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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 15/769,940, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The instant claim 1 recites “at least one sensor that senses a state of the at least one inlet opening, wherein the state of the inlet opening indicates at least whether the inlet opening is substantially open or substantially closed”.
Such is not supported by the disclosure of the parent application.
The disclosure of the parent application is silent regarding “at least one sensor that senses a state of the at least one inlet opening, wherein the state of the inlet opening indicates at least whether the inlet opening is substantially open or substantially closed”.
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 1-8, 10-16 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.
The claims are indefinite because it is not clear from claims 1, 6 and 16 whether or not the recited “water” and “liquid” are parts of the claimed box cooler.
Claims 1-5 are further indefinite and incomplete because they recite “the inlet opening is substantially open or substantially closed”, but fails to recite any structure to open/close the referenced inlet opening.
Claims 6-8, 10-16 and 19-20 are further indefinite and/or incomplete because claims 6 and 16 recite a rate of flow of water, but fails to recite any structure to provide the recited flow.
Claim 7 is further indefinite because it is not clear from the claim compare with what the controller is configured to reduce the intensity.
Claim 8 is further indefinite because it is not clear from the claim compare with what the controller is configured to reduce the intensity.
Claims 10-11 are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 10 compare with what the controller is configured to reduce the intensity.
Claim 11 is further indefinite because it is not clear from the claim compare with what the controller is configured to reduce the production of copper ions.
Claim 12 is further indefinite because it is not clear from the claim compare with what the controller is configured to reduce the intensity.
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.
Claims 1-5 are 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 1 recites “at least one sensor that senses a state of the at least one inlet opening, wherein the state of the inlet opening indicates at least whether the inlet opening is substantially open or substantially closed”.
The specification fails to provide an adequate disclosure of the claimed subject matter.
The specification is silent regarding “at least one sensor that senses a state of the at least one inlet opening, wherein the state of the inlet opening indicates at least whether the inlet opening is substantially open or substantially closed”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 10-16 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest a box cooler as recited by claims 6 and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argue that the support for the “at least one sensor that senses a state of the at least one inlet opening, wherein the state of the inlet opening indicates at least whether the inlet opening is substantially open or substantially closed” is provided by page 8, lines 18-34 of the Specification of SN 15/769,940.
This is not persuasive because the cited paragraph of the SN 15/769,940 is directed to the flow of water, not the state of the sensor that senses the state of the inlet opening.
The parts of SN 15/769,940 directed to the opening clearly recite only two states of the opening, which are “opened” and “closed”, and the sensor and the controller, which determine “opened state” and “closed state”. See at least [0024-25], [0052] of the printed application (US 2018/0304321).
No support for the “substantially open or substantially closed” is provided by the Specification of SN 15/769,940.
With respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) the applicants argue that the claims used the language “allow” and “configured to” and also argue that any box cooler and any U-tube that “allow”, “configured to” perform the recited functions are included in the scope of the claims.
This argument, however, does not clarify whether or not the recited “water” and “liquid” are parts of the claimed box cooler. The applicants are cordially asked either amend the claims or clarify on the record whether or not the recited “water” and “liquid” are parts of the claimed box cooler.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 the applicants allege that the manner in which the inlet opening is open or closed is immaterial to the claimed invention.
This is not persuasive.
The Office has not required the recitation of the specific manner of the opening or closing.
The Office indicated that the claims are indefinite and incomplete because they recite “the inlet opening is substantially open or substantially closed”, but fails to recite any structure to open/close the referenced inlet opening.
With respect to the rejection of claims 6-8 and 10-15 the applicants allege that “the structure that provide a parameter related to the flow of water is immaterial to the claimed invention. The applicants further state that the techniques for determining parameters related to the flow of water are common in the art and need not be included in the claims.
This is not persuasive. The Office has not required the recitation of the techniques for determining parameters related to the flow of water by the claims.
The Office indicated that the claims are further indefinite and/or incomplete because claim 6 recites a rate of flow of water, but fails to recite any structure to provide the recited flow.
The rejection for claim 6 and dependent claims is maintained.
The same rejection is now applied to claim 16 and the dependent claims since the amended claim 16 now also recites “a rate of flow of water”.
The applicants stated that they do not understand the rejection of claims 7 and 8-12 and 18.
This is not persuasive.
The similar rejection was applied to claim 2.
The applicants amended claim 2 to recite that the reduced intensity is “relative to the intensity when the inlet opening is open”.
It is not clear why the applicants allege that the rejection of claims 7-12 and 18 are not clear, when they properly responded to the similar rejection previously applied to claim.
The arguments directed to the rejection of claims 16 directed to the scope of the term “surface related parameter” are not found persuasive, but the issue appears to be moot since the applicants amended claim 16 to recite “wherein the surface-related parameter is a rate of flow of water over the exterior surfaces of the U-shaped tubes”. The referenced amendment clearly defines what is the scope of the term “surface related parameter”.
The arguments directed the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) are not found persuasive for the same reasons as provided with respect to the claim of the priority and the teaching of SN 15/769,940.
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 ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights