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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 6-9 and 14-17 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.
Claims 6-9 impart many limitations on a cabinet when the invention is a separator. It is unclear if the cabinet is part of the invention or if it is separate structure. For examination purposes Examiner will consider the cabinet to be a separate structure and not part of the separator and will consider limtiations to the cabinet to be intended use of the separator.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the refrigeration system is configured to create a recirculating air curtain in front of the one or more shelves or behind the doors of the cabinet, the air curtain is configured to create an aerothermodynamic barrier between the conservation space of the cabinet and environment”. It is unclear what structure is provided by this claim. It is unclear if a fan or blower is required or simply an opening in the front of the device that allows an air curtain to form. For examination purposes Examiner will consider any feature that allows an air curtain to meet the claim language.
Claims 16 and 17 recite “the duct”. This term lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear which duct this is referring to. For examination purposes Examiner will consider that a duct is added to the structure.
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(s) 1-5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP3437524 to Servoz (Servoz).
Regarding claim 1, Servoz teaches a flat member having a predetermined dimension defining a shape of the separator (42, Figure 4), wherein: the separator is adapted to be removably positioned between a front end of one or more shelves associated with the cabinet and a rear end of a connecting region between two adjacent doors of the cabinet (the separator is configured to be placed in this location and is dependent on the location of the door which is not part of the invention of the separator. It is further noted that the connecting region can be as big or small as desired), and the separator is adapted to restrict infiltration of outside air in a conservation space behind the closed doors of the cabinet upon opening at least one of the adjacent doors (separator does this dependent on the positioning of the door and does so in the location the door is shown in Figure 5a. It is noted that a separator is claimed therefore the structure outside of the separator is not required).
Regarding claim 2, Servoz teaches wherein the connecting region is a free end of one of the adjacent doors and the free end is used to open the door (the separator is adapted to be positioned in this location when the doors have these features).
Regarding claim 3, Servoz teaches wherein the connecting region is a hinged end or pivot end of one of the adjacent doors (the separator is adapted to be positioned in this location when the doors have these features).
Regarding claim 4, Servoz teaches wherein the separator is made of a transparent material (“It is interesting to note that the separators 41, 42 may be made of plastic, for example thermoplastic, transparent or opaque, such as polymethyl methacrylate”).
Regarding claim 5, Servoz teaches wherein the separator is made of one or more of plastic, acrylic, and glass (“It is interesting to note that the separators 41, 42 may be made of plastic, for example thermoplastic, transparent or opaque, such as polymethyl methacrylate”).
Regarding claim 7, Servoz teaches wherein the cabinet is a semi-vertical refrigerated display cabinet with flat glass doors, wherein the separator comprises a front edge (42 has a front edge in Figure 4) in contact with and extending along the connecting region between the two adjacent doors of the cabinet, a rear edge attached to the front end of each of the shelves, a top edge attached to a top inner wall of the cabinet, and a bottom edge attached to a bottom inner wall of the cabinet (aside from the front edge limitation this claim is considered intended use and is shown in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Servoz teaches wherein a flat surface of the separator is oriented substantially perpendicular to the closed doors of the cabinet and is extending vertically from top to bottom of the cabinet (shown in Figure 4 and is considered intended use).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP4775875 (875).
Regarding claim 1, 875 teaches a flat member having a predetermined dimension defining a shape of the separator (7, Figure 1), wherein: the separator is adapted to be removably positioned between a front end of one or more shelves associated with the cabinet and a rear end of a connecting region between two adjacent doors of the cabinet (the separator is configured to be placed in this location and is dependent on the location of the door which is not part of the invention of the separator. It is further noted that the connecting region can be as big or small as desired), and the separator is adapted to restrict infiltration of outside air in a conservation space behind the closed doors of the cabinet upon opening at least one of the adjacent doors (separator is adapted for this positioning. It is noted that a separator is claimed therefore the structure outside of the separator is not required).
Regarding claim 2, 875 teaches wherein the connecting region is a free end of one of the adjacent doors and the free end is used to open the door (the separator is adapted to be positioned in this location when the doors have these features).
Regarding claim 3, 875 teaches wherein the connecting region is a hinged end or pivot end of one of the adjacent doors (the separator is adapted to be positioned in this location when the doors have these features).
Regarding claim 6, 875 teaches wherein the cabinet is a vertical refrigerated display cabinet with glass doors, wherein the separator is a flat rectangular member comprising a front edge in contact with and extending along the connecting region between the two adjacent doors of the cabinet (7, Figure 1), a rear edge attached to the front end of the one or more shelves, a top edge attached to a top inner wall of the cabinet, and a bottom edge attached to a bottom inner wall of the cabinet (aside from the rectangular limitation this claim is considered intended use and is shown in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, 875 teaches wherein the cabinet is a semi-vertical refrigerated display cabinet with flat glass doors, wherein the separator comprises a front edge (7 has a front edge in Figure 1) in contact with and extending along the connecting region between the two adjacent doors of the cabinet, a rear edge attached to the front end of each of the shelves, a top edge attached to a top inner wall of the cabinet, and a bottom edge attached to a bottom inner wall of the cabinet (aside from the front edge limitation this claim is considered intended use and is shown in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, 875 teaches wherein a flat surface of the separator is oriented substantially perpendicular to the closed doors of the cabinet and is extending vertically from top to bottom of the cabinet (shown in Figure 1 and is considered intended use).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO0064319 to Hohler et al. (Hohler).
Regarding claim 1, Hohler teaches a flat member having a predetermined dimension defining a shape of the separator (14, 114, 214, and/or 314, Figure 7), wherein: the separator is adapted to be removably positioned between a front end of one or more shelves associated with the cabinet and a rear end of a connecting region between two adjacent doors of the cabinet (the separator is configured to be placed in this location and is dependent on the location of the door which is not part of the invention of the separator. It is further noted that the connecting region can be as big or small as desired. It is noted that the separator shape is provided and therefore the limitation is provided. This separator can be placed into a larger refrigerator with shelves in the desired orientation), and the separator is adapted to restrict infiltration of outside air in a conservation space behind the closed doors of the cabinet upon opening at least one of the adjacent doors (separator is adapted for this positioning. It is noted that a separator is claimed therefore the structure outside of the separator is not required).
Regarding claim 2, Hohler teaches wherein the connecting region is a free end of one of the adjacent doors and the free end is used to open the door (the separator is adapted to be positioned in this location when the doors have these features).
Regarding claim 3, Hohler teaches wherein the connecting region is a hinged end or pivot end of one of the adjacent doors (the separator is adapted to be positioned in this location when the doors have these features).
Regarding claim 7, Hohler teaches wherein the cabinet is a semi-vertical refrigerated display cabinet with flat glass doors, wherein the separator comprises a front edge (14, 114, 214, and/or 314, Figure 7) in contact with and extending along the connecting region between the two adjacent doors of the cabinet, a rear edge attached to the front end of each of the shelves, a top edge attached to a top inner wall of the cabinet, and a bottom edge attached to a bottom inner wall of the cabinet (aside from the front edge limitation this claim is considered intended use and is shown in Figure 7).
Regarding claim 8, Hohler teaches wherein the cabinet is a semi-vertical refrigerator display cabinet with curved glass doors, wherein the separator comprises a curved front edge (14, 114, 214, and/or 314 all have curved front edges, Figure 7) that remains in contact with and extends along the connecting region between the two adjacent curved doors of the cabinet, a rear edge attached to the front end of each of the one or more shelves, a top edge attached to a top inner wall of the cabinet, and a bottom edge attached to a bottom inner wall of the cabinet (aside from the curved limitation this claim is considered intended use).
Regarding claim 9, Hohler teaches wherein a flat surface of the separator is oriented substantially perpendicular to the closed doors of the cabinet and is extending vertically from top to bottom of the cabinet (shown in Figure 7 and is considered intended use).
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) 10-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servoz in view of U.S. Patent 5214877 to Kaspar (Kaspar).
Regarding claim 10, Servoz teaches a case (10, Figure 4) comprising one or more shelves extending between side walls of the case to form a conservation space to support and store one or more products therewithin (41, Figure 4); and at least one separator positioned between a front end of the one or more shelves (42, Figure 4) and a rear end of a connecting region of a door (12, Figure 5a, the connecting region can be any size or shape), wherein the separator restricts infiltration of outside air in the conservation space behind the closed doors of the cabinet upon opening at least one of the adjacent doors (42 performs this function).
Servoz is silent on two or more doors movably coupled to a front of the case and adapted to move between an open position and a closed position; and at least one separator positioned between a front end of the one or more shelves and a rear end of a connecting region between two doors among the two or more doors
Kaspar teaches two or more doors movably coupled to a front of the case and adapted to move between an open position and a closed position (11, Figure 1); and at least one separator positioned between a front end of the one or more shelves and a rear end of a connecting region between two doors among the two or more doors (wall between refrigerator sections shown approximately at the end of the arrow extending from character 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Servoz with the teachings of Kaspar to provide two or more doors movably coupled to a front of the case and adapted to move between an open position and a closed position; and at least one separator positioned between a front end of the one or more shelves and a rear end of a connecting region between two doors among the two or more doors. Doing so would align the doors with the partitions maximizing display and access to the products inside the cabinet).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Servoz teaches wherein the connecting region is a free end of one of the adjacent doors and the free end is used to open the door (shown in Figure 1 of Kaspar with handles on the right side of the doors which are disclosed as swinging doors).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Servoz teaches wherein the at least one separator is positioned behind the connecting point at a hinged end or pivot end of one of the two doors (shown in Figure 1 of Kaspar with handles on the right side of the doors which are disclosed as swinging doors).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Servoz teaches wherein the cabinet comprises a refrigeration system that is configured to maintain a predefined temperature in the conservation space of the cabinet (both Servoz and Kaspar are refrigerated cabinets).
Regarding claim 18, Servoz teaches wherein the cabinet is a vertical refrigerator display cabinet having a front end of the one or more shelves vertically in line with each other (shown in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 19, Servoz teaches wherein the cabinet is a semi-vertical refrigerator display cabinet having a front end of the one or more shelves extending in a step-wise manner from a top end to a bottom end of the cabinet (shown in Figure 4, leftmost row has shelves offset from other shelves, also this is considered basic design choice and is dependent on the size of the items to be placed upon the shelves).
Regarding claim 20, Servoz teaches wherein a flat surface of the at least one separator is oriented substantially perpendicular to the closed doors of the cabinet and is extending vertically from a top end to a bottom end of the cabinet (shown in Figure 4).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servoz in view of Kaspar and U.S. PGPUB 20140260360 to Rasch (Rasch).
Regarding claim 14, Servoz is silent on wherein the refrigeration system is configured to create a recirculating air curtain in front of the one or more shelves or behind the doors of the cabinet, the air curtain is configured to create an aerothermodynamic barrier between the conservation space of the cabinet and environment.
Rasch teaches wherein the refrigeration system is configured to create a recirculating air curtain in front of the one or more shelves or behind the doors of the cabinet, the air curtain is configured to create an aerothermodynamic barrier between the conservation space of the cabinet and environment (shown in Figure 2 and Paragraph 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Servoz with the teachings of Rasch to provide wherein the refrigeration system is configured to create a recirculating air curtain in front of the one or more shelves or behind the doors of the cabinet, the air curtain is configured to create an aerothermodynamic barrier between the conservation space of the cabinet and environment. Doing so would inhibit temperature changes within the refrigerated space.
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Servoz teaches wherein the refrigeration system comprises: a duct extending from a bottom front side of the cabinet to a top front side of the cabinet via a rear side of the cabinet (Figure 2 of Rasch); a cooling unit configured within the duct and operable to cool the air flowing through the duct to the predefined temperature (50, Figure 2, Paragraphs 0019-0039 of Rasch); and a fan positioned adjacent to the cooling unit within the duct (62, Figure 2), the fan configured to facilitate inflow of air within the duct through the bottom front side of the cabinet, pass the received air through the cooling unit that cools the received air, and pump out the cool air from the top front side of the cabinet, wherein the cool air pumped out by the top front side of the cabinet is received by the bottom front side of the cabinet such that the air curtain is formed in front of the one or more shelves or behind the doors of the cabinet (shown in Figure 2 and disclosed throughout the specification).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servoz in view of Kaspar and U.S. PGPUB 20130019621 to Wood et al. (Wood).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Servoz teaches and the bottom front side of the duct is configured with a return air grille (RAG) (58, Figure 2, claim 4 of Rasch), wherein the DAG and the RAG control air directivity and facilitates the creation of the air curtain in front of the one or more shelves or behind the doors of the cabinet (air inlet and outlet perform this function).
The modified device of Servoz is silent on wherein the top front side of the duct is configured with a discharge air grille (DAG) and the bottom front side of the duct is configured with a return air grille (RAG), wherein the DAG and the RAG control air directivity and facilitates the creation of the air curtain in front of the one or more shelves or behind the doors of the cabinet.
Wood teaches wherein the top front side of the duct is configured with a discharge air grille (DAG) and the bottom front side of the duct is configured with a return air grille (RAG), wherein the DAG and the RAG control air directivity and facilitates the creation of the air curtain in front of the one or more shelves or behind the doors of the cabinet (Figures 9-11 and at least Paragraphs 0034 and 0080). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Servoz with the teachings of Wood to provide wherein the top front side of the duct is configured with a discharge air grille (DAG) and the bottom front side of the duct is configured with a return air grille (RAG), wherein the DAG and the RAG control air directivity and facilitates the creation of the air curtain in front of the one or more shelves or behind the doors of the cabinet. Doing so would minimize turbulence and direct the airflow as desired.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servoz in view of Kaspar and U.S. Patent 8739855 to Fritz et al. (Fritz).
Regarding claim 17, Servoz is silent on wherein the cabinet comprises a perforated wall panel (PWP) configured with the duct on the rear side of the cabinet, the PWP is configured to discharge a portion of the cool air, passing through the duct, in the conservation space to maintain the predefined temperature therewithin.
Fritz teaches wherein the cabinet comprises a perforated wall panel (PWP) configured with the duct on the rear side of the cabinet, the PWP is configured to discharge a portion of the cool air, passing through the duct, in the conservation space to maintain the predefined temperature therewithin “The rear flue 128 directs the airflow 127 vertically through the case 110. In some constructions, the rear wall 116 can include apertures (not shown)”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Servoz with the teachings of Fritz to provide wherein the cabinet comprises a perforated wall panel (PWP) configured with the duct on the rear side of the cabinet, the PWP is configured to discharge a portion of the cool air, passing through the duct, in the conservation space to maintain the predefined temperature therewithin. Doing so would increase the circulations in the device and provide a more even cooling of the products.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servoz in view of 875.
Regarding claim 6, Servoz teaches wherein the cabinet is a vertical refrigerated display cabinet with glass doors (this is considered intended use and also taught in Figures 1-6), wherein the separator is a member (42, Figure 4) comprising a front edge in contact with and extending along the connecting region between the two adjacent doors of the cabinet (this is considered intended use), a rear edge attached to the front end of the one or more shelves (shown in Figure 4 and also considered intended use), a top edge attached to a top inner wall of the cabinet (this is considered intended use and is shown in Figure 4), and a bottom edge attached to a bottom inner wall of the cabinet (this is considered intended use and is shown in Figure 4).
Servoz is silent on wherein the separator is a flat rectangular member.
875 teaches wherein the separator is a flat rectangular member (7, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0015 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Servoz with the teachings of 875 to provide wherein the separator is a flat rectangular member. Doing so is a matter of design choice (Paragraph 0015 of translation), would allow the display to be seen as desired and be a simple change in shape.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servoz in view of Hohler.
Regarding claim 8, Servoz is silent on wherein the cabinet is a semi-vertical refrigerator display cabinet with curved glass doors, wherein the separator comprises a curved front edge that remains in contact with and extends along the connecting region between the two adjacent curved doors of the cabinet, a rear edge attached to the front end of each of the one or more shelves, a top edge attached to a top inner wall of the cabinet, and a bottom edge attached to a bottom inner wall of the cabinet (the separator comprises a curved front edge is not taught but the rest of the claim is considered intended use).
Hohler teaches different dividers with different shapes including a curved shape for a curved display cases (114, 14, 214, 314, Figure 7). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that changes in configuration are a matter of design choice such that using the curved dividers as taught by Hohler rather than dividers of Servoz is obvious when the particular configuration result in no change in operation of the separator and is largely dependent on the shape of the case and the desire for one to draw attention to the separator. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762