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 statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
In re Claim 9, The terms “softer and/or more compliant than the corresponding Peltier cell” and “fixing more firmly and stably” a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “softer and/or more compliant than the corresponding Peltier cell” and “fixing more firmly and stably” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how one with ordinary skill would determine to what degree softer and/or more compliant than the corresponding Peltier cell and whether that means it is more malleable or what the determination of softness or compliance is. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as the at least one mechanical adapter is different from the corresponding Peltier cell.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites the same limitations as Claim 5; there is redundancy in the claims. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as requiring all the limitations of claim 5. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lebolis et al (WO2022084882A1).
In re Claim 1, Lebolis discloses a cooling system (10) for a machine (100) for processing a mixture (Page 6:24-26), comprising:
a central body (1) configured to house at least one of the mixture (Page 6:24-26) and a product (Page 6:24-26) to be cooled and which forms external flanks (outside boundaries of 1);
at least three Peltier cells (2; Page 11:32) each of which rests on the external flanks of the central body (outside boundaries of 1);
at least one heat sink (3) configured to regulate a temperature of at least one of the Peltier cells (2); and
an assembling system (5) comprising a belt element (51) and a tensioner (52,53);
wherein: the belt element (51) extends around the Peltier cells (2) and the heat sink (3); and
the tensioner (52,53) is configured to tension the belt element (3) to maintain a perimeter of a portion of the belt element (See Fig. 5; distance around 1) extending around the Peltier cells (2) and the heat sink (3) to fix the Peltier cells (2) against the external flanks of the central body (1)|(See Page 8:17-23).
In re Claim 2, Lebolis discloses wherein the tensioner (52,53) is configured to tension the belt element (51) to reduce or maintain a distance between at least two proximal sections of the belt element (51) adjacent to the tensioner to tighten or fix the Peltier cells (2) against the external flanks of the central body (1).1
In re Claim 3, Lebolis discloses wherein the tensioner (52,53) is configured to reduce a distance between at least two proximal sections of the belt element (51) adjacent to the tensioner (52,53) by causing the proximal sections to slide in directions substantially parallel or longitudinal to the sections themselves, or maintain the reduced distance.2
In re Claim 4, Lebolis discloses wherein the belt element (2) comprises at least one element (Page 8:15-22) selected from the group consisting of a wire (Page 8:15-22); and the element (2) comprises a metallic material (Page 8:15-22).
In re Claims 5 and 6, Lebolis discloses wherein:
the belt element (51) comprises a single element (Page 8:15-22) selected from the group consisting of a wire (Page 8:15-22); the element (51) comprises a metallic material (Page 8:15-22); and the element (51) is configured to be tensioned by the tensioner (52,53) to tighten or fix the Peltier cells (2) against the external flanks of the central body (1) |(See Page 8:17-23)..
In re Claim 7, Lebolis discloses comprising at least four Peltier cells (2; Page 11:32: four Peltier cells).
In re Claim 8, Lebolis discloses comprising at least one mechanical adapter (Fig. 10: 40), each such adapter (40) being interposed between the belt element (51/53) and at least one corresponding Peltier cell (2) so as to transmit to the cell (2) the force applied by the belt element (51) towards a working cavity of the central body (150).
In re Claim 9, Lebolis discloses the at least one mechanical adapter (40) is softer and/or more compliant than the corresponding Peltier cell (2) so as to make pressure applied by the belt element (51) more uniform in space and more constant over time on the Peltier cell (2) and on the at least one heat sink (3) by fixing more firmly and stably the Peltier cell (2) and the heat sink (3) to the flanks of the central body (1).
In re Claim 10, Lebolis discloses the at least one mechanical adapter (40) comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of other protrusions (Page 9:6-14) on a surface that faces the belt element (51)|(Page 9:23-30) to promote sliding between the belt element and the mechanical adapter.3
In re Claim 11, Lebolis discloses wherein the tensioner (52, 53) comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a screw (53) configured to reduce or maintain a distance between two proximal sections of the belt (51; See Fig. 5) by pulling sections (Page 8:17-23).
In re Claim 13, Lebolis discloses a machine for producing ice cream (100), comprising the cooling system (10) according to claim 1 (Page 6:24-26).
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 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.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebolis et al (WO2022084882A1) in view of Yong et al (US 20240051813 A1).
In re Claim 12, Lebolis does not explicitly teach, wherein at least one of the mechanical adapters (40) comprises a synthetic resin.
On the other hand, Yong teaches wherein at least one of the mechanical adapters (200) comprises a synthetic resin ([0098]: may also be a synthetic resin material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Lebolis and to have modified them by having the mechanical adapters comprises a synthetic resin as taught by Yong in order to conduct heat (See Yong [0098]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 The recitation of "to reduce or maintain a distance between at least two proximal sections of the belt element (51) adjacent to the tensioner to tighten or fix the Peltier cells (2) against the external flanks of the central body (1)," recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
2 The recitation of "by causing the proximal sections to slide in directions substantially parallel or longitudinal to the sections themselves, or maintain the reduced distance” recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
3 The recitation of "to promote sliding between the belt element and the mechanical adapter” recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).