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 .
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 following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s): a front bench space separate from the inside volume of the inventive module as recited in claim 1; a hitch and ball configured to hitch a plurality of insulated housing modules connected in parallel (i.e., the figures only show a hitch and ball configured to hitch a plurality of insulated housing modules connected in series) as recited in claim 1; a reserved space for an electric generator also disposed in the front bench space as recited in claim 1; a plurality of portable shelves disposed in the inside volume as recited in claim 3; a plurality of free standing shelves disposed from the floor to the ceiling as recited in claim 4; a plurality of free standing shelves disposed from the front bench to the ceiling as recited in claim 5; an electric generator disposed inside the front bench space configured to power the refrigerator as recited in claim 6; and, a plurality of bumpers disposed on a plurality of walls of the insulated housing module as recited in claim 8. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the height and the width of the trailer are not marked or otherwise identified as such in the figures. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it fails to clearly summarize the salient elements of the inventive mobile refrigerator module (i.e., it cites “a hitch and a ball to hitch a plurality of insulated housing modules connected in parallel” which is contradictory to the hitch and ball as shown in the drawings which only be used to connect a plurality of insulated housing modules in series). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: there is no proper antecedent basis in the specification for the standing and the portable shelves as recited in claims 3 through 5, for the R value as recited in claim 9; for the insulation value as recited in claim 10, and for the bumpers as recited in claim 11.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities the specification, at least in paragraphs [001] and [007], states that the hitch and ball allow for parallel hookup of plural insulated housing modules which is contradictory to the hitch and ball configuration shown in the figures which hitch and ball configuration would allow for series hookup of plural insulated housing modules, thus rendering the description and the drawings as contradictory to each other.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 through 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a” immediately preceding “refrigerated air” [claim 1, line 11] should be deleted to improve the grammatical correctness and the readability of the claim and all claims depending therefrom; “from ground” [claim 7, line 2] should be replaced with “from the ground” for improved grammatical correctness and readability (note that there is inherently “a ground”); and, “are 77 inches by 98 inches” [claim 12, line 2] should be replaced with “are 77 inches and 98 inches, respectively” or similar for improved grammatical correctness and readability. 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 1 through 12 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.
Base claim 1 recites the limitations “a front bench space separate from the inside volume” but, given that the aforementioned limitations are also not clearly illustrated in the drawings as noted previously in the instant Office action, it is not sufficiently clear which particular space is intended to be referred to thereby and it is also not entirely clear where this particular “front bench space” is specifically located relative to the remaining elements of the inventive refrigerator system as claimed. For example, as written, the limitations “a front bench space separate from the inside volume” appear to require that this “bench space” is necessarily located outside of the inside volume of the insulated housing module. Later in the claim, however, the limitations “a front door for maintenance access into the front bench space” appear to contradict the aforementioned earlier limitations in the claims by at least implying that the “front bench space” is within the insulation housing module so as to be accessible via the front door as claimed. These seemingly self-contradictory limitations in the claim render the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending thereon indeterminate and the claims indefinite.
With regard to base claim 1 as written, the limitations “a hitch and ball configured to hitch a plurality of insulated housing modules connected in parallel” appear to be contradictory to the configuration of the hitch and ball H as illustrated in the figures in that the figures only show a hitch and ball configuration which allows for connecting a plurality of insulated housing modules in series (and not in parallel as claimed and as described in the specification). It is therefore not clear at all which particular configuration(s) of the hitch and ball H is (are) intended to be encompassed by the aforementioned limitations. Additionally, the self-contradiction and the discrepancy between different parts of the instant disclosure (with the claims and the specification and the abstract not being supported by what is shown in the originally filed drawings) with regard to the configuration of the hitch and ball makes the intended scope of protection sought by base claim 1 and by all claims depending therefrom indeterminate and the claims indefinite.
It is not entirely clear to which previously recited element(s) the limitation “thereto” [claim 1, line 10] is intended to refer, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by claim 1 and by all claims depending therefrom. It is recommended that the term “thereto” be replaced with a direct recitation of the element(s) intended to be referred thereto.
There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the limitations “the evaporator coils” [claim 1, line 10] and “the refrigerator” [claim 6, line 2]. Note that there would be proper antecedent basis in the claims for the limitations “the evaporator coil” and “the refrigerator unit”, respectively.
It is not clear what exactly is intended to be encompassed by the limitations “for parallel trailer hookup” in line 2 of claim 2 because of the indefiniteness issues related to the purported parallel connection/hookup as noted in greater detail above relative to claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 10 recites “an insulation value for the insulated housing module is equivalent to 3.75 inches of dead air”. While the R value/insulation value corresponding to 3.75 inches of dead air is a generally known value and while this insulation value/R value can be compared to the values known or expected R values corresponding to any given insulation material, R values and insulation values are generally not associated with an entire structure such as the insulated housing module as a whole as recited by the claim. Therefore, the corresponding claim limitations as recited by claim 10 are generally incomprehensible as written.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is at least rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1, 3 through 5, 7, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quickfreeze Ltd. (GB 2589833 A).
With regard to claim 1 of the instant application, Quickfeeze Ltd. discloses a mobile refrigerator system comprising: an insulated housing module 10 comprising a floor and a ceiling and an inside volume 16 and a front bench space separate from the inside volume 16 (i.e., on the front platform as shown in Figure 1) a trailer 12 with (at least) two wheels (i.e., as shown in Figure 1) comprising a width and a length configured to carry the insulated housing module 10 thereon and a hitch and a ball (i.e., as shown schematically at the lower front of the module 10 in Figure 1) configured to hitch a plurality of insulated housing modules 10; an evaporator coil 19 distribution across the ceiling and an air circulation fan 30 adjacent thereto configured to blow across the evaporator coil 19 on the ceiling and circulate a refrigerated air through the inside volume (i.e., as shown in Figure 1); a refrigerator unit 18 (i.e., including condensing unit 20) disposed in the front bench space (i.e., on the platform at the front of the module 10 as shown in Figure 1) and a reserved space for an electric generator also disposed in the front bench space (i.e., readable on any empty/”reserved” space on the platform outside at the front of the module 10 as shown in Figure 1 or at the front of the inside volume 16 of the module 10) and thermally insulated from the inside volume 16 (i.e., at least inherently via any surrounding air).
Quickfeeze Ltd. also discloses access means to the housing 14 of the module 10 (i.e., see second and third paragraphs on page 4) by stating that the access means may specifically be plural doors which may include a conventional back or rear door or double access doors (i.e., see third paragraph on page 4). While Quickfreeze Ltd. does not specifically disclose an additional front door specifically provided for maintenance access to the front bench space, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice (especially given that Quickfreeze Ltd. discloses that double or duplicate access doors are optional and a matter of design choice), to add additional access doors to and from the module 10 at any number of additional locations (i.e., including at the front end of the module 10 in the vicinity of the refrigerator unit 18) in order to improve access to any number of portions or elements (i.e., such as to the refrigerator unit 18) of the inventive refrigerator system for improved maintenance and or loading/offloading purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the inventive mobile refrigerator system of Quickfreeze Ltd. by specifically adding a front door to the module 10 in order to improve access to the elements of the refrigerator unit 18 inside the front of the module 10 for improved accessibility and maintenance purposes at least.
With regard to claim 3 of the instant application, Quickfeeze Ltd. further discloses the refrigerator system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of shelves disposed in the inside volume 16 configured to receive frozen goods (i.e., see at least second paragraph on page 4 of Quickfreeze Ltd.), the shelving being implicitly portable to some degree at least as broadly interpreted as required.
With regard to claims 4 and 5 of the instant application, Quickfeeze Ltd. discloses the refrigerator system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of free standing shelves disposed from the floor to the ceiling (i.e., see at least second paragraph on page 4 of Quickfreeze Ltd.) and from the front bench space to the ceiling, the shelving being disposed vertically to some degree at least within the inside volume 16 (and thus at least somewhat disposed from/extending from the floor or a lower or front end to the ceiling as broadly interpreted as required for pending claims). While Quickfreeze Ltd. does not specify the type of shelving that may be used, Official Notice is taken hereby by the examiner that free standing shelving is well known in the art for storing perishables in a refrigerated space (i.e., such as the inside volume 16 of module 10). It would therefore have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the inventive mobile refrigerator system of Quickfreeze Ltd. by specifically providing the inside volume 16 of module 10 with removable free-standing shelves or shelving disposed at the front of the volume 16 and extending from the bottom to the top of the volume 16 in order to maximally utilize the refrigerated/cooled volume 16 for transporting perishable goods as taught by Quickfreeze Ltd.
With regard to claim 7 of the instant application, Quickfeeze Ltd. discloses the refrigerator system of claim 1, further comprising a storing ramp configured to enable a rolling access from ground through the back door (i.e., see the third paragraph on page 4 of Quickfreeze Ltd).
With regard to claim 8 of the instant application, Quickfreeze Ltd. discloses the refrigerator system of claim 1, including a back door which may be sealed shut (i.e., see the third paragraph on page 4 of Quickfreeze Ltd.), but does not specifically disclose a locking latch for the sealable back door. Nevertheless, Official Notice is taken by the examiner to note that it is well-known in the art to provide locking latches for sealed doors to refrigerated spaces, including ones on refrigerated mobile units and trailers, in order to prevent the contents of the mobile unit or trailer from spilling during transport and also in order to prevent unauthorized or accidental access to the refrigerated space by children, animals, thieves, intruders in general, etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the closure of the sealed back door by specifically providing a locking latch thereto in order to prevent unauthorized access and also to otherwise prevent loss of the contents thereof during storage and transport.
Lastly, with regard to claim 11 of the instant application, while Quickfreeze Ltd. does not specify the insulated housing module as having a plurality of bumpers attached to a plurality of walls thereof, Official Notice is taken by the examiner that it is well-known in the art to have protective bumpers on any transport vehicle or mobile unit such as the instant refrigerator system and such as the mobile housing module of Quickfreeze Ltd in order to prevent damage to the transport vehicle or mobile unit and its contents in case there is an accident during transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the mobile housing module 10 of Quickfreeze Ltd. to specifically attach protective bumpers to the outside walls in order to protect the module 10 (as well as its contents) during transport (or even while stationary) due to any accidents involving the same.
Alternately for claims 8 and 11 and as best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 2, 6, and 8 through 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quickfreeze Ltd. (GB 2589833 A) in view of Fisher et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,061,039 B1, filed on January 12, 2021).
With regard to claims 2 and 6 of the instant application, Quickfreeze Ltd. discloses the refrigerator system of claim 1 as described in detail above, but does not specifically disclose either an electric power inlet for an external generator and an electric power outlet as recited by claim 2 or an onboard electric generator configured to power the refrigerator (unit) of the refrigerator system. Nevertheless, it is known in the art and taught by Fisher et al. to equip a modular/mobile refrigerator system with electric connections (i.e., electric inlets and outlets) for connecting the modular/mobile refrigerator system with a wall outlet or an external generator (i.e., see column 2, lines 51-59; column 4, lines 32-57) and an onboard electric generator or onboard battery 68 for powering the cooling/refrigeration system (i.e., see column 1, lines 40-41; column 5, lines 52-61). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the filing date of the instant application to modify the power sourcing means of the refrigerator system of Quickfreeze Ltd. by including electric inlets and outlets for connecting the same with external generators or other external power sources and by including an onboard alternative power source or battery 68 (i.e., at least broadly readable on the electric generator as recited by claim 6) in to ensure the availability of a power source for powering the refrigerator unit regardless at all times as needed, whether the refrigerator system is stationary and must be plugged into an outside source of power or disconnected therefrom during transport, for example, and thus requiring an onboard source of power such as a battery or other electric generator.
Alternately with regard to claim 8 of the instant application, Quickfreeze Ltd. discloses the refrigerator system of claim 1 as described in detail above, including a back door which may be sealed shut (i.e., see the third paragraph on page 4 of Quickfreeze Ltd.), but does not specifically disclose a locking latch for the sealable back door. Nevertheless, it is known in the art and taught by Fisher et al., for example, to have a suitable latch, such as a magnetic latch, provided at the door handle 21 to latch the door 20 to the housing 12 of a mobile indoor/outdoor refrigerator (i.e., column 3, lines 32-43), in order to prevent the contents of the mobile unit during transport and also in order to prevent unauthorized or accidental access to the refrigerated space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the closure of the sealed back door of the refrigerator system of Quickfreeze Ltd. by specifically providing a locking latch thereto as taught by Fisher et al. in order to prevent accidental or unauthorized access and also to otherwise prevent loss of the contents thereof during storage and transport.
With regard to claim 9 and 10 of the instant application, Quickfreeze Ltd. discloses a refrigerated insulated housing module 10 without disclosing any specifics relating to the insulation of the housing module 10 or its doors. Nevertheless, it is known in the art and taught by Fisher et al. to specifically insulate a refrigerated mobile module’s/unit’s walls and door or doors with an insulation material (i.e., see column 1, lines 42-60) which insulation material implicitly or inherently has an R value. While neither reference specifies that the R-values of the insulation of the insulation used on the doors and elsewhere within the refrigerated mobile module/unit, the aforementioned section of Fisher et al. implies the same and the examiner hereby takes Official Notice that it is well-known in the art of insulated spaces to keep the insulation and its R value generally uniform throughout the particular insulated space in order to minimize heat loss associated therewith as well as to compare the R value of the applied insulation to the insulation value of a given number of inches of dead air. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the refrigerated insulated housing module 10 of Quickfreeze Ltd. in view of Fisher et al. to select a particular R value equivalent for the insulation and a given thickness of the insulation throughout the insulated housing module based on particular expected performance requirements corresponding to the particular expected application(s) of the insulated housing module.
Alternately, with regard to claim 11 of the instant application, while Quickfreeze Ltd. does not specify the insulated housing module as having a plurality of bumpers attached to a plurality of walls thereof, it is well-known in the art and taught by Fisher et al. (i.e., see perimeter bumper 11; column 2, lines 60-67) to have one or more protective bumpers on a mobile unit (i.e., such as the instant refrigerator system and such as the mobile housing module of Quickfreeze Ltd) in order to prevent damage to the transport vehicle or mobile unit and its contents in case there is forceful accident contact therewith during transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the mobile housing module 10 of Quickfreeze Ltd. to specifically attach protective bumpers to the outside walls in order to protect the module 10 (as well as its contents) during transport (or even while stationary) due to any accidents involving the same.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quickfreeze Ltd. (GB 2589833 A) in view of Used 2022 Polar King Mobile Reefer/Refrigerated Trailer.
While Quickfreeze Ltd. discloses the inventive refrigerator system as described in greater detail above, Quickfreeze Ltd. does not specify the size of the mobile housing module 10. Meanwhile, Used 2022 Polar King Mobile Reefer does specify that a 6’ X 8’ model of the 2022 Polar King Mobile refrigerated trailer model is one of the standard sizes for that refrigerated trailer model (which existed at least in 2022 and thus precedes the filing date of the instant application). It is hereby noted that the 6’ X 8’ size for the refrigerated trailer model as disclosed by Used 2022 Polar King Mobile Reefer/Refrigerated Trailer is equivalent to 77 inches by 98 inches as recited by claim 12 and that the refrigerated trailer model disclosed by 2022 Polar King Mobile Reefer/Refrigerated Trailer is a refrigerated mobile trailer of the same general type as the instant application’s refrigerator system (i.e., including an insulated housing module having at least a back door, a floor, a ceiling, an inside volume, at least two wheels, a hitch and ball, a refrigerator unit, a fiberglass/insulated housing). It would therefore have been obvious to one skilled in the art at or before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the mobile housing module 10 of Quickfreeze Ltd. such that the trailer and the mobile housing module 10 are sized such that the width and the length are 77 inches and 98 inches, respectively, or generally 6’ X 8’ as taught by Used 2022 Polar King Mobile Reefer/Refrigerated Trailer.
Conclusion
The prior and/or related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763