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 01/15/2026. The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn. Claims 1 and 6-8 remain pending for consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the rotating shafts are connected to the driving device through a transmission mechanism” lacks antecedent basis and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein the rotating shafts are connected to the driving device through the transmission mechanism --
Claims 6-8 are also objected to due to dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“driving device” in claim 1.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“driving device” corresponds to a motor as disclosed in page 3 of the specification.
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
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 1and 6-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim contains new matter as it comprises “a fast cooling device, comprising: a cooling container; a rotating device for installing and rotating the cooling container, a driving device; a transmission mechanism; and a turntable, wherein the rotating device is placed in a cooling space, the rotating device drives the cooling container to rotate in the cooling space, wherein the rotating device is vertically arranged” which is disclosed as being a part of the embodiment of Fig. 2, and has been amended to include the rotating device “comprises a set of parallel rotating shafts” which is included in the embodiment of Figs. 3-4. Thus, claim 1 is an embodiment that includes both “a turntable, wherein the rotating device is vertically arranged, wherein the rotating device is vertically arranged” and a “rotating device that comprises a set of parallel rotating shafts”. However, there is no disclosure in Applicant's originally filed Specification for an invention that includes “a turntable, wherein the rotating device is vertically arranged, wherein the rotating device is vertically arranged” and a “rotating device that comprises a set of parallel rotating shafts”.
Claims 6-8 have also been rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahokey et al. (US 20130291570 A1, herein after referred to as Dahokey) in view of Schmidt et al. (US 20210341220 A1, herein after referred to as Schmidt).
Regarding claim 1, Dahokey teaches a fast cooling device (the device illustrated in Figs. 5C-F), comprising: a cooling container (the beverage container disclosed in Fig. 5C and paragraph [0067]); and a turntable (supporting surface 207 Figs. 5C-5F and paragraph [0082]).
Dahokey teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the fast cooling device comprising: a rotating device for installing and rotating the cooling container, a driving device; a transmission mechanism; wherein the rotating device is placed in a cooling space, the rotating device drives the cooling container to rotate in the cooling space, wherein the rotating device is vertically arranged and comprises a set of parallel rotating shafts, the rotating shafts are connected between the driving device and the turntable, the cooling container is directly placed on the turntable and rotates with the rotating shafts, wherein the rotating shafts are connected to the driving device through the transmission mechanism, and wherein the transmission mechanism is a transmission belt tightened between the rotating shafts and an output shaft of the driving device”.
However, Schmidt teaches a fast cooling device (apparatus 1 Fig. 1 corresponds to the fast cooling device of Dahokey) comprising: a rotating device (rotation axis 4 and worm gear 16 Fig. 4) for installing and rotating a cooling container (packaged beverage 2 Fig. 4 corresponds to the cooling container of Dahokey), a driving device (first driving means 6 and second driving means 10 Fig. 4); a transmission mechanism (disclosed “belts” in paragraph [0045] and [0048]); wherein the rotating device is placed in a cooling space (immersion tank 11 Fig. 4), the rotating device drives the cooling container to rotate in the cooling space (paragraph [0045]), wherein the rotating device is vertically arranged (Fig. 4) and comprises a set of parallel rotating shafts (rotation axis 4 and worm gear 16 Fig. 4), the rotating shafts are connected between the driving device and a turntable (Fig. 4 where gripping means 3 corresponds to the turntable of Dahokey, and furthermore, referring to Fig. 4, rotation axis 4 is connected between first driving means 6 and gripping means 3, and worm gear 16 is connected between second driving means 10 and gripping means 3), the cooling container is directly placed on the turntable and rotates with the rotating shafts (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0045]), wherein the rotating shafts are connected to the driving device through the transmission mechanism (paragraphs [0045] and [0048]), and wherein the transmission mechanism is a transmission belt (paragraphs [0045] and [0048]) tightened between the rotating shafts and an output shaft of the driving device (corresponds to the disclosed “rotation axis of an electric motor” in paragraph [0045]) to achieve an axial rotation movement around the vertical axis of the cooling container and a vertical reciprocating movement of the cooling container (paragraph [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Dahokey to include “the fast cooling device comprising: a rotating device for installing and rotating the cooling container, a driving device; a transmission mechanism; wherein the rotating device is placed in a cooling space, the rotating device drives the cooling container to rotate in the cooling space, wherein the rotating device is vertically arranged and comprises a set of parallel rotating shafts, the rotating shafts are connected between the driving device and the turntable, the cooling container is directly placed on the turntable and rotates with the rotating shafts, wherein the rotating shafts are connected to the driving device through the transmission mechanism, and wherein the transmission mechanism is a transmission belt tightened between the rotating shafts and an output shaft of the driving device” in view of the teachings of Schmidt to achieve an axial rotation movement around the vertical axis of the cooling container and a vertical reciprocating movement of the cooling container.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the cooling space is a container (immersion tank 11 Fig. 4 of Schmidt) containing cooling liquid (liquid refrigerant 14 Fig. 4 of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the cooling space is a refrigeration pipe (cooling coil 15 Fig. 4 of Schmidt) surrounding the cooling container (Fig. of Schmidt), and the refrigeration pipe is connected to a refrigeration unit (paragraph [0029] of Schmidt where the disclosed “closed cooling circuit” corresponds to the refrigeration unit).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahokey in view of Schmidt as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Benavides (US 9316432 B2).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the container is connected to a coolant circulation device, which includes a pump body and a refrigeration unit; a coolant circulates between the container and the refrigeration unit through the pump body”.
However, Benavides teaches wherein a container (immersion bath 2 Fig. 1 corresponds to the container of Schmidt) is connected to a coolant circulation device (refrigerating fluid circulation pump 7 with the connecting pipes Fig. 1), which includes a pump body (refrigerating fluid circulation pump 7 Fig. 1) and a refrigeration unit (refrigeration compressor a Fig. 1); a coolant (refrigerating fluid 3 Fig. 1) circulates between the container and the refrigeration unit through the pump body (Fig. 1) to provide beverages at a specific temperature range (Col. 2 lines 45-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the container is connected to a coolant circulation device, which includes a pump body and a refrigeration unit; a coolant circulates between the container and the refrigeration unit through the pump body” in view of the teachings of Benavides to provide beverages at a specific temperature range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/15/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 1-3 that the prior art does not teach or suggest “a turntable” and “the rotating shafts are connected between the driving device and the turntable, the cooling container is directly placed on the turntable and rotates with the rotating shafts” as recited by amended claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, a portion of the above rejection of amended claim 1 is repeated below:
Dahokey teaches a turntable (supporting surface 207 Figs. 5C-5F and paragraph [0082]).
The apparatus of Dahokey is modified by the teachings of Schmidt to provide rotating shafts (rotation axis 4 and worm gear 16 Fig. 4) that are connected between a driving device (first driving means 6 and second driving means 10 Fig. 4) and a turntable (Fig. 4 where gripping means 3 corresponds to the turntable of Dahokey, and furthermore, referring to Fig. 4, rotation axis 4 is connected between first driving means 6 and gripping means 3, and worm gear 16 is connected between second driving means 10 and gripping means 3), a cooling container (packaged beverage 2 Fig. 4) is directly placed on the turntable and rotates with the rotating shafts (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0045]).
Furthermore, Schmidt teaches in paragraph [0044], the use of different types of gripping means to accommodate a variety of containers.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 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 SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763