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 03/05/2026. The drawing objections, 35 U.S.C. 112f claim interpretation and 35 U.S.C. 112a/b rejections are maintained. Claims 12 and 14 are cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1-11, 13 and 15-21 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 “wherein the device comprises an outlet that allows removal or discharge of the collected particulates, objects, and liquids from the housing, wherein a meshed grid is provided on the outlet to facilitate removal or discharge of the collected liquids from the housing and further restrict discharge of the collected object and particulates through the outlet, wherein the device comprises an inclined member comprising perforations, wherein the device comprises a self-cleaning system comprising one or more nozzles fluidically connected to a pump or a defrost drainage of the cabinet, wherein the self-cleaning system is configured to supply, through the one or more nozzles, a stream of air or water over the air filter or interior walls of the housing to facilitate cleaning of the air filter or an interior of the device, wherein the device comprises one or more first sensors configured with the housing to monitor one or more of the presence, weight, volume, and level of the objects and/or the liquids collected within the housing, wherein the one or more first sensors comprise one or more of an optical sensor, a weight sensor, and a proximity sensor, wherein the device comprises one or more second sensors configured with the air filter to monitor a health of the air filter or the level of particulates collected in the air filter, wherein the one or more second sensors comprise one or more of a pressure sensor, a particulate sensor, a contaminant sensor, and a volatile organic compound sensor, wherein the device comprises one or more third sensors configured within the housing to check the occurrence of one or more chemical reactions within the housing” 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 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:
“a locking mechanism” in claim 9.
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
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, "wherein at least one wall of the housing comprises a handle and a locking mechanism is configured with the removable wall and the housing, wherein the locking mechanism in a locked position allows users to carry the device using the handle, and wherein the locking mechanism in an unlocked position allows the users to separate the at least one wall from the housing". The term "mechanism" invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which a locking mechanism is configured with the removable wall and the housing. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of being configured with the removable wall and the housing. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
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 4-7 and 9 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 4 recite "wherein the device comprises an outlet that allows removal or discharge of the collected particulates, objects, and liquids from the housing, wherein the particulates, objects, and liquids discharged through the outlet are transferred to a collector tray that is positioned below the device". However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner how the outlet allows removal of the collected particles, without an illustration or structure provided. Clarity is advised.
Claims 6-7 recite "a return air grid at a bottom front end of the cabinet". However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner if there is a single return air grid or multiple air return grids. Clarity is advised.
Claim limitation "a locking mechanism" 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.
The specification fails discloses the corresponding structure that achieves the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing. 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.
Claim 5 is rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9 and 21 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Kasagawa (JP 2004245569 A). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “A device implemented in a refrigerated display cabinet to collect one or more of particulates, objects, and liquids, the device comprising: a housing defining a shape of the device and comprising one or more inlets, wherein the housing is adapted configured to be fitted at an air inlet of the cabinet; and an air filter configured with a first wall of the housing; wherein the housing has a predefined dimension corresponding to the air inlet such that upon fitting the device at the air inlet, the air filter faces an airflow duct associated with a refrigeration system of the cabinet and the one or more inlets face a conservation space and/or an air curtain associated with the cabinet”. The closest prior art, Kasagawa teaches the support member 14 is composed of a flat plate portion 14a and a locking piece 14b bent substantially in an L-shape in plain view at the tip of the flat plate portion 14a on the gantry side. An opening 15a through which the locking piece 14b at the tip of the member 14 can be inserted, and a groove 15b that allows the flat plate portion 14a of the support member 14 inserted through the opening 15a to slide up and down.
Regarding claim 9, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Kasagawa (JP 2004245569 A). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “A device implemented in a refrigerated display cabinet to collect one or more of particulates, objects, and liquids, the device comprising: a housing defining a shape of the device and comprising one or more inlets, wherein the housing is adapted to be fitted at an air inlet of the cabinet and an air filter configured with a first wall of the housing: wherein the housing has a predefined dimension corresponding to the air inlet such that upon fitting the device at the air inlet, the air filter faces an airflow duct associated with a refrigeration system of the cabinet and the one or more inlets face a conservation space or an air curtain associated with the cabinet wherein at least one wall of the housing comprises a handle and a locking mechanism is configured with the removable wall and the housing, wherein the locking mechanism in a locked position allows users to carry the device using the handle, and wherein the locking mechanism in an unlocked position allows the users to separate the at least one wall from the housing”. The closest prior art, Kasagawa teaches the support member 14 is composed of a flat plate portion 14a and a locking piece 14b bent substantially in an L-shape in plain view at the tip of the flat plate portion 14a on the gantry side. An opening 15a through which the locking piece 14b at the tip of the member 14 can be inserted, and a groove 15b that allows the flat plate portion 14a of the support member 14 inserted through the opening 15a to slide up and down.
Regarding claim 21, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Kasagawa (JP 2004245569 A). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “A refrigerated display cabinet comprising: a device implemented in to collect one or more of particulates, objects, and liquids, the device removably connected to the refrigerated display cabinet, the device comprising: a housing defining a shape of the device and comprising one or more inlets, wherein the housing is configured to be fitted at an air inlet of the cabinet; and an air filter configured with a first wall of the housing; wherein the housing has a predefined dimension corresponding to the air inlet such that upon fitting the device at the air inlet, the air filter faces an airflow duct associated with a refrigeration system of the cabinet and the one or more inlets face a conservation space and/or an air curtain associated with the cabinet”. The closest prior art, Kasagawa teaches the support member 14 is composed of a flat plate portion 14a and a locking piece 14b bent substantially in an L-shape in plain view at the tip of the flat plate portion 14a on the gantry side. An opening 15a through which the locking piece 14b at the tip of the member 14 can be inserted, and a groove 15b that allows the flat plate portion 14a of the support member 14 inserted through the opening 15a to slide up and down.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “the Applicant respectfully submits that an express illustration of the features listed in the Office Action is not necessary for understanding by one of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter to be patented. Accordingly, withdrawal of this objection is respectfully requested”, the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner does not agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the invention without those particular features illustrated. For example, the device comprising a self-cleaning system including one or more nozzles fluidically connected to a pump or a defrost drainage of the cabinet and how these structures communicate with a refrigerated display cabinet is necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the objection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “one of skill in the art would clearly understand the type of handle and locking mechanisms that could be used. For example, a panel fixed with a quarter turn handle and quarter turn lock is often used to secure panels on enclosures, such as electrical panels or recreational vehicle enclosures, etc…”, the Examiner disagrees. The claim language uses a generic placeholder, “mechanism” coupled with functional language (“locking”), without reciting sufficient structure in the specification. Further the term “mechanism” is merely a nonce word of “non-structural generic placeholder” equivalent to the term “means” because it fails to connote sufficiently definite structure and, in the context of claim 9, invokes § 112(f). Therefore, the Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights