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 on 11/07/2025, 07/18/2025, 05/06/2025, and 02/09/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Inventorship
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the uniform magnetization plates” in lines 7-8 of the claim, should read “the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Claim 2 recites “the uniform magnetization plates” in lines 3-4 of the claim, should read “the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Claim 2 recites “one of the lug bosses” in line 7 of the claim, should read “one of the one or more lug bosses.”
Claim 3 recites “the uniform magnetization plate” in line 3 of the claim, should read “the one uniform magnetization plate” or “one of the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Claim 3 recites “the uniform magnetization plate” in line 4 of the claim, should read “the one uniform magnetization plate” or “one of the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Claim 3 recites “the uniform magnetization plate” in line 5 of the claim, should read “the one uniform magnetization plate” or “one of the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Claim 3 recites “the uniform magnetization plate” in line 6 of the claim, should read “the one uniform magnetization plate” or “one of the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Claim 4 recites “the uniform magnetization plates” in line 3 of the claim, should read “the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Claim 4 recites “one of the lug bosses” in line 3 of the claim, should read “one of the one or more lug bosses.”
Claim 4 recites “the uniform magnetization plate” in line 4 of the claim, should read “the one uniform magnetization plate” or “one of the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Claim 4 recites “the electromagnetic loop” in lines 4-5 of the claim, should read “each electromagnetic loop” or “each of the one or more electromagnetic loops.”
Claim 4 recites “the uniform magnetization plate” in lines 5-6 of the claim, should read “the one uniform magnetization plate” or “one of the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Claim 5 recites “the plurality of lug bosses” in line 3 of the claim, should read “the one or more lug bosses.”
Claim 5 recites “the uniform magnetization plates” in line 3-4 of the claim, should read “the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Claim 5 recites “one of the electromagnetic loops” in line 4 of the claim, should read “one of the one or more electromagnetic loops”
Claim 5 recites “the lug bosses” in line 4 of the claim, should read “the one or more lug bosses.”
Claim 6 recites “the uniform magnetization plates” in line 3 of the claim, should read “the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Claim 6 recites “the uniform magnetization plate” in line 4 of the claim, should read “the one uniform magnetization plate” or “one of the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Claim 9 recites “the uniform magnetization plates” in line 3 of the claim, should read “the two uniform magnetization plates.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 9, and 10 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 4, the term “substantially” (in line 5 of the claim) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. The amount or degree to which the lug boss is opposite to a center of the uniform magnetization plate has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “substantially.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the electromagnetic component" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “the electromagnetic component” is never previously established.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a stored object" in lines 4-5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “a stored object” is already established in claim 1, and claim 9 depends from claim 1, thus it is unclear whether applicant intends to claim another “stored object” or the same “stored object” established in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “a magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container” is already established in claim 1, and claim 10 depends from claim 1, thus it is unclear whether applicant intends to claim another “magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container” or the same “magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container” established in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 110074310 A), hereinafter Li.
PNG
media_image1.png
854
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Li)
PNG
media_image2.png
780
1088
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Li)
PNG
media_image3.png
790
485
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 (Li)
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “A magnetic field freezing and preservation device” [0008]), comprising:
a storage box (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “ food storage box” [0022]) with a storage space (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “Storage space for holding a stored object”) defined therein for holding a stored object (“food” [0013] and [0022]);
two uniform magnetization plates (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]) made of a magnetically conductive material (“a silicon steel sheet 4, which is a magnetically conductive material” [0023]) and respectively arranged corresponding to a set of opposite side walls (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “insulation layer 6” [0022]) of the storage box (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “ food storage box” [0022]); and
two sets of electromagnetic assemblies (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “magnetic field coil 1” [0021]), wherein each set of electromagnetic assemblies (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “magnetic field coil 1” [0021]) is arranged corresponding to one uniform magnetization plate (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]) and forms an electromagnetic field after being electrified (“The two ends of the magnetic field coil 1 are connected to a DC power supply. The preservation box is located in front of the magnetic field coil. The magnetic field is distributed on the upper and lower sides of the preservation box through the magnetic conductive material, namely the silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]), and field distribution of the electromagnetic field (“The magnetic field is distributed” [0022]) is changed by using the uniform magnetization plates (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]), so that the electromagnetic field is distributed more uniformly in the storage space (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “Storage space for holding a stored object”) (“The magnetic field is distributed on the upper and lower sides of the preservation box through the magnetic conductive material, namely the silicon steel sheet 4, to ensure that the magnetic field is uniform” [0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Li further discloses wherein one or more lug bosses (Li’s Annotated Fig. 3, “magnetic field coil metal cylinder 9” [0023]) is/are arranged on a side (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “Side facing storage box”) of each of the uniform magnetization plates (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]) facing the storage box (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “ food storage box” [0022]); and
each set of electromagnetic assemblies (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “magnetic field coil 1” [0021]) comprises one or more electromagnetic loops (Li’s Annotated Fig. 3, “magnetic field coil wire 8” [0021]), and each electromagnetic loop (Li’s Annotated Fig. 3, “magnetic field coil wire 8” [0021]) with an electromagnetic coil (“The magnetic field coil conductor 8 is an enameled copper wire, which is wound clockwise around the metal cylinder 9 of the magnetic field coil with 500 turns and a DC voltage of 10V” [0023]) wound therein along an annular circumferential axis (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “Annular circumferential axis”) sleeves (“wound clockwise around” [0023]) one of the lug bosses (Li’s Annotated Fig. 3, “magnetic field coil metal cylinder 9” [0023]) (“The magnetic field coil conductor 8 is an enameled copper wire, which is wound clockwise around the metal cylinder 9 of the magnetic field coil with 500 turns and a DC voltage of 10V” [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Li further discloses wherein a shape of the uniform magnetization plate (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]) is adapted to a shape of a side wall (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “insulation layer 6” [0022]) of the storage box (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “ food storage box” [0022]) where the uniform magnetization plate (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]) is located, and a projection of the storage space onto a plane (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “Projection of storage space onto a plane”) where the uniform magnetization plate (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]) is located lies within a peripheral contour range of the uniform magnetization plate (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]).
Regarding claim 5 Li further discloses wherein the plurality of lug bosses (Li’s Annotated Fig. 3, “magnetic field coil metal cylinder 9” [0023]) is arranged at intervals (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, top and bottom “interval”) on each of the uniform magnetization plates (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]), and one of the electromagnetic loops (Li’s Annotated Fig. 3, “magnetic field coil wire 8” [0021]) sleeves (“wound clockwise around” [0023]) each of the lug bosses (Li’s Annotated Fig. 3, “magnetic field coil metal cylinder 9” [0023]) (“The magnetic field coil conductor 8 is an enameled copper wire, which is wound clockwise around the metal cylinder 9 of the magnetic field coil with 500 turns and a DC voltage of 10V” [0023]).
Regarding claim 6, Li further discloses wherein each of the uniform magnetization plates (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]) covers a part of a side wall (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “insulation layer 6” [0022]) of the storage box (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “ food storage box” [0022]) where the uniform magnetization plate (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]) is located, has a center (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “Center of the uniform magnetization plate”) opposite to a center of the side wall (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “Center of the side wall”), and has a protrusion (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “Protrusion”) arranged on a side (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “Side facing storage box”) facing the storage box (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “ food storage box” [0022]); and
each set of electromagnetic assemblies (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “magnetic field coil 1” [0021]) comprises an electromagnetic loop (Li’s Annotated Fig. 3, “magnetic field coil wire 8” [0021]), and a part of an inner peripheral wall (Li’s Annotated Figs. 2 and 3, “Inner peripheral wall”) of the electromagnetic loop (Li’s Annotated Fig. 3, “magnetic field coil wire 8” [0023]) abuts against the protrusion (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “Protrusion”).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 110074310 A) in view of Honna et al. (JP 11155831 A), hereinafter Honna.
PNG
media_image4.png
549
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (Honna)
PNG
media_image5.png
461
478
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 (Honna)
Regarding claim 4, Li further discloses wherein each of the uniform magnetization plates (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]) is provided with one of the lug bosses (Li’s Annotated Fig. 3, “magnetic field coil metal cylinder 9” [0023]) (“The magnetic field coil is a metal cylinder with a diameter of 1.5cm and a height of 15cm. It is made of high-density silicon steel and is welded to a silicon steel sheet 4, which is a magnetically conductive material” [0023]), and the electromagnetic loop (Li’s Annotated Fig. 3, “magnetic field coil wire 8” [0021]) sleeving (“wound clockwise around” [0023]) the lug boss (Li’s Annotated Fig. 3, “magnetic field coil metal cylinder 9” [0023]) (“The magnetic field coil conductor 8 is an enameled copper wire, which is wound clockwise around the metal cylinder 9 of the magnetic field coil with 500 turns and a DC voltage of 10V” [0023]).
Li does not explicitly disclose the lug boss is located in a central area of the uniform magnetization plate, so that a center of the electromagnetic loop with the lug boss is substantially opposite to a center of the uniform magnetization plate.
However, Honna discloses a magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container (Honna’s Fig. 2, “passive shielded superconducting magnet ” [0021]) wherein the lug boss (Honna’s Fig. 5, “static magnetic field generator 1” [0016]) is located in a central area of the uniform magnetization plate (Honna’s Fig. 5, “magnetic shield plate 4” [0021]), so that a center of the electromagnetic loop (Honna’s Fig. 2, “superconducting coils 2” [0016]) with the lug boss (Honna’s Fig. 5, “static magnetic field generator 1” [0016]) is substantially opposite to a center of the uniform magnetization plate (Honna’s Fig. 5, “magnetic shield plate 4” [0021]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Honna to have a center of the electromagnetic loop with the lug boss is substantially opposite to a center of the uniform magnetization plate. Doing so allows for a symmetrical magnetic field distribution as seen in Honna’s Figure 2, wherein the peripheral regions have higher magnetic field strength and the central region has lower magnetic field strength. This is beneficial to the user because it can allow for a more even distribution of magnetic field across the device and it can reduce the harmful magnetic field leakage to device parts located in the center, as recognized by Honna (“In a vertical magnetic field type superconducting magnet, when attempting to increase the magnetic field strength of a uniform magnetic field, magnetic field leakage increases, and the problem is how to prevent this magnetic field leakage” [0005]; “the magnetic flux 14 that emits the uniform magnetic field region 10 passes through the upper superconducting coil 2, then splits into left and right directions at the upper magnetic shield plate 4, passes through the left and right shield plate/yoke joint 11, and enters the left and right yokes 5. Therefore, the magnetic field strength is high in the peripheral area of the shield plate-yoke joint 11 on the upper magnetic shield plate 4, while the magnetic field strength is low in the central area” [0018]; “if the refrigerator 12 is positioned on or near this center line 16 on the upper magnetic shield plate 4, the leakage magnetic field in this area will be minimized, and the adverse effects of the magnetic field on the refrigerator can be minimized” [0019]).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 110074310 A) in view of Sun et al. (CN 109028745 A), hereinafter Sun.
PNG
media_image6.png
688
579
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Sun)
PNG
media_image7.png
545
895
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 (Sun)
Regarding claim 7, Li does not explicitly disclose further comprising: magnetically conductive connecting bands, connected to two sides of the two uniform magnetization plates and forming an annular magnetically conductive path together with the two uniform magnetization plates outside the storage space.
However, Sun discloses a magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container (Sun’s Annotated Figs. 1 and 5, “variable temperature compartment 5” [0031] and “the storage chamber” [0042]) comprising: magnetically conductive connecting bands (Sun’s Annotated Fig. 5, left side of “magnetic inner shell 12” and right side of “magnetic inner shell 12” [0042]) , connected to two sides of the two uniform magnetization plates (Sun’s Annotated Fig. 5, lower part of “magnetic inner shell 12” and upper part of “magnetic inner shell 12” [0042]) and forming an annular magnetically conductive path (“The first electromagnet coil 14 and the second electromagnet coil 15 can generate a magnetic field in the space between the magnetic inner shell 12 and the outer shell 13” [0041-0042]) together with the two uniform magnetization plates (Sun’s Annotated Fig. 5, lower part of “magnetic inner shell 12” and upper part of “magnetic inner shell 12” [0042]) outside the storage space (Sun’s Annotated Fig. 5, “storage space”).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Sun to have magnetically conductive connecting bands, connected to two sides of the two uniform magnetization plates. Doing so allows for a complete magnetic field path all the way around the container, this is beneficial to the user because it can allow for uniform cooling across the entire volume of the container and even temperature control, as recognized by Sun (“As a further improvement of one embodiment of the present invention, the storage chamber is provided with a magnetic inner shell and an outer shell, and the magnetic field generator includes a first electromagnet coil and a second electromagnet coil connected in series. The first electromagnet coil and the second electromagnet coil can generate a complete magnetic field path in the space between the magnetic inner shell and the outer shell” [0012]).
Regarding claim 10, Li further discloses a refrigerator (“This invention can be applied to various freezing and preservation devices such as refrigerators, freezers, cold storage rooms, and refrigeration units” [0013]), comprising: a magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, A magnetic field freezing and preservation device” [0008]).
Li does not explicitly disclose a refrigerator, comprising: a box body with a storage compartment defined therein; and a magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container, arranged inside the storage compartment.
However, Sun further discloses a refrigerator (“Figures 1 and 2 show a schematic diagram of the refrigerator's structure” [0031]), comprising: a box body (Sun’s Annotated Fig. 1, “cabinet 1” [0031]) with a storage compartment (Sun’s Annotated Fig. 1, “Storage compartment”) defined therein; and a magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container (Sun’s Annotated Fig. 1, “variable temperature compartment 5” [0031] and [0033]), arranged inside the storage compartment (Sun’s Annotated Fig. 1, “Storage compartment”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted Li’s refrigerator with the refrigerator of Sun, because the substitution of one known refrigerator for another would have yielded predictable results of storing a magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 110074310 A) in view of Xiao et al. (CN 103954092 A), hereinafter Xiao.
PNG
media_image8.png
772
466
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Xiao)
Regarding claim 8, Li further comprises: a barrel (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “freezing device frame 3” [0021]) with a forward opening (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “cabinet door 5” [0021]), and the two uniform magnetization plates (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]) are respectively arranged at the top and the bottom (“The upper and lower sides of the food storage box, from the inside out, consist of silicon steel sheet 4, insulation board 6, and freezing unit frame 3” [0022]) of the storage box (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “ food storage box” [0022]).
Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the storage box is a drawer arranged in the barrel in a drawable manner.
However, Xiao discloses a magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container (Xiao’s Fig. 1, “the purpose of this invention is to provide a refrigerator that has a separate sterilization chamber and uses magnetic field sterilization” [0008]) wherein the storage box (Xiao’s Fig. 1, “sterilization box 3” and “sterilization chamber door 2” [0051]) is a drawer arranged in the barrel (Xiao’s Fig. 1, “sterilization chamber 12” [0051]) in a drawable manner (“the sterilization chamber door 2 and the sterilization box 3 are combined to form a drawer structure” [0051]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Xiao to have the storage box be a drawer arranged in the barrel in a drawable manner. Doing so allows for better organization and accessibility of items placed in the drawer, this is beneficial to the user because it can allow for an easier time trying to locate items, as recognized by Xiao (“In other words, the sterilization chamber door 2 is formed as an open box. Food can be placed inside the box. When the box is pushed into the sterilization chamber 3, the food inside the box is also pushed into the sterilization chamber 3, and the opening 31 of the sterilization chamber 3 is closed. When the box is pulled out of the sterilization chamber 3, the opening 31 of the sterilization chamber 3 is opened, and the food leaves the sterilization chamber 3” [0051]).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 110074310 A) in view of Xiao (CN 103954092 A), further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111503984 A), hereinafter Zhang.
PNG
media_image9.png
437
534
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Zhang)
Regarding claim 9, Li further discloses wherein the uniform magnetization plates (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “silicon steel sheet 4” [0022]) are arranged on an outer side or an inner side (“The upper and lower sides of the food storage box, from the inside out, consist of silicon steel sheet 4, insulation board 6, and freezing unit frame 3” [0022]) of the barrel (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “freezing device frame 3” [0021]), and a minimum spacing between the electromagnetic component (Li’s Annotated Fig. 2, “magnetic field coil 1” [0021]) and an area in which a stored object (“food” [0013] and [0022]) is placed inside the storage space (Li’s Annotated Fig. 1, “Storage space for holding a stored object”).
Li in view of Xiao does not explicitly disclose a minimum spacing between the electromagnetic component and an area in which a stored object is placed inside the storage space is set to be greater than 1 mm.
However, Zhang discloses a magnetic field freshness-preserving storage container (Zhang’s Fig. 1, “a food preservation container and refrigeration equipment” [0002]) wherein a minimum spacing (Zhang’s Fig. 1, “gap L” [0080]) between the electromagnetic component (Zhang’s Fig. 1, “magnetic cover plate 22” [0080]) and an area in which a stored object (“food” [0006]) is placed inside the storage space (Zhang’s Fig. 1, “receiving cavity 101” [0080]) is set to be greater than 1 mm (“For example, in some specific embodiments, the gap L between the food preservation cover 20 and the opening of the receiving cavity 101 can be 0mm, 1mm, 2mm, 3mm and 4mm, etc” [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Li in view of Xiao with Zhang, by modifying the minimum spacing between the electromagnetic component and an area in which a stored object is placed inside the storage space of Li with the minimum spacing between the electromagnetic component and an area in which a stored object is placed inside the storage space being taught by Zhang, for in doing so would allow the minimum spacing to greater than 1mm, which would allow for the stored object placed inside the space to not come into direct contact with the electromagnetic component. This would be beneficial to the user because the magnetic field would act upon the object with more strength if it was not directly pressed against the place from which it would be emanating.
Additionally, minimum spacing between the electromagnetic component and an area in which a stored object is placed inside the storage space of 1mm or more for the purpose of greater magnetic field strength acting upon the stored object would have been obvious as:
1) Both electromagnetic components and their spacing from the stored object address a recognized problem of providing an electromagnetic field to a stored object for preservation needs.
2) There are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions to this
problem, and
3) One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued a minimum spacing between the electromagnetic component and an area in which a stored object is placed inside the storage space of 1mm or greater with a reasonable expectation of success.
Based on the above, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense . In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under 35 USC 103.
See MPEP 2143-I-E.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claims 1-5, Yang (CN 113192719 A) discloses:
PNG
media_image10.png
379
553
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Yang)
two sets of electromagnetic assemblies (Yang’s Fig. 1, “coil frame 101” [n0041])
one or more electromagnetic loops (“the coil frame 101 is spliced with four grooves to form a square, rectangular or parallelogram frame structure, and adopts a double set of coil frames with a symmetrical structure to generate a uniform magnetic field” [n0045])
an electromagnetic coil (“excitation coil” [n0041]; “the excitation coil is wound in the groove of the coil frame” [n0049])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3322. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/E.E.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 09/29/2026
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
