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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 7-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanders (US 8,286,437).
As to claim 1, Sanders discloses an air conditioning and refrigeration system for a container equipped with a TRU 30, the system comprising:
a variable speed fan configured with the TRU 30 (col. 3, lines 10-20; col. 6, lines 2-4);
one or more first sensors 40 positioned at predefined positions at a rear section of a conservation space 25 associated with the container (see annotated figure below); the sensors 40 configured to monitor one or more first attributes associated with the rear section (col. 4, lines 12-21); and
a controller 35 in communication with sensors 40 and the fan, wherein the controller 35 is configured to adjust speed of the fan and/or adjust cooling capacity of the TRU 30 based on the monitored first attributes, to maintain a predefined environment at the rear section/across the conservation space (col. 6, line 47 – col. 7, line 29);
wherein the rear section of the conservation space is a section located opposite the TRU 30 (see annotated figure below).
As to claim 3, Sanders discloses the controller 35 coupled to a vapor compression system associated with the TRU as claimed (col. 3, lines 5-20).
As to claims 7-8, Sanders discloses the sensor 40 installed at an inner wall over any stored products (Fig. 1).
As to claim 9, Sanders discloses the controller 35 as a control unit of the TRU (Fig. 1).
As to claim 10, Sanders discloses the controller 35 in communication with a control unit 55 of the TRU (Fig. 1).
As to claim 11, Sanders teaches a truck 15 with a trailer (Fig. 1).
As to claim 12, the TRU is electrically powered and thus necessarily coupled to a power source associated with the vehicle.
As to claims 14 and 16, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would nec-essarily perform the method claimed then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus the method as claimed would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus of Sanders.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 4, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders as applied in the rejections above, and further in view of Liao (US 2021/0268926).
As to claims 2 and 15, Sanders does not teach use of one or more second sensors as claimed. However, Liao teaches using a return air sensor 142 and adjusting the operating power (and thus cooling capacity) of the TRU in response to the detection of the return air sensor (paragraph 54). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system of Sanders to incorporate a return air sensor and associated control of cooling capacity as claimed and taught by Liao in order to further ensure that the interior temperature of the space 25 is maintained at the desired setpoint.
As to claim 4 and 18, Sanders (col. 4, lines 12-21) and Liao (temperature sensor 142) teach the first and second attributes as comprising temperature, humidity, and airflow and maintaining the predefined environment at a predefined temperature range (Sanders, col. 1, lines 10-16).
Claims 5-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders as applied in the rejections above, and further in view of Olyleye (US 2015/0352925).
As to claims 5 and 19, Sanders does not explicitly teach increasing fan speed and/or adjusting TRU capacity when monitored temperature of the rear section exceeds a predefined temperature range. However, Olyleye teaches increasing fan speed when a box temperature T2 exceeds a predefined level (Fig. 7C). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sanders to incorporate the control as claimed and taught by Olyleye in order to further ensure that the temperature of the space 25 is maintained at a desired level.
As to claims 6 and 20, Liao teaches using a return air sensor 142 and adjusting the operating power (and thus cooling capacity) of the TRU in response to the detection of the return air sensor (paragraph 54), but is silent regarding any specific control of the TRU when the sensed value is within a predefined range. However, it would logically follow that if the temperature of the return air is within a desired range then there is no need to change the operation of the system. Thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to operate the modified system in the manner as claimed.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders as applied in the rejections above, and further in view of Koelsch (US 2021/0362567).
As to claims 13 and 17, Sanders does not teach sensors in a front and middle section of the storage space 25. However, Koelsch teaches that it is known to use sensors 5 in front, middle, and rear zones of such a space (Fig. 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sanders to incorporate sensors as claimed and taught by Koelsch because it would provide a more versatile zoned configuration of the space 25.
Annotated Figure
PNG
media_image1.png
467
927
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1-3, filed 3/9/2026, with respect to the claim objections and the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Said objections/rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 3-7, filed with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the Sanders reference does not teach one or more first sensors positioned at a rear section of a conservation space, wherein the rear section of the conservation space is a section located opposite the TRU. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the annotated figure above, Sanders clearly shows a sensor 40 located in a rear section of the conservation space that is opposite the TRU 30. Thus it is maintained that the references meet the limitations as claimed.
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 JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 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, 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763