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 statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 10/29/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “the refrigeration unit” in line 4. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation and for examination purposes the limitation is interpreted to recite – a refrigeration unit --.
Claims 14-20 are objected to based on dependency from an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 refrigeration unit” in claims 1, 7 and 13 .
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recites the limitations “a refrigeration unit”. The term “unit” 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 refrigeration occurs. 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 refrigerating. 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 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 “a refrigeration unit” 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 does not disclose a structure which is capable of refrigerating.
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.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 13, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bell (US 20140288795).
Regarding claim 1, Bell teaches a railcar chassis (fig. 1a) comprising: a storage portion (interior of railroad car, paragraph 0091) configured to receive a cargo container (115) having a refrigeration unit (116); and at least one power unit (124, 122) positioned proximate to the storage portion (fig. 1a) and configured to provide electrical power to the refrigeration unit (paragraph 0088, 0091).
Regarding claim 2, Bell teaches the at least one power unit comprises a first power unit (124) having: a storage cylinder (130, 164) configured to store hydrogen fuel (hydrogen source, paragraph 0089); and a power generator (126) detachably installed on the cargo container (fig. 1b, mounted, paragraph 0091) and coupled to the storage cylinder (paragraph 0089) to receive the hydrogen fuel for generating a first predefined amount of electrical power (power refrigeration unit, paragraph 0091) for the refrigeration unit.
Regarding claim 3, Bell teaches the at least one power unit comprises a second power unit (122), and wherein the second power unit is a battery (batteries, paragraph 0163) configured to provide a second predefined amount of electrical power (back up power, paragraph 0163) to the refrigeration unit.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Bell teaches the first power unit and the second power unit are installed underneath the storage portion (fig. 1a-1b).
Regarding claim 6, Bell teaches one of the first power unit and the second power unit are attached to the cargo container (fig. 1a-1b).
Regarding claim 7, Bell teaches a railcar (railroad car, paragraph 0091) comprising: a cargo container (115) having a refrigeration unit (116); a railcar chassis fig. 1a) comprising: a storage portion (interior of railroad car, paragraph 0091) configured to receive the cargo container; and at least one power unit (124, 122) installed on one of the railcar chassis (fig. 1a-1b) and the cargo container (fig. 1a-1b) and configured to provide electrical power to the refrigeration unit (paragraph 0088, 0091).
Regarding claim 13, Bell teaches a cargo freight system (railroad car, paragraph 0091) comprising: a storage portion (interior of railroad car, paragraph 0091); a plurality of cargo containers (115) installed in the storage portion, wherein the cargo container has the refrigeration unit (116); and at least one power unit (122, 124) positioned proximate to the storage portion and configured to provide electrical power to the refrigeration unit (paragraph 0088, 0091).
Regarding claim 17, Bell teaches, the at least one power unit comprises a first power unit (124) having: a storage cylinder (130, 164) configured to store hydrogen fuel (hydrogen source, paragraph 0089); and a power generator (126) detachably installed on the cargo container (fig. 1b, mounted, paragraph 0091) and coupled to the storage cylinder (paragraph 0089) to receive the hydrogen fuel for generating a first predefined amount of electrical power (power refrigeration unit, paragraph 0091) for the refrigeration unit.
Regarding claim 18, Bell teaches the at least one power unit comprises a second power unit (122), and wherein the second power unit is a battery (batteries, paragraph 0163) configured to provide a second predefined amount of electrical power (back up power, paragraph 0163) to the refrigeration unit.
Regarding claim 20, Bell teaches the first power unit and the second power unit are installed on the storage portion (fig. 1a-1b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 4, 8-12, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell as applied to claims 7 and 13 and in further view of Mack et al (US 20180223746).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Bell teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the power generator is an internal combustion engine coupled to an electric generator, or a fuel cell system.
However, Mack teaches the power generator is an internal combustion engine (internal combustion engine, paragraph 0140) coupled to an electric generator (generator, paragraph 0127), or a fuel cell system (fuel cells, paragraph 0127) to provide power to components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the railcar of Bell to include the power generator is an internal combustion engine coupled to an electric generator, or a fuel cell system in view of the teachings of Mack to provide power to components.
Regarding claim 8, Bell teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the cargo container has a container chassis configured to receive a cargo hold, wherein the at least one power unit is detachably installed on the container chassis.
However, Mack teaches the cargo container (20, corresponds to 115 of Bell) has a container chassis (14) configured to receive a cargo hold (fig. 2), wherein the at least one power unit (20 corresponds to 126, 124 of Bell) is detachably installed on the container chassis (fig. 2) to provide support to the modules.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the railcar of Bell to include the cargo container has a container chassis configured to receive a cargo hold, wherein the at least one power unit is detachably installed on the container chassis in view of the teachings of Mack to provide support to the modules.
Regarding claim 9, Bell, as modified teaches, the at least one power unit comprises a first power unit (124) having: a storage cylinder (130, 164) configured to store hydrogen fuel (hydrogen source, paragraph 0089); and a power generator (126) detachably installed on the cargo container (fig. 1b, mounted, paragraph 0091) and coupled to the storage cylinder (paragraph 0089) to receive the hydrogen fuel for generating a first predefined amount of electrical power (power refrigeration unit, paragraph 0091) for the refrigeration unit.
Regarding claim 10, Bell, as modified teaches, a second power unit (122), configured to provide a second predefined amount of electrical power (back up power, paragraph 0163) to the refrigeration unit.
Regarding claim 11, Bell, as modified teaches, wherein the second power unit is a battery (batteries, paragraph 0163) configured to provide a second predefined amount of electrical power (back up power, paragraph 0163) to the refrigeration unit.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the cargo freight system is a freight train (railroad car, paragraph 0091 of Bell) having a railcar (railroad car, paragraph 0091), wherein the railcar comprising a railcar chassis (14 of Mack) having the storage section (20 of Mack, 115 of Bell) and the at least one power unit (20 of Mack) is installed on the railcar chassis.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach the cargo container comprises: a container chassis (14 of Mack) configured to receive a cargo hold (20 of Mack, 115 of Bell) ; at least one power unit (20 of Mack) is installed on the container chassis; and a clip-on power generator (124 of Bell) having on-board hydrogen cylinder (130, 164 of Bell) adapted to power the refrigeration unit.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell as applied to claim 13 and in further view of Colello et al (US 8791589).
Regarding claim 14, Bell teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach wherein the cargo freight system is a cargo ship and at least one power unit is installed in the hull of the cargo ship.
However, Colello teaches the cargo freight system is a cargo ship (900) and at least one power unit (600) is installed in the hull (902) of the cargo ship (fig. 9a) to efficiently transport goods.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cargo freight system of Bell to include is a cargo ship and at least one power unit is installed in the hull of the cargo ship in view of the teachings of Colello to efficiently transport goods.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763