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 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.
Although the phrase “expansion device” combines the nonce term “device” with the function of “expansion” the phrase is not interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) as it is considered to have sufficiently definite meaning in the art corresponding to a structure. MPEP 2181
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 11-13 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 11 recites “a ventilation door disposed the evaporator duct” which is unclear. For the purpose of examination the limitation will be treated as –a ventilation door disposed at the evaporator duct--.
Claims 12-13 are rejected for their dependency to a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinrich et al (US 10,174,988) in view of Metellus et al (US 10,538,190).
Regarding claim 1, Heinrich discloses a mobile apparatus, comprising:
a mobile portion (118);
a cabin housing (10) that is disposed at the mobile portion and defines a first space (20) and a second space (30; 4:47-55); and
an air-conditioning apparatus (300) disposed in the second space (30) of the cabin housing and configured to cool or heat the first space of the cabin housing, wherein the air-conditioning apparatus comprises a compressor (302), a condenser (304), an expansion device (8:64), and an evaporator (308).
Heinrich lacks that the mobile portion is a mobile robot. Metellus discloses a refrigerated delivery robot (13:59-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Heinrich with the mobile portion of Metellus in order to enable automated delivery.
Regarding claim 2, Heinrich discloses the cabin housing comprises: an outer case (102, 104, 105); and an inner case (202) that is disposed inside the outer case and partitions an interior space of the outer case into the first space and the second space.
Regarding claim 3, Heinrich discloses a loading door (106) disposed at the outer case and configured to open and close the first space of the cabin housing.
Regarding claim 4, Heinrich discloses a base plate (400) that supports the compressor, the condenser, the expansion device, and the evaporator.
Regarding claim 5, Heinrich discloses the condenser (304) and the evaporator (308) are arranged side by side adjacent to each other on the base plate (400; shown in figure 7).
Regarding claim 6, Heinrich discloses a condenser fan (306) disposed at the condenser; and an evaporator fan (310) disposed at the evaporator, wherein the cabin housing comprises an inner case disposed inside the cabin housing (inner case is portion of 300 dividing hot and cold sides as shown in figure 7), and wherein the condenser fan and the evaporator fan are disposed at opposite sides of the inner case (shown in figure 7 the evaporator fan is at a rear side of the second space and the condenser fan is at a front side of the second space).
Regarding claim 7, Heinrich discloses the compressor (302) is disposed at one side of the condenser fan and the evaporator fan and spaced apart from the inner case (figure 7 shows the compressor is at a left side of the fans and is spaced apart from the inner case).
Regarding claim 8, Heinrich discloses the cabin housing comprises an outer case that defines an outlet (116b) in fluid communication with the condenser, and wherein the mobile apparatus further comprises a condenser duct detachably disposed at the condenser fan and in fluid communication with the outlet defined at the outer case (shown in figure 7).
Regarding claim 9, Heinrich discloses an evaporator duct (214) that is detachably disposed at the evaporator fan and in fluid communication with the first space of the cabin housing.
Regarding claim 10, Heinrich discloses the mobile apparatus of claim 9, but lacks a heater. The examiner takes official notice that heater cores for use in maintaining food temperatures are old and well known. Metellus evidences the use of both hot and cold storage (13:53-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Heinrich with a heater core that is disposed in the first space of the cabin housing, the heater core being disposed at a portion of the evaporator exposed to the first space or disposed at the evaporator duct in order to maintain food at an elevated temperature, for example in a state ready for serving.
Regarding claims 11-13, Heinrich discloses a loading door (106) configured to open and close the first space of the cabin housing. Heinrich lacks a ventilation door. The examiner takes official notice that ventilation doors are old and well known and to control associated fans based on ventilation door/damper condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Heinrich with a ventilation door disposed at the evaporator duct and configured to be opened based on operation of the loading door in order to prevent blowing conditioned air out of an open loading door thereby providing more efficient operation.
Regarding claims 14-15, Heinrich discloses the air-conditioning apparatus comprises: a first refrigerant line, wherein the compressor (302) is disposed at the first refrigerant line; a second refrigerant line, wherein the condenser (304), the expansion device (8:64), and the evaporator (308) are disposed at the second refrigerant line. Heinrich lacks a 4-way valve. The examiner takes official notice that 4-way reversing valves are old and well known for use with refrigeration cycles and two-way expansion valves for use therewith. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Heinrich with a 4-way reversing valve in order to provide both heated or cooled storage such that food items may be stored in a hot ready-to-serve temperature or a cold temperature.
Regarding claim 16, Heinrich discloses the mobile portion comprises a wheel (118).
Regarding claim 17, Heinrich discloses the cabin housing is disposed above the mobile portion and covers an upper portion of the mobile portion (the cabin housing covers the wheels 118).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al (US 10,704,799) robot air conditioner;
Kurczewshi (US 11,548,373) delivery robot;
Ferguson et al (US 10,332,065) delivery robot;
Benton (US 10,568,766) mobile heating/cooling system;
Baker et al (US 11,967,627) delivery robot;
Kim (US 11,333,373) air conditioning robot;
Lockwood (US 9,939,188) portable cooler;
Kim et al (US 10,704,790) robot air conditioner;
Bentz et al (US 11,320,160) mobile air conditioning unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, James Kish can be reached at 5712725554. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799