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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims (1, 15, & 20) call for the limitation “generate individual signatures”, “predict ice gradient profiles”, “create a priority rank”, “create an ice gradient index”, “determine product input constraints”, “execute design constraints and operational constraints”, and “self-regulate a defrost event”. The specification does not provide adequate written description on how each of the aforementioned elements would be practiced by one of ordinary skills in the art without undue experimentation.
As the concerns of the examiner regarding the aforementioned claimed limitation is not satisfactorily resolved, doubts are consequently raised with respect to the possession of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made.
Based on the evidence regarding the each of the wands factors listed below, the specification, at the time the invention was made, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention.
A: Nature of the invention.
The claimed invention requires the following: “generate individual signatures”, “predict ice gradient profiles”, “create a priority rank”, “create an ice gradient index”, “determine product input constraints”, “execute design constraints and operational constraints”, and “self-regulate a defrost event”. One skilled in the art would not ascertain how each of the aforementioned processes are practice, given that the specification of the applicant does not provide instructions on how to practice them.
Note: para [0059-0065] discuss what variable are used to perform some of the aforementioned claimed processes. However, the specification does not point out how the variable are employed to perform the respective processes. In other words, a clear relationship (such as addition, multiplication, formula, etc…) between the variables that allows to “generate individual signatures”, “predict ice gradient profiles”, “create a priority rank”, “create an ice gradient index”, “determine product input constraints”, “execute design constraints and operational constraints”, and “self-regulate a defrost event” has not been disclosed.
B: The amount of direction provided by the inventor.
Since the specification does not provide enough guidance on how each of the processes above is performed, one skilled in the art would not be able to practice the claim invention without additional guidance from the inventor.
C: Existence of working examples.
The existence of working examples illustrating how each of the processes above is performed is lacking. Thus, additional instruction would be needed in order to provide one skilled in the art with the necessary information to produce a working example.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 112(a) for depending upon a claim that fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 calls for the limitation “predict ice gradient profiles for the one or more refrigeration units and create a priority rank based on an outcome impact of each of the ice gradient profiles to create an ice gradient index”; which limitation is indefinite as the limitation attempts to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved, without any active, positive steps delimiting how this result is actually achieved. In other words, the manner in which the system predicts ice gradient profiles for the one or more refrigeration units and creates a priority rank based on an outcome impact of each of the ice gradient profiles to create an ice gradient index has not been specified. See MPEP 2173.05(q) - Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).
Note: para [0059] merely states that what variables are taken into account to determine the ice gradient index; it does not point out how the variable are employed to find the ice gradient index. Thus, the specification does not cure solve the aforementioned deficiency.
A similar issue is found with the recitation of “determine product input constraints, wherein the product input constraints are determined based on one or more of product group profiles, a product quality impact index, and a product compliance”. The limitation attempts to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved, without any active, positive steps delimiting how this result is actually achieved.
Likewise, para [0060] does not provide sufficient details as to how the different variables are employed to find the product input constraints.
Furthermore, the limitation “self-regulate a defrost event for the one or more refrigeration units in terms of a set of design constraint parameters, based on the individual signatures corresponding to the historic defrost events, the ice gradient index, the product input constraints, and the executed design constraints and operational constraints” of claim 1 is indefinite as the limitation attempts to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved, without any active, positive steps delimiting how this result is actually achieved. In other words, the manner in which the system self-regulates a defrost event for the one or more refrigeration units in terms of a set of design constraint parameters, based on the individual signatures corresponding to the historic defrost events, the ice gradient index, the product input constraints, and the executed design constraints and operational constraints has not been specified. See MPEP 2173.05(q) - Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).
Para [0062-0065] merely states that what variables are taken into account to self-regulate a defrost event for the one or more refrigeration units. The specification does not provide sufficient details as to how the different variables are employed so as to allowed for self-regulation of a defrost event or the one or more refrigeration units.
Claim(s) 2-14 and 16-19 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following reason:
Each of claims 1, 15, and 20 recites a series of steps and therefore are directed to processes.
Analysis Step 2A
The claims recite several abstract ideas.
In claim 1, the limitations “generate individual signatures”, “predict ice gradient profiles”, “create a priority rank”, “create an ice gradient index”, “determine product input constraints”, and “execute design constraints and operational constraints” may be performed by processes including rounding, binning or clustering continuous data, which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Such mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Furthermore, the limitation “self-regulate a defrost event for the one or more refrigeration units in terms of a set of design constraint parameters, based on the individual signatures corresponding to the historic defrost events, the ice gradient index, the product input constraints, and the executed design constraints and operational constraints” in claim 1 recites performing mathematical calculations, which falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The steps of “generate individual signatures”, “predict ice gradient profiles”, “create a priority rank”, “create an ice gradient index”, “determine product input constraints”, and “execute design constraints and operational constraints” are mere data gathering and outputs recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
The steps of “generate individual signatures”, “predict ice gradient profiles”, “create a priority rank”, “create an ice gradient index”, “determine product input constraints”, “execute design constraints and operational constraints”, and “self-regulate a defrost event” are recited as being performed by a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic processor. The aforementioned limitations only recite outcomes without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Analysis Step 2B
The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
As explained above, the processor is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words "apply it" to the
judicial exception. The limitations amount to performing operations on a processor, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity; as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The aforementioned limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claim does not appear to be eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Similar analysis applies to claims 15 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jenski (US 4750332 A), Midlang (US 4938027 A), Kuwabara (US 20190331376 A1), and Prabhakaran (US 20180142929 A1) discloses pertinent defrosting systems and associated methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763