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 12/15/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Further recognition:
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in in light of the amendments.
The rejections pursuant to 112(a) are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
The rejections pursuant to 112(b) in light of the amendments are withdrawn any restated rejections have not been found persuasive.
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 “liquid nitrogen replenishment interface configured to replenish liquid nitrogen at a station” in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
the “a first flow path to discharge nitrogen gas into the environment and a second flow path for a refrigerant in the second refrigeration device” in claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
the “a fan configured to facilitate heat exchange between air in the cargo box and the nitrogen gas in the first flow path and the refrigerant in the second flow path” in claim 18 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
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “… the first cargo box heat exchanger”
The claim should be amended to recite - - a first cargo box heat exchanger
- - for clarity. Due to claim 15 being dependent from claim 3 and the first cargo box heat exchanger is disclosed in claim 14, in order to avoid any antecedent rejections.
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:
Regarding Claim 8, the recitation of the claim limitation “an energy supply device,” where an energy supply device is described as “a combustion engine, a lithium battery, or fuel cells” in paragraph 0023 of the specification
.
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(b)
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 1-20 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 & 9, it is noted that the conditional step of “determine whether a difference between the temperature of the cargo box and a set temperature is greater than or equal to a first threshold when receiving a refrigeration demand for the cargo box,” may never occur.
In particular, claims 1 and 9 do not positively recite the condition precedent (i.e. entering a refrigeration demand), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “if” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of determining need not occur to satisfy the claim. As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "if step of claims 1 and 9, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claims recite “where optionally, the first threshold is selectable from a range of 2o C -10o C, such as/ for example 3o C – 8o C” the broad recitation of 2o C -10o C, and the claim also recites 3o C – 8o C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites " the same cargo box heat exchanger ." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be amended to recite - - a singular cargo box heat exchanger - - for clarity, and to avoid any further 35 USC § 112(b) rejections.
Claims 3-5, 7-8, 11-20 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dutta et al. (US2016/0144764A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Dutta teaches a hybrid refrigeration system [0003; 14 and 16] for a transportation refrigeration vehicle [10&11; 0052], comprising:
a first refrigeration device [14] for regulating a temperature of a cargo box [18] of the transportation refrigeration vehicle [0045], wherein the first refrigeration [14] device is a liquid nitrogen based refrigeration device [cryogen system; 0045 see also 0061]; and
a second refrigeration device [16] for regulating the temperature of the cargo box [18] of the transportation refrigeration vehicle [0043], wherein the second refrigeration [16] device is a mechanical refrigeration device [0043];
a controller [15] connected to the first refrigeration device [14] and the second refrigeration device [0042-0043];
wherein, the controller [15] is configured to receive and execute a refrigeration demand for the cargo box [18] and determine whether a difference between the temperature of the cargo box [18] and a set temperature is greater than or equal to a first threshold [0046 where return air temperature corresponds to the temperature of the cargo box, setpoint temperature corresponds to temperature, predictive algorithm is a first threshold and making a determination corresponds to the set temperature is greater than or equal to a first threshold and it is clear that the controller is configured to receive and execute refrigeration demand for the cargo box];
if so, start the first refrigeration device [14] alone or start both the first refrigeration device [14] and the second refrigeration device [16] simultaneously [0046; see also 0077-0081]; and
if not, start the second refrigeration device alone [0046 where the controller determines if the mechanical refrigeration or Cryogen systems should be used].
Regarding Claim 2, Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration system according to claim 1 and wherein when the first refrigeration device [14] is started and the set temperature is reached [0046], the first refrigeration device [14] is turned off [0046] and the second refrigeration device [16] is used to maintain the temperature of the cargo box [0046 where the Mechanical Refrigeration System is (16) and the algorithm determines whether to use the mechanical refrigeration system and or the cryogen system].
Regarding Claim 4, Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration system according to claim 1 and wherein the second refrigeration device [16] comprises a compressor, a condenser, a throttling device, and a second cargo box heat exchanger connected into a circulating circuit [0043 where the components are mentioned but not given reference characters].
Regarding Claim 5, Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration system according to claim 4 and wherein the second refrigeration [16] device is powered by a combustion engine [0043].
Regarding Claim 6, Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration system according to claim 1 and wherein the first refrigeration device [14] and the second refrigeration device [16] share the same cargo box heat exchanger [24; fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 8, Dutta teaches the transportation refrigeration vehicle comprising a hybrid refrigeration system according to claim 1 and wherein the transportation refrigeration vehicle [10 & 11] is powered by a combustion engine [0043 where the vehicles engine is a combustion engine], where the hybrid refrigeration system [14 and 16] and the transportation refrigeration vehicle [11] share an energy supply device [0043].
Regarding Claim 9, Dutta teaches a control method for a hybrid refrigeration system [title; see also different cooling modes 0007] and comprising:
receiving and executing, by a controller [15] a refrigeration demand for a cargo box [18] determining whether a difference between a temperature of the cargo box [18] and a set temperature is greater than or equal to a first threshold [0046 where return air temperature corresponds to the temperature of the cargo box, setpoint temperature corresponds to temperature, predictive algorithm is a first threshold and making a determination corresponds to the set temperature is greater than or equal to a first threshold and it is clear that the controller is configured to receive and execute refrigeration demand for the cargo box];
if so, starting, by the controller [15] a first refrigeration device [14] based on liquid nitrogen [0042 “a Cryogen System” see also 0061 where a cryogen is liquid nitrogen] alone or start both the first refrigeration device [14] based on liquid nitrogen [0042 “a Cryogen System”] and the second refrigeration device [16] simultaneously [0046; see also 0077-0081]; and
if not, starting, by the controller [15] the second refrigeration device alone [0046 where the controller determines if the mechanical refrigeration or Cryogen systems should be used].
Regarding Claim 10, Dutta teaches the control method according to claim 9 and wherein the method further comprises [cooling modes]:
turning off the first refrigeration device [0046] and using the second refrigeration device [16] to maintain the temperature of the cargo box [0046] when the first refrigeration device [14] is started and the set temperature is reached [0046 where the Mechanical Refrigeration System is (16) and the algorithm determines whether to use the mechanical refrigeration system and or the cryogen system].
Regarding Claim 11, Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration system of claim 1 and wherein when using the first refrigeration device [14] for cooling, the second refrigeration device [16] is turned on prior to turning off the first refrigeration device [0073 which discloses a manual mode where the user would turn on the second refrigeration device prior to turning off the first refrigeration device].
Regarding Claim 12, Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration system of claim 1 and wherein the first refrigeration device [14] is further configured to convert liquid nitrogen into a nitrogen gas [061 “cryogen is in a liquid phase, such as liquid carbon dioxide or liquid nitrogen. When the cryogen leaves the cooling fluid circuit 30 via the gas outlet 36, the cryogen is in a gas phase, such as carbon dioxide gas or nitrogen gas”].
Regarding Claim 17, Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration system of claim 4 and wherein the second cargo box heat exchanger [0043] comprises a first flow path [30] to discharge nitrogen gas into the environment [0059 “disposed outside the container”] and a second flow path [28] for a refrigerant [0054 “refrigerant”] in the second refrigeration device [16].
Regarding Claim 18, Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration system of claim 17 and further comprising a fan [22] configured to facilitate heat exchange between air in the cargo box [0050 “transfer heat between the cargo space 18 and the eutectic device”] and the nitrogen gas in the first flow path [0058 “the cooling fluid transitions from a liquid phase to a gas phase”] and the refrigerant in the second flow path [fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 19, Dutta teaches the control method of claim 9 and further comprising turning on the second refrigeration device [16] prior to turning off the first refrigeration device [0073 which discloses a manual mode where the user would turn on the second refrigeration device prior to turning off the first refrigeration device].
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.
Claim(s) 3, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al. (US2016/0144764A1) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Viegas Et al. (US6062030A) and further in view of Corey (US20230023822A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration system according to claim 1 and Dutta teaches wherein the first refrigeration device [14] comprises a liquid nitrogen storage tank [26; 0052], where the first refrigeration device [14] regulates the temperature of the cargo box [18] by converting liquid nitrogen into nitrogen gas [0059 “is in a gas phase”].
Dutta does not explicitly teach a liquid nitrogen release control valve and the first refrigeration device regulates the temperature of the cargo box by converting liquid nitrogen into nitrogen gas and transporting it directly to the cargo box.
However, Viegas teaches a liquid nitrogen release control valve [34; col. 2; lines 24-26 where liquid nitrogen is a cryogen].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dutta to have a liquid nitrogen release control valve in view of the teachings of Viegas where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a hybrid refrigeration system with a liquid cryogen release control valve that boosts cooling of conventional cooling units [Viegas; col. 6; lines].
Further, Corey teaches the first refrigeration device [132 corresponding to 14 of Dutta] regulates the temperature [0029 “in response to a temperature signal”] of the cargo box [2 corresponding to 14 of Dutta] by converting liquid nitrogen into nitrogen gas and transporting it directly to the cargo box [0029 “a source of cryogen 11. A pressure relief valve 10 may be at an open end of heat exchanger 8, controlling the release of evaporated cryogen into the interior of inner vessel”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the modified Dutta teaching with Corey by combining the first refrigeration device regulates the temperature of the cargo box by converting liquid nitrogen into nitrogen gas and transporting it directly to the cargo box where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a hybrid refrigeration system where the temperature of the cargo box is regulated by converting liquid nitrogen into a gas and directly transporting the gas into the cargo box which precisely controls cooling [Corey; 0020].
Regarding Claim 13, Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration device of claim 12 and Dutta teaches the nitrogen gas [0061] and the cargo box [18].
Dutta does not explicitly teach wherein the nitrogen gas is configured to exchange heat directly with air in the cargo box.
However, Corey teaches wherein the nitrogen gas [evaporated cryogen corresponding to nitrogen gas of Dutta] is configured to exchange heat directly with air in the cargo box [0029 “a source of cryogen 11. A pressure relief valve 10 may be at an open end of heat exchanger 8, controlling the release of evaporated cryogen into the interior of inner vessel” where heat exchange occurs between the air and nitrogen gas].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the modified Dutta teaching with Corey by combining wherein the nitrogen gas is configured to exchange heat directly with air in the cargo box where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a hybrid refrigeration system where gaseous nitrogen exchanges heat with the air in the cargo which precisely controls cooling [Corey; 0020].
Regarding Claim 14, modified Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration device of claim 3 and Dutta teaches wherein the first refrigeration device [14] further comprises a first cargo box heat exchanger [30], and wherein the first refrigeration device [14] regulates the temperature of the cargo box by converting liquid nitrogen into nitrogen gas [0058 “cooling fluid transitions from a liquid phase to a gas phase”], passing the nitrogen gas through the first cargo box heat exchanger [0057-0060 where it is explained that the nitrogen gas passes through the first cargo box heat exchanger], and discharging the nitrogen gas to the environment [0059 “gas outlet 36 is disposed outside the container, so that the cooling fluid gas does not enter the cargo space”].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration system of claim 13 and Dutta teaches wherein the first refrigeration device [14] further comprises a liquid nitrogen transfer pipeline [Viegas; 60 corresponding to 34 of Dutta] configured to transport the nitrogen gas to a first cargo box heat exchanger [Viegas; col. 4; lines 43-45 “an electronic expansion valve” where someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that having 58 be an electronic expansion valve line 60 would supply 56 with gaseous cryogen].
Regarding Claim 20, Dutta teaches the control method of claim 9 and Dutta teaches further comprising converting the liquid nitrogen into a nitrogen gas [0059 “is in a gas phase”] and the cargo box [18]
Dutta does not explicitly teach converting the liquid nitrogen into a nitrogen gas via a liquid nitrogen release control valve and transporting the nitrogen gas into the cargo box via a liquid nitrogen transfer pipeline, wherein the nitrogen gas exchanges heat directly with air in the cargo box.
However, Viegas teaches a liquid nitrogen release control valve [34; col. 2; lines 24-26 where liquid nitrogen is a cryogen].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dutta to have a liquid nitrogen release control valve in view of the teachings of Viegas where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a hybrid refrigeration system with a liquid cryogen release control valve that boosts cooling of conventional cooling units [Viegas; col. 6; lines].
Further, Corey converting the liquid nitrogen into nitrogen gas and transporting the nitrogen gas into the cargo box via a liquid nitrogen transfer pipeline [fig. 3 where 136 has a liquid nitrogen transfer pipeline see also 0028], wherein the nitrogen gas exchanges heat directly with air in the cargo box. [0029 “a source of cryogen 11. A pressure relief valve 10 may be at an open end of heat exchanger 8, controlling the release of evaporated cryogen into the interior of inner vessel”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the modified Dutta teaching with Corey by combining converting the liquid nitrogen into a nitrogen gas and transporting the nitrogen gas into the cargo box via a liquid nitrogen transfer pipeline, wherein the nitrogen gas exchanges heat directly with air in the cargo box where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a hybrid refrigeration system where the temperature of the cargo box is regulated by converting liquid nitrogen into a gas and directly transporting the gas in a liquid nitrogen pipeline into the cargo box to directly exchange heat with the air which precisely controls cooling [Corey; 0020].
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al. (US2016/0144764A1) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Williams (US4060400A).
Regarding Claim 7, Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration system according to claim 1 and the first refrigeration device [14], the second refrigeration device [16] and the cargo box [18].
Dutta does not explicitly teach in the event of a failure of either the first refrigeration device or the second refrigeration device, the other of the first refrigeration device or the second refrigeration device alone serves as a backup refrigeration device for temperature regulation of the cargo box.
However, Williams teaches teach in the event of a failure of the first refrigeration device [14 corresponding to 16 of Dutta], the second refrigeration device [12 corresponding to 14 of Dutta] alone serves as a backup refrigeration device [col. 5; lines 15-18] for temperature regulation of the cargo box [col. 4 line 55-col.5 line 30 where 24 corresponds to 18 of Dutta].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dutta to have teach in the event of a failure of the first refrigeration device, the second refrigeration device alone serves as a backup refrigeration device for temperature regulation of the cargo box in view of the teachings of Williams where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a hybrid refrigeration system where in the event of a failure of the first refrigeration device, the second refrigeration device alone serves as a backup refrigeration device for temperature regulation of the cargo box, which maintains the low temperature of the cargo box [Williams; col. 2; lines 3-7].
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al. (US2016/0144764A1) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Viegas Et al. (US6062030A).
Regarding Claim 16, Dutta teaches the hybrid refrigeration system of claim 1 and Dutta teaches wherein the transportation refrigeration vehicle [10&11].
Dutta does not explicitly teach the transportation refrigeration vehicle further comprises a liquid nitrogen replenishment interface configured to replenish liquid nitrogen at a station.
However, Viegas the transportation refrigeration vehicle [80 corresponding to 10&11 of Dutta] further comprises a liquid nitrogen replenishment interface configured to replenish liquid nitrogen at a station [col. 2; lines 51-54; see also col. 5; lines 49-50 where with the two cited sections of Viegas someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that a liquid nitrogen replenishment interface configured to replenish liquid nitrogen at a station is present on (Viegas 32 which corresponds to 26 of Dutta)].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dutta to have the transportation refrigeration vehicle further comprises a liquid nitrogen replenishment interface configured to replenish liquid nitrogen at a station in view of the teachings of Viegas where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a hybrid refrigeration system where the transportation refrigeration vehicle comprises a liquid nitrogen replenishment interface configured to replenish liquid nitrogen at a station which facilitates refilling of the cryogen tank [Viegas; col. 2; lines 51-54].
Response to Arguments
On page 2-4 of the remarks, Applicant argues “Dutta does not determine whether the temperature difference is equal to or greater than a threshold” with respect to amended claim(s) 1 and 9 filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The examiner disagrees that Dutta does not determine whether the temperature difference is equal to or greater than a threshold.
Firstly it is noted that prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations; however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The "mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention's nonobviousness”.
The gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be "so great as to render the “determine whether a difference between the temperature of the cargo box and a set temperature is greater than or equal to a first threshold” would be nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art”.
In determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts, see MPEP 2141 (III).
Further a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”, see MPEP 2141.03 (I).
In the present application the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art would lead one to. In paragraphs 0075-0076 It is explanted cooling can be based on the status of the TRS, “a difference between a desired (or set) temperature of the transport unit and the temperature of the returned air, and/or desired operation of the TRS (e.g. high speed cooling, low speed cooling, defrosting, etc.),” the paragraphs go on to use the example of fast cooling being required. Someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that fast cooling would only be necessary if the temperature differences was greater than a threshold or as described in Dutta a set point. The examiner is of the opinion that Dutta does in fact determine whether the temperature difference is equal to or greater than a threshold although it is not explicitly disclosed in that direct language.
Accordingly, it is the Office's position that the gaps between the prior art and the claimed invention is not so great as to render the claim nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art since one skilled in the art could make inferences and creative steps to easily close that gap.
Therefore, the applicant' s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
On page 4-5 of the remarks, Applicant argues with respect to Claim(s) 3 that “Viegas teaches a liquid nitrogen release control valve [34; col.2; lines 24-26 where liquid nitrogen is a cryogen]." Applicant respectfully disagrees with the above statement in the Office Action.” Applicant's arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
In col. 2 lines 24-26 Viegas clearly describes that a microprocessor adjusts the expansion valve position, someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that an electronic expansion device is capable of expanding cryogen at different saturation . Which means that Viegas adjusting the expansion valve position is not teaching away from the valve of Viegas expanding the cryogen.
Therefore, the applicant' s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
On page 4 and 6 of the remarks, Applicant argues with respect to dependent claim(s) … are patentable due to at least the reasons given for the independent claims in which they depend upon. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are not persuasive claim(s) 2-8 and 10-20 remain rejected. For at least the reasons listed above in the claim rejections and objections.
Therefore, the applicant' s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is 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 Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 09:00AM-07:00PM (Eastern).
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.
/ADAM DORREL MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights