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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 4 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Also, should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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: “active cooling system” used throughout the claims (“active cooling” being the function, and “system” being the generic placeholder).
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.
For the record, the specification fails to clearly define the corresponding structure of the “active cooling system.” See corresponding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b), below.
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 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 1-22 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. The limitation “active cooling system,” which has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth above, is used throughout the claims. However, since the specification fails to clearly describe the corresponding structure, applicant has failed to demonstrate full possession of the metes and bounds of the claims as recited at the effective filing date of the application.
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 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.
Claim limitation “active cooling system” 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. 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.
In addition:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operating needs" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the” should be removed from the limitation.
Claims 3 and 14 each recites “turning off the one or more… in an ordered method….” It is unclear how the option of “one” ACT alone can be controlled “in an ordered method.” For purposes of examination, in the case where only one ACT is turned off, such single turn off is considered simply an ordered method of one.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the goods" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Again, the term “the” should be removed from the limitation.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the ACTs that are empty" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Again, the term “the” should be removed from the limitation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the operating needs" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the” should be removed from the limitation.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the goods" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Again, the term “the” should be removed from the limitation.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the ACTs that are empty" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Again, the term “the” should be removed from the limitation.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11-12, 14, 16, 18-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Spath (US 2020/0256593 A1).
As per claims 1 and 12, Spath discloses a method of, and controller for, operating an Active Cooling System, ACS, (refrigerated transport system 100) comprising: determining the operating needs of a plurality of Actively Cooled Totes, ACTs (actively controlled containers 200; note also para. 0037, lines 3-6 re. the disclosure including plural forms, and thus anticipates plural containers); and adjusting an operation of one or more of the plurality of ACTs based on a physical location of the one or more of the plurality of ACTs in the ACS (Abstract, lines 10-16; paras. 0005-0006; etc.).
As per claims 3 and 14, Spath disclose wherein adjusting the operation of the one or more of the plurality of ACTs comprises: turning on the one or more of the plurality of ACTs in an ordered method based on the physical location of the one or more of the plurality of ACTs in the ACS (para. 0005, lines 17-20; para. 0006, lines 15-21; etc.) (See discussion above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding interpreting an ordered method of one container. Note further for the record, even if the claim were amended to positively recite turning on multiple ACTs in an ordered method, the cited Elwood reference (US 6119469) teaches the basic concept of ordered start-up of refrigerated devices, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the system of Spath for the same basic purpose of preventing power overload (Abstract, etc,)).
As per claims 5 and 16, wherein determining the operating needs of the plurality of ACTs comprises: polling the ACTs to determine a current temperature (system measures (i.e., polls) the temperature in the container, and sends the temperature to remote device 400; paras. 0022-0023; etc.).
As per claims 7 and 18, Spath discloses wherein determining the operating needs of the plurality of ACTs comprises: polling the ACTs to determine requirements of the goods in each of the ACTs (paras. 0027-0028 re. matrix 474 of allowable temperature ranges 478 for stored products).
As per claims 8 and 19, Spath discloses wherein adjusting the operation of the one or more of the plurality of ACTs comprises: prioritizing activation of the ACTs with more strict requirements of the goods in those ACTs (para. 0027-0028 re. operating cooling to make sure that all products are within safe storage ranges implicitly controls activation to ensure that the strictest ranges are achieved (and thus prioritized)).
As per claims 11 and 22, Spath discloses wherein adjusting the operation of the one or more of the plurality of ACTs comprises: adjusting a setpoint temperature of the one or more of the plurality of ACTs (para. 0021, lines 23-28; etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spath in view of Dade et al. (US 2017/0215620 A1).
As per claims 6 and 17, Spath do not teach wherein adjusting the operation of the one or more of the plurality of ACTs comprises: prioritizing activation of the ACTs with the largest difference between the current temperature and a desired temperature. Dade et al. teach the concept of prioritizing the cooling of containers based on the largest difference between the current temperature and a desired temperature (paras. 0038, 0244, 0251, 0260; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly control the containers of Spath according to the difference between the current temperature and a desired temperature for the same basic purpose of ensuring proper temperature management in that the greatest cooling capacity is provided to those containers with the greatest load requirements.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spath.
As per claims 2 and 13, the concept of “balancing” a number of the ACTs operating in pulldown-state with a number of ACTs operating in steady-state is extremely broad. To the extent that each ACT is operated according to its respective cooling requirements (e.g., either in a pulldown or steady state operation according to its cooling needs), the system can be considered “balanced” according to meeting the needs of the number of ACTs requiring pulldown and the number of ACTs simply requiring steady state operation. Such controls would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the simple purpose, and as a direct result, of optimizing operation of each ACT according to its respective cooling needs.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spath in view of Farlotti et al. (US 2020/0158414 A1).
As per claims 9 and 20, Spath does not teach wherein adjusting the operation of the one or more of the plurality of ACTs comprises: adjusting the operation of the one or more of the plurality of ACTs based on a current percentage of occupancy of the ACTs. Farlotti et al. teach the concept of turning off or reducing (i.e., adjusting) cooling for compartments/containers that are empty (i.e., based on percent occupancy of zero) (para. 0043, lines 11-14; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly adjust (reduce or stop) operation of the container of Spath based on an occupancy percentage (percentage of zero) for the same basic purpose of not expending cooling capacity when there are no contents requiring cooling.
As per claims 10 and 21, Spath does not teach wherein adjusting the operation of the one or more of the plurality of ACTs comprises: deprioritizing activation of the ACTs that are empty. Farlotti et al. teach the concept of turning off or reducing (i.e., deprioritizing) cooling for compartments/containers that are empty (para. 0043, lines 11-14; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly reduce or stop (i.e., deprioritize) operation of the container of Spath when the container is empty for the same basic purpose of not expending cooling capacity when there are no contents requiring cooling.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Castonzo (US 2019/0364398 A1) teach portable refrigerated container controlled according to location (paras. 0012, 0019, 0073; etc.).
Veltrop et al. (US 2017/0265687 A1) location-based control of refrigerated containers (title; para. 10, etc.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763