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 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 1-22 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.
In reference to claim 1, line 11 recites the limitation, “the compressor discharge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In reference to claim 1, line 15 recites the limitation, “the temperature of air supplied from the evaporator to said cavity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In reference to claim 1, line 17 recites the limitation, “the temperature of air returned to the evaporator from said cavity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In reference to claim 1, on page 3 line 6, the recitation of “a return temperature” is unclear as it is unclear if this return temperature is the same or different than the temperature of air returned to the evaporator from said cavity. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “operating the chiller in a sustain mode for maintaining the temperature of the wine and/or beverage bottles at a target temperature by controlling the bypass valve based on the temperature of air returned to the evaporator from said cavity;”
In reference to claim 1, on page 3 line 12, the claim requires starting “a proper process”. The term “proper” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proper” is 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. Since one skilled in the art would not be able to ascertain what is or isn’t considered a “proper process” the meets and bounds of the claims are unclear. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “starting a the pulling-down mode or heating mode based on which process is identified as needed”.
In reference to claim 1, on page 3 in line 21, the claim recites the limitation “a defined target temperature”. It is unclear if this defined target temperature is the same as the “target temperature” previously recited on page 3 in lines 5 and 10. As claimed it appears that the “target temperature” of page 5 and 10 are the same temperature, and the “defined target temperature” of line 21 is a different target temperature. However, both the “target temperature” of page 3 lines 10 and 21 are target temperatures of the heating mode. If these are intended to be different temperatures, it is recommended that the terms be amended to clarify the differing target temperatures by perhaps defining a heating mode target temperature, sustain mode target temperature, etc. If they are intended to be the same, it is recommended to amend the target temperatures such that each target temperature is referred to by the same term.
In reference to claim 8, the claim requires at least one electronic expansion valve. However claim 1 already requires an expansion valve. Accordingly, it appears that claim 8 requires two expansion valves and at least one of them is an electronic expansion valve. However, the embodiment in Applicant’s specification which shows the electronic expansion valve (figure 13) only includes a single expansion valve. Accordingly, claim 8 is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty, see MPEP 2173.03. Since claim 8 is internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification relating to the composition of the beverage, the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “wherein the expansion valve is an electronic expansion valve configured to control the heating process.”
In reference to claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “the evaporator air flow”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In reference to claim 12, line 11 recites the limitation, “the compressor discharge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In reference to claim 12, line 15 recites the limitation, “the temperature of air supplied from the evaporator to said cavity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In reference to claim 12, line 17 recites the limitation, “the temperature of air returned to the evaporator from said cavity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In reference to claim 12, line 20, the claim recites the limitation “an evaporator or heater in the evaporator air flow”. However, in line 5, the claim already claims an evaporator. Accordingly, the relationship between the two evaporators is unclear. Further, “the evaporator air flow” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, the evaporator or a heater is located in an air flow of the evaporator”.
In reference to claim 12, on page 6 line 4, the recitation of “a return temperature” is unclear as it is unclear if this return temperature is the same or different than the temperature of air returned to the evaporator from said cavity. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “operating the chiller in a sustain mode for maintaining the temperature of the wine and/or beverage bottles at a target temperature by controlling the bypass valve based on the temperature of air returned to the evaporator from said cavity;”
In reference to claim 12, on page 6 line 10, the claim requires starting “a proper process”. The term “proper” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proper” is 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. Since one skilled in the art would not be able to ascertain what is or isn’t considered a “proper process” the meets and bounds of the claims are unclear. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “starting a the pulling-down mode or heating mode based on which process is identified as needed”.
In reference to claim 15, the claim requires “at least one sensor is a contactless sensor”. It is unclear if the at least one sensor of claim 15 is in addition to the previous sensor claimed or if the sensor is an additional sensor. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “at least one of the supply temperature sensor, return temperature sensor, or at least one additional sensor is a contactless sensor”.
In reference to claim 19, the claim requires at least one electronic expansion valve. However claim 12 already requires an expansion valve. Accordingly, it appears that claim 19 requires two expansion valves and at least one of them is an electronic expansion valve. However, the embodiment in Applicant’s specification which shows the electronic expansion valve (figure 13) only includes a single expansion valve. Accordingly, claim 19 is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty, see MPEP 2173.03. Since claim 19 is internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification relating to the composition of the beverage, the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “wherein the expansion valve is an electronic expansion valve configured to control the heating process.”
Claims 2-7, 10, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-22 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights