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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 11/19/2025. The abstract objection is withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. claim interpretation, drawing objection, 35 U.S.C. 112A and 35 U.S.C. 112B rejections are maintained. Claims 20 and 22 are cancelled. Claim 37 is new. Claims 19, 24-31 and 34-37 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
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 suction mechanism located above the blowing mechanism” 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 of 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 24-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of the claims depends from cancelled claim 20, therefore interpreted by the Examiner as interpreting from claim 19. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 suction mechanism” in claims 19 and 37.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 19, 24-31 and 34-37 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.
Regarding claims 19 and 37, “a suction mechanism located substantially directly above the blowing mechanism”. The term “mechanism” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIJA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which a suction mechanism receives air. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of receiving air. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
Claims 24-31 and 34-36 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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 19, 24-31 and 34-37 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 limitation “a suction mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification fails discloses the corresponding structure that achieves the claimed
function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the
inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 19 and 37 recite “a suction mechanism located directly above the blowing mechanism”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner how the suction mechanism 54 is located above the blowing mechanism 52 when it appears that the suction mechanism 54 is located below the blowing mechanism, as shown on figure 2. Clarity is advised.
Claims 24-31 and 34-36 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 19 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joardar et al (CN 111912161 A) in view of Baies (US 2066312 A).
Regarding claim 19, Joardar teaches an open vertical refrigerated display cabinet (refrigerated display cabinet 100), comprising: a lower wall (figure 2), a rear wall (figure 2), an upper wall (figure 2), and a front face opposite the rear wall (figure 2), the face front being open to define access to a storage volume for storing products (figure 2); a generation mechanism (fan 160) operable to generate and circulate an air curtain adjacent (curtain 162) and parallel to the front face (figure 2), the generation mechanism including a blowing mechanism (fan 160) that defines a main blowing orifice (outlet of fan 160, figure 2), and a suction mechanism located directly above the blowing mechanism (interpreted as the suction portion directly below fan 160 into the lower side of cabinet 100, as shown on figure 2); an evaporator (evaporators 102/104/106).
Joardar teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach a nebulization mechanism is provided adjacent to the upper wall; the nebulization mechanism having a diffusion member comprising a single diffusion tube having a main axis parallel to an axis representative of the width of the open vertical refrigerated display cabinet, the single diffusion tube having a plurality of diffusion orifices to diffuse a mist in at least part of the storage volume.
However, Baies teaches a nebulization mechanism (as shown on figure 1) is provided adjacent to the upper wall (as shown on figure 1); the nebulization mechanism (as shown on figure 1) having a diffusion member (interpreted as a member in which spray nozzles 68 are disposed in, as shown on figure 1) comprising a single diffusion tube (interpreted as a tube in which the several spray nozzles 68 are disposed in, as shown on figure 1) having a main axis parallel (parallel axis of spray nozzles 68, figure 1) to an axis representative of the width of the open vertical refrigerated display cabinet (axis of open top display stand 2, as shown on figure 1), the single diffusion tube having a plurality of diffusion orifices (sprays 68) to diffuse a mist in at least part of the storage volume (thus finely sub-dividing in the path of the projected cold air, pg2 lines 20-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cabinet in the teachings of Joardar to include a nebulization mechanism is provided adjacent to the upper wall; the nebulization mechanism having a diffusion member comprising a single diffusion tube having a main axis parallel to an axis representative of the width of the open vertical refrigerated display cabinet, the single diffusion tube having a plurality of diffusion orifices to diffuse a mist in at least part of the storage volume in view of the teachings of Baies in order to yield the predictable results of providing moisture for the commodities such as vegetables or fruits on the stand.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach the plurality of diffusion orifices being distinct from the main blowing orifice and offset towards the rear wall relative to the main blowing orifice.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “teach the plurality of diffusion orifices being distinct from the main blowing orifice and offset towards the rear wall relative to the main blowing orifice” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing moisture for vegetables or fruits. Since it has been held that the rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the spray nozzles 68 to be offset rearwards from the air outlet and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable result of providing moisture for vegetables or fruits.
Further, it is understood, claim 19 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…operable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 26, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the distance between the centers of adjacent orifices in the at least one diffusion orifice, along the main axis of the diffusion member, is between 100 and 200 mm.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the distance between the centers of adjacent orifices in the at least one diffusion orifice, along the main axis of the diffusion member, is between 100 and 200 mm” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing moisture for vegetables or fruits. Since it has been held that the rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the pipes of spray nozzles 68 to be at a distance between 100-200mm along the axis of top display stand 2 of Baies and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable result of providing moisture for vegetables or fruits.
Regarding claim 27, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein an angle between a vertical and a straight line connecting a center of the diffusion member and a center of each diffusion orifice is between 30 and 50 degrees.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “an angle between a vertical and a straight line connecting a center of the diffusion member and a center of each diffusion orifice is between 30 and 50 degrees” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing moisture for vegetables or fruits. Since it has been held that the rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the spray nozzles 68 to include an angle of 30-50 degrees from a tube in which the several spray nozzles 68 are disposed in Baies and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable result of providing moisture for vegetables or fruits.
Regarding claim 28, the combined teachings teach further comprising at least one shelf (shelf 12 of Joardar) extending from the rear wall (as shown on figure 2 of Joardar) towards the front face to define compartments (as shown on figure 2 of Joardar) of the open vertical refrigerated display cabinet (refrigerated display cabinet 100 of Joardar).
Claims 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joardar et al (CN 111912161 A), Baies (US 2066312 A) in view of Jones et al (US 20200069079 A1).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the diameter of the diffusion member is between 30 and 65 mm.
However, Jones teaches wherein the diameter of the diffusion member (diameter of diffuser tube 80, paragraph 0036) is between 30 and 65 mm (1.25 inches to 1.5 inches with about 1.375 inches being preferred, paragraph 0036, equating to 31.75mm to 38mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cabinet in the combined teachings to include wherein the diameter of the diffusion member is between 30 and 65 mm in view of the teachings of Jones in order to yield the predictable results of producing a fine water vapor.
Regarding claim 30, the combined teachings teach further comprising at least one intermediate conduit (conduit of manifold 24, as shown on figure 1 of Jones) extending at least in part immediately below the upper wall (below the upper wall of system 10, figure 1 of Jones), at least one intermediate conduit (conduit of manifold 24, as shown on figure 1 of Jones) connecting the diffusion member (diffuser assembly 28, figure 1 of Jones) with the at least one mist outlet (outlet of diffuser 34, figures 1-2 of Jones).
Claims 25 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joardar et al (CN 111912161 A), Baies (US 2066312 A) in view of Reens (US 8128069 B2).
Regarding claim 25, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the diameter of each diffusion orifice in the plurality of diffusion orifice is between 8 mm and 15 mm.
However, Reens teaches wherein the diameter of each diffusion orifice (diameter of apertures 60, col 6 line 64) in the plurality of diffusion orifice is between 8 mm and 15 mm (the diameters of the apertures 60 was about one-half inch, col 6 lines 63-64, equating to 12.7mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cabinet in the combined teachings to include wherein the diameter of each diffusion orifice in the at least one diffusion orifice is between 8 mm and 15 mm in view of the teachings of Reens in order to yield the predictable results of facilitating the dispersal of fog with very little pressure to enter the air stream.
Regarding claim 36, the combined teachings teach wherein: the piezoelectric type nebulization member (plurality of piezoelectric device 96 of Reen) is housed in the air circulation duct (as shown on figure 2C of Reen), and the at least one air inlet (via air stream 24 in between tubes 32, figure 3 of Reen) is operable to directly suck in air in the air circulation duct (as shown on figures 2A and 2C of Reen).
Further, it is understood, claim 36 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…operable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claims 29 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joardar et al (CN 111912161 A), Baies (US 2066312 A) in view of Richard et al (US 20170203323 A1).
Regarding claim 29, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the nebulization mechanism further comprises a piezoelectric nebulization member that comprises at least one air inlet and at least one mist outlet.
However, Richard teaches wherein the nebulization mechanism (nozzle 49) further comprises a piezoelectric nebulization member (piezoelectric element 46) that comprises at least one air inlet (via air inlet 21 and collection tube 23, paragraphs 0013 and 0056) and at least one mist outlet (outlet 22, paragraph 0056 and as shown on figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cabinet in the combined teachings to include wherein the nebulization mechanism further comprises a piezoelectric nebulization member that comprises at least one air inlet and at least one mist outlet in view of the teachings of Richard in order to yield the predictable results to confer on the mist a required diffusion direction or height or width.
Regarding claim 34, the combined teachings teach wherein: the piezoelectric type nebulization member (piezoelectric element 46 of Richard) is mounted above the upper wall (corresponding to cabinet 100 of Joardar), and the at least one air inlet is operable to suck air into a duct for circulation of air (via air inlet 21 and collection tube 23, paragraphs 0013 and 0056 of Richard) provided in the open vertical refrigerated display cabinet (corresponding to cabinet 100 of Joardar) via a tube passing through the upper wall (via collection tube 23, as shown on figure 7 of Richard).
Further, it is understood, claim 34 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…operable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 35, the combined teachings teach wherein: the piezoelectric type nebulization member (piezoelectric element 46 of Richard) is housed in the storage volume (interpreted as being housed within an appliance to humidify or refresh goods, paragraph 0004 of Richard), and the at least one air inlet (via air inlet 21, paragraphs 0013 and 0056 of Richard) is operable to directly suck air into the storage volume (air flow enters the nebulization system 1 through an air inlet 21 and (by thrust or aspiration) carries away the microdroplets of liquid generated by the nozzle 49, paragraph 0056 of Richard).
Further, it is understood, claim 35 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…operable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joardar et al (CN 111912161 A), Baies (US 2066312 A), Richard et al (US 20170203323 A1) in view of Franklin (US 6182458 B1).
Regarding claim 31, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising two intermediate conduits extending in a mutually parallel manner.
However, Franklin teaches further comprising two intermediate conduits (pipes 38 and 40, figure 1) extending in a mutually parallel manner (as shown on figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cabinet in the combined teachings to include further comprising two intermediate conduits extending in a mutually parallel manner in view of the teachings of Franklin in order to yield the predictable results of allowing high velocity fog-like spray discharges.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach a distance separating the centers of the intermediate conduits being between 50 and 200 mm.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “a distance separating the centers of the intermediate conduits being between 50 and 200 mm” does anything more than produce the predictable result of allowing high velocity fog-like spray discharges. Since it has been held that the rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify pipes 38 and 40 with distance between them of 50-200mm of Franklin and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable result of allowing high velocity fog-like spray discharges.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joardar et al (CN 111912161 A) in view of Baies (US 2066312 A).
Regarding claim 37, Joardar teaches an open vertical refrigerated display cabinet (refrigerated display cabinet 100), comprising: a plurality of walls (as shown on figure 2) including a face front that is open to define access to a storage volume for storing products (as shown on figure 2); a generation mechanism (fan 160) that generates and circulates an air curtain adjacent (curtain 162) and parallel to the front face (as shown on figure 2), the generation mechanism including a blowing mechanism (fan 160) that defines a main air blowing orifice (outlet of fan 160, figure 2), and an air suction mechanism located above the blowing mechanism to suction the air from the main air blowing orifice (interpreted as the suction portion directly below fan 160 into the lower side of cabinet 100, as shown on figure 2).
Joardar teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach a nebulization mechanism including a diffusion member having a main axis parallel to an axis representative of the width of the open vertical refrigerated display cabinet, the diffusion member comprising a single diffusion tube extending along the width of the open vertical refrigerated display cabinet, the single diffusion tube having a plurality of diffusion orifices arranged spaced apart on the main axis to diffuse a mist in at least part of the storage volume.
However, Baies teaches a nebulization mechanism (as shown on figure 1) including a diffusion member (interpreted as a member in which spray nozzles 68 are disposed in, as shown on figure 1) having a main axis parallel (parallel axis of spray nozzles 68, figure 1) to an axis representative of the width of the open vertical refrigerated display cabinet (axis of open top display stand 2, as shown on figure 1), the diffusion member comprising a single diffusion tube (interpreted as a tube in which the several spray nozzles 68 are disposed in, as shown on figure 1) extending along the width of the open vertical refrigerated display cabinet (width of open top display stand 2, figure 1), the single diffusion tube having a plurality of diffusion orifices (sprays 68) arranged spaced apart (as shown on figure 1) on the main axis to diffuse a mist in at least part of the storage volume (thus finely sub-dividing in the path of the projected cold air, pg2 lines 20-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cabinet in the teachings of Joardar to include a nebulization mechanism including a diffusion member having a main axis parallel to an axis representative of the width of the open vertical refrigerated display cabinet, the diffusion member comprising a single diffusion tube extending along the width of the open vertical refrigerated display cabinet, the single diffusion tube having a plurality of diffusion orifices arranged spaced apart on the main axis to diffuse a mist in at least part of the storage volume in view of the teachings of Baies in order to yield the predictable results of providing moisture for the commodities such as vegetables or fruits on the stand.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Applicant respectfully traverse the objection, contending that the claimed suction mechanism is the suction mouth 52 illustrated at least at FIGS. 1, 2, and 4”, the Examiner disagrees. As shown on Figure 2, suction mechanism 54 is located directly below, not above the blowing mechanism 52. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the objection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Applicant respectfully traverses the invocation of 35 U.S.C.§112(f), 6th paragraph. The claimed technical features are not written as a function to be performed, but rather recite sufficient structure to preclude application of the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §112. In particular, the claimed technical features would be reasonably understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to have a sufficiently definite meaning as a designation for structure. The claims in question and the specification on a whole, therefore, recite sufficient structure to avoid the invocation of means plus function interpretation”, the Examiner disagrees. The claim language uses a generic placeholder, “mechanism,” coupled with functional language (“suction”), without reciting sufficient structure in the Specification. Further the term “mechanism” is merely a nonce word of “non-structural generic placeholder” equivalent to the term “means” because it fails to connote sufficiently definite structure and, in the context of claims 19 and 37, invokes § 112(f). Therefore, the Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive and the claim interpretation is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Applicant strenuously traverses the rejection in contending that the specification as originally-filed provides clear and adequate description for the disputed claimed features”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, claim language uses a generic placeholder, “mechanism,” coupled with functional language (“suction”), without reciting sufficient structure in the Specification. Further the term “mechanism” is merely a nonce word of “non-structural generic placeholder” equivalent to the term “means” because it fails to connote sufficiently definite structure and, in the context of claims 19 and 37, invokes § 112(f). Further, it does not appear to include a specific structure that performs the function of a suction mechanism in the published specification. Therefore, the Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 112A/B rejections are maintained.
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 DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763