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 .
Continued Examination -under 3 7 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) of “inlet” and “outlet” for the insulating coolant mentioned in the description: of instant specification. 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. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 and 3-5 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.
See MPEP 2163.03 V where a circumstance where an original claim is not sufficiently described and a written description issue arises. Specifically, “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved.”
In the current application, amended claim 1, filed on 05/11/206 recites the limitation of “the inlet and outlet for the insulating coolant are not on the bottom surface of the coolant storage unit”, however, the specification does not sufficiently identify what constitutes “the inlet and outlet for the insulating coolant storage unit”. Without any such guidance or example in the specification as to what is structure achieves the functional limitation, the specification does not demonstrate that Applicant possessed the functionally-defined ice vending machine recited in the claims. Claims 6 and 16 are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to meet the written.
Claims 3-5 are dependent from claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KODAMA (English Translated Japanese Publication No.: 2022158432 A), hereinafter referred to as KODAMA ‘432, in view of MIDORIKAWA (English Translated Japanese Publication No.: 2001050624 A), hereinafter referred to as MIDORIKAWA ‘624, further in view of YOSHIMURA et al (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2021/0206632 A1), hereinafter referred to as YOSHIMURA et al ‘632.
Regarding claim 1, KODAMA ‘432 discloses a cooling system (1A) comprising a circulation path (10A) for circulating a non-aqueous insulating coolant, and a coolant storage unit (14) in the circulation path and storing the insulating coolant, wherein the insulating coolant has a smaller specific gravity than water, the coolant storage unit contains a water removing portion (23) {as shown in Fig. 3: ¶¶ [0032-0036]}.
However, KODAMA ‘432 fails to explicitly disclose the limitation of the water removing portion is fixed to the coolant storage unit so that at least part of an upper surface of the water removing portion directly contacts the insulating coolant, at least part of the water removing portion is fixed to a bottom surface of the coolant storage unit, and the water removing portion does not block either of an inlet and out for the insulating coolant within the coolant stoae unit; and the inlet and outlet for the insulating coolant are not on the bottom surface of the coolant storage unit.
MIDORIKAWA ‘624 teaches: the concept of the water removing portion (24) being fixed (28) to the coolant storage unit (22) in such a manner that at least part of an upper surface of the water removing portion directly contacts the insulating coolant {as shown in Fig.3A: ¶¶ [0002], [0004] and [0006]}, at least part of the water removing portion is fixed to a bottom surface of the coolant storage unit, and the water removing portion does not block either of an inlet (22B) and out (22A) for the insulating coolant within the coolant stoae unit {as shown in Fig. 3A: ¶ [0006], [0008] and [0011]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify KODAMA ‘432 water removing portion by the water removing portion of MIDORIKAWA ‘624 so as to enable the water removing portion being fixed to the coolant storage unit in such a manner that at least part of an upper surface of the water removing portion directly contacts the insulating coolant, at least part of the water removing portion is fixed to a bottom surface of the coolant storage unit, and the water removing portion does not block either of an inlet and out for the insulating coolant within the coolant stoae unit, in order to facilitate increase efficiency of moisture removal {MIDORIKAWA ‘624 – ¶ [0006]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the KODAMA ‘432 in view of MIDORIKAWA ‘624 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
YOSHIMURA et al ‘632 teach: the concept of the inlet (35) and outlet (34) for the insulating coolant (solution) are not on the bottom surface of the coolant storage unit (3) {as shown in Figs. 2, 6 and 12: ¶¶ [0077] and [0091]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify KODAMA ‘432 coolant storage unit by the storage unit of YOSHIMURA et al ‘632 so as to include the inlet and outlet for the insulating coolant that are not on the bottom surface of the coolant storage unit, in order to facilitate a downwardly flow of the solution through the coolant storage unit {YOSHIMURA et al ‘632 -¶ [0091]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the KODAMA ‘432 in view of YOSHIMURA et al ‘632 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of KODAMA ‘432, MIDORIKAWA ‘624 and YOSHIMURA et al ‘632 disclose and teach the cooling system according to claim 1, KODAMA ‘432 discloses wherein the water removing portion contains a porous zeolite or a water-absorbing resin to absorb water {see ¶ [0037]}.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of KODAMA ‘432, MIDORIKAWA ‘624 and YOSHIMURA et al ‘632 disclose and teach the cooling system according to claim 1, KODAMA ‘432 discloses wherein the water removing portion contains a water-absorbing resin to absorb water and the water-absorbing resin is at least one selected from the group consisting of: a crosslinked partially neutralized polyacrylic acid, a neutralized starch-acrylic acid graft polymer, a hydrolyzed starch-acrylonitrile graft polymer, a saponified vinyl acetate-acrylic acid ester copolymer, a crosslinked isobutylene-maleic anhydride copolymer, a hydrolyzed acrylonitrile copolymer, a hydrolyzed acrylamide copolymer, a crosslinked hydrolyzed acrylonitrile copolymer, a crosslinked hydrolyzed acrylamide copolymer, a crosslinked acrylate-acrylamide copolymer, a crosslinked polyvinyl alcohol, a crosslinked modified polyethylene oxide, a crosslinked acrylamide-2-methylpropanesulfonate copolymer, a crosslinked (meth) acryloylalkanesulfonate copolymer, a crosslinked carboxymethylcellulose salt, and a crosslinked polymer of cationic monomers {see ¶ [0037]}.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of KODAMA ‘432, MIDORIKAWA ‘624 and YOSHIMURA et al ‘632 disclose and teach the cooling system according to claim 4, KODAMA ‘432 discloses wherein the water-absorbing resin is a crosslinked partially neutralized polyacrylic acid or a neutralized starch-acrylic acid graft polymer {see ¶ [0037]}.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP-2009005499-A to SUGIYAMA MASATAKA.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
06/05/2026
Prosecution Insights