to humidity information returned by the humidity sensor, and controlling operation of the refrigeration device according to temperature information returned by the temperature sensor (the controller 32 is configured to control the ozone generator 16 according to the information sensed by the ozone sensor 22, control the moisture generator 18 according to the information sensed by the humidity sensor 24, and control the operation of the refrigeration device 54 according to the information sensed by temperature sensor 28, (0021 – 0033 and see FIG.1)) .
Joshi does not explicitly teach a plasma activated droplet generation device mounted on the preservation box for ionizing the water mist output from the atomization device and feeding a resultant activated mist into the cavity and controlling the operation of the plasma activated droplet generation device according to information returned by the oxygen sensor.
However, Li that relates to a food refrigerator having the sterilization and deodorization device (0002 – 0004), also teaches a plasma generator 10 comprising electrodes 11 and 12 configured to dissociate and/or ionize an atomized vapor fluid from a humidifying device 20 flowing between the electrodes to generate an ionized mist that is fed into a food storage cavity to have a sterilizing, deodorizing and bactericidal effect on the food therein, (0045 – 0050 and see FIG.1 – 7).
Li further states that the plasma activated droplet generation device 10 effectively increases the amount of free radical active substances in the water mist as the plasma generator ionizes the water mist and improves the sterilization and deodorization effect of the mist on the food stored and regulates the amount of ozone generated in the plasma generator in order to reduce the harmfulness of ozone in the food storage cavity, (0007 – 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Joshi’s food preservation system to include a plasma activated droplet generation device regulated based the ozone sensor for ionizing the water mist output from the moisture generator and feeding a resultant activated mist into the compartment in order to effectively increase the amount of free radical active substances in the water mist that improves the sterilization and deodorization effect of the mist on the food stored and regulate the amount of ozone generated in the plasma generator in order to reduce its harmfulness as taught in Li.
Regarding claim 6, Joshi in view of Li teaches the fresh food preservation equipment according to claim 1, wherein the atomization device comprises an ultrasonic oscillator and a waterproof fan (the moisture generator 18 comprises an ultrasonic transducer that typically converts electrical energy into mechanical vibrations to generate fine water mist and circulating fan 42 to distributes the mist from moisture generator in the compartment, Joshi (0020, 0044 and see FIG.1) and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate making the circulating fan waterproof as it deals with circulating water mist and moisture) ;
a water inlet and an air outlet are formed in the ultrasonic oscillator, and the water mist discharged from the air outlet is sent to the plasma activated droplet generation device by the waterproof fan (the moisture generator 18 includes a reservoir of liquid with a water inlet and one or more outlet ports that may controllably release mist to vary internal humidity therein, Joshi (0019 and see FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 7, Joshi in view of Li teaches the fresh food preservation equipment according to claim 1, wherein an air-cooled semiconductor plane refrigerator is provided as the refrigeration device (the refrigeration device 54 may use cold plate 52 or other solid-state devices such as a thermoelectric chip, Joshi (0033), sold-state thermoelectric chips are semiconductor plates).
Regarding claim 8, Joshi in view of Li teaches the fresh food preservation equipment according to claim 1, wherein the fresh food preservation equipment further comprises a water storage tank mounted on the preservation box (the moisture generator 18 may include a user-refillable reservoir of liquid (such as water), Joshi (0019)), the water storage tank is connected with the atomization device through a water pipe, and a valve is arranged on the water pipe (the humidification device 20 may include a water tank 21 and pipe 23 is connected to the outlet of the water tank 21 and the humidifier 22, Li (0074 and see FIG.1)) .
Regarding claim 9, Joshi in view of Li teaches the fresh food preservation equipment according to claim 1, wherein a food tray is arranged on a side wall of the cavity (food pan 14 is located inside the food compartment 12, (0013 and see FIG.1)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Li discloses a plasma generation device 10 with two electrodes 11 and 12 disposed opposite and spaced apart to form a gap therebetween for the passage of fluid. The two electrodes 11 and 12 have their respective electrode wires 11a and 12a to connect to a power supply, respectively, for discharging plasma by applying a voltage of a predetermined magnitude between the two electrodes 11 and 12 and the plasma generation device 10 ionizes ionizable gases in the fluid to produce reactive species such as hydrocarbyl radicals, superoxide anion radicals, superoxide acid, ozone, and the like, while a small amount of moisture in the fluid is dissociated into reactive species such as hydrocarbyl radicals, Li (0045 – 0050, see FIGS. 1 – 3, 5 and 7).
Li failed to reasonably suggest or teach that the plasma activated droplet generation device comprises a first insulating cover, second insulating covers, metal electrodes, silicone elbows, and wires; the first insulating cover is sleeved outside the second insulating covers to form water mist flow channels between the first insulating cover and the second insulating covers; the metal electrodes are arranged inside second insulating covers, and the metal electrodes are electrically connected with the wires; the wires are connected to a power supply, and the wires passes through the silicone elbows; the silicone elbows are fixed on the second insulating covers; wherein, a plurality of second insulating covers are arranged in the first insulating cover, so that the metal electrodes in adjacent second insulating covers are capable of discharging with each other, and the water mist in the water mist flow channels is ionized, resulting in the activated mist; the first insulating cover communicates with the atomization device, an air outlet is formed in the first insulating cover, and the second insulating covers are arranged in a sealed manner as recited in claim 2 and it would be unfair to assume one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive to the claimed structure of the plasma activated droplet generation device from the plasma generation device of Li, as structures: a first insulating cover, second insulating covers, silicone elbows, wires that pass through the silicone elbows, and the silicone elbows fixed on the second insulating covers are missing from Li. Claims 3 – 5 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights