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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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: “electrically operated airflow means” in claim 1 and “means for blocking” in claim 12.
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.
“electrically operated airflow means” is considered a fan or equivalents.
“means for blocking” is considered “laterally movable covers” or equivalents.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 19 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 and 19 recite “at least one further cooling channel not arranged in thermal contact with the at least one thermal electrical generator”. It is unclear how the thermal electrical generator is not arranged in thermal contact with the further cooling channel since all elements of an assembly are in either direct or indirect thermal contact with each other. For purposes of examination “at least one further cooling channel not arranged in thermal contact with the at least one thermal electrical generator” will be considered - - at least one further cooling channel not arranged in contact with the at least one thermal electrical generator - - .
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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(s) 1-4, 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikemura et al. (US 2020/0263915).
Per claim 1, Ikemura teaches a passive cooling unit for cooling food (para. 0002), the passive cooling unit comprising:
an insulation casing (see annotated figure below) insulating an interior of the insulation casing (inside all of insulation casing) from an environment (i.e. space around insulation casing) surrounding the insulation casing (see annotated figure below),
the insulation casing having an air inlet (opening for 7) and an air outlet (9) and, located within the interior of the insulation casing, the insulation casing further comprising:
a dry ice receiving space (3; “dry ice”, para. 0026), and
at least one airflow channel (channel forming 8a-8d ) for guiding air to be cooled,
the at least one airflow channel (channel forming 8a-8d) arranged in airflow communication with the air inlet (opening for 7) and the air outlet (9);
at least one electrically operated airflow means (7) configured to create an airflow through the at least one airflow channel; and
at least one thermal electrical generator for generating electrical power (5),
the at least one thermal electrical generator (5) arranged in thermal contact with at least one airflow channel (channel forming 8a-8d) and the dry ice receiving space (3),
wherein the at least one electrically operated airflow means (7) is configured to receive power generated by the at least one thermal electrical generator (“electric power for driving the temperature controller 11 and the circulating air fans 7 is supplied from the thermoelectric generating module 5”, para 0025), wherein the insulation casing comprises a rectangular shape formed by two pairs of opposite parallel walls (see annotated figure below), and wherein the air inlet and the air outlet are disposed on orthogonal walls of the two pairs of opposite parallel walls (see annotated figure below) but fails to explicitly teach the thermal electrical generator being arranged in the insulation casing.
However, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” Arranging the thermal electrical generator in the insulation casing exposes the thermal electric generator directly to dry ice stored in the dry ice receiving space thereby reducing thermal losses between the thermal electrical generator and the dry ice. Further, there is no change in the respective function of the thermal electrical generator. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the thermal electrical generator of Ikemura arranged in the insulation casing of Ikemura in order to advantageously reduce thermal losses between the thermal electrical generator and dry ice.
PNG
media_image1.png
530
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, Ikemura, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Ikemura, as modified, teaches wherein the insulation casing (2) comprises an upper compartment (see annotated figure below) at least a second thereof forming the dry ice receiving space (3) and a lower compartment (see annotated figure below) in which the at least one airflow channel (see annotated figure below) is formed.
PNG
media_image2.png
559
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 3, Ikemura, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Ikemura, as modified, teaches the thermal electrical generator (5), the insulation casing (2) and the airflow channel (8a-8d) in thermal contact with thermal electrical generator (5), and the wherein the thermal electrical generator is between the dry ice receiving spaced and the air flow channel in thermal contact with which the thermal electrical generator is arranged but fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one thermal electrical generator is received within the insulation casing sandwiched between the dry ice receiving space and the at least one airflow channel in thermal contact with which the at least one thermal electrical generator is arranged.
However, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” Having the thermal electrical generator received within the insulation casing and sandwiched between the dry ice receiving space the air flow channel would exposes the thermal electric generator directly to dry ice stored in the dry ice receiving space and the airflow circulating through the airflow channel thereby reducing thermal losses between the thermal electrical generator and the dry ice and the thermal electrical generator and the airflow in the airflow channel.
Per claim 4, Ikemura, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Ikemura, as modified, teaches wherein ethe air flow channel (8a-8d) is provided with a plurality of cooling fins (6) extending within the airflow channel (8a-8d) along an airflow guidance direction (direction of arrows shown in figure 1) of the air flow channel (8a-8d).
Per claim 9, Ikemura, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Ikemura, as modified, teaches wherein the airflow means (7) is arranged the air inlet and further teaches the outlet side of the insulation case (side with 9) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the airflow means is arranged at the air outlet of the insulation casing.
However, the disclosure of the instant invention fails to provide criticality to having the airflow means arranged in at the air outlet as opposed to the air inlet and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the Ikemura, as modified, to have the airflow means arranged at the air outlet, since applicant has not disclosed that having the airflow means arranged at the air outlet solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the system of Ikemura, as modified, would perform equally well with the airflow means arranged at the air outlet of the insulation casing.
Per claim 10, Ikemura, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Ikemura, as modified, teaches wherein the airflow means (7) is an electrical fan (“electric power for driving the temperature controller 11 and the circulating air fans 7 is supplied from the thermoelectric generating module 5”, para. 0025).
Per claim 11, Ikemura, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Ikemura, as modified, teaches a controller (11) configured to control a ventilation speed of the airflow means (“electric power for driving the temperature controller 11 and the circulating air fans 7 is supplied from the thermoelectric generating module 5”, para. 0025) (to clarify, turning the fans off and on is considered controlling the speed of the fan).
Per claim 13, Ikemura, as modified, teaches a container for storing food, the container comprising an interior compartment (see annotated figure below) for receiving and storing food, and the passive cooling unit of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
390
641
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claim 18, claim 18 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Per claim 19, claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and 5 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikemura et al. (US 2020/0263915) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Hutchins (US 2019/0088846).
Per claim 5, Ikemura, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Ikemura, as modified, teaches a plurality of cooling channels including at least one cooling channel arranged in thermal contact with the at least one thermal electrical generator (pathways between cooling fins 6) but fails to explicitly teach at least one further cooling channel not arranged in contact with the at least one thermal electrical generator.
However, Hutchens teaches a thermal electrical generator device including
an air flow channel (28,30) not arranged to contact the thermal electrical generator (20) (see figure 5a bypassing thermal electrical generator 20) (claim 5),
for optimizing energy production of the thermal electrical generator (para. 0015). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an airflow channel not arranged to contact a thermal electrical generator, as taught by Hutchens in the invention of Ikemura, as modified, in order to advantageously optimize energy production of the thermal electrical generator (para. 0015).
Per claim 12, Ikemura, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Ikemura, as modified, teaches a blockable airflow channel (8a-8d), wherein the blockable airflow channel (8a-8d) is the airflow channel (8a-8d) but fails to explicitly teach means for blocking fluid flow through the blockable air flow channel, wherein the blockable airflow channel is the airflow channel, and a controller configured to control blocking of fluid flow through the blockable airflow channel.
However, Hutchens teaches a thermal electrical generator device including means for blocking fluid flow (60) through a blockable air flow change (28, 30), wherein the blockable airflow channel is an airflow channel, and a controller (inherent) configured to control blocking (via the control of 36) of fluid flow through the blockable airflow channel (28,30) for optimizing energy production of the thermal electrical generator (para. 0015). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide means for blocking fluid flow through a blockable air flow change, wherein the blockable airflow channel is an airflow channel, and a controller configured to control blocking of fluid flow through the blockable airflow channel, as taught by Hutchens in the invention of Ikemura, as modified, in order to advantageously optimize energy production of the thermal electrical generator (para. 0015).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikemura et al. (US 2020/0263915) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Dodd (EP 0080313).
Per claim 14, Ikemura, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Ikemura, as modified, teaches said passive cooling unit (see rejection of claim 1) but fails to explicitly teach wherein said passive cooling unit is arranged in an upper portion of the container within the interior compartment above food to be received therein, or wherein said passive cooling unit is arranged in a lower portion of the container within the interior compartment above food to be received therein on.
However, Dodd teaches a cooling system wherein a passive cooling system (122) is arranged in an upper portion of a container (110) within an interior compartment (inside 110) above food (133) to be received therein for providing food readily movable through aisles of an aircraft (pg. 3, line 30) Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a passing cooling unit arranged in an upper portion of a container within an interior compartment above food to be received therein, as taught by Dodd in the invention of Ikemura, as modified, in order to advantageously provided food that is readily movable through aisles of an aircraft (pg. 3, line 30).
Per claim 15, Ikemura, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Ikemura, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the container comprises a trolley or a galley insert. However, Dodd teaches a passive cooling system (122) wherein a container comprises a trolley (see figure 6 of Dodd) for providing food readily movable through aisles of an aircraft (pg. 3, line 30) Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a container comprising a trolley, as taught by Dodd in the invention of Ikemura, as modified, in order to advantageously provided food that is readily movable through aisles of an aircraft (pg. 3, line 30).
Per claim 16, Ikemura, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Ikemura, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the container is a trolley and wherein at least one passive cooling unit is arranged at an outer bottom surface of the trolley facing a floor on which the trolley is configured to move.
However, Dodd teaches a passive cooling system wherein a container is a trolley (see figure 6) and a passive cooling unit (122) for providing food readily movable through aisles of an aircraft (pg. 3, line 30). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a container as a trolley and a passive cooling unit, as taught by Dodd in the invention of Ikemura, as modified, in order to advantageously provided food that is readily movable through aisles of an aircraft (pg. 3, line 30).
Regarding the location of the passive cooling unit, there are only a finite number of possible locations to arrange the passive cooling unit on or within the trolly. Further, it would have been obvious to try to place the passive cooling unit on the outer bottom surface of the trolley in order to have the passive cooling unit not exposed to the users or customers of the trolley. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the passive cooling unit being arranged at an outer bottom surface of the trolley facing a floor on which the trolley is configured to move in order to advantageously not expose users or customers of the trolley to the passive cooling unit, thereby protecting the users and customers from dry ice burns.
Per claim 17, Ikemura, as modified, teaches the container according to claim 13 but fails to explicitly teach an aircraft comprising: an aircraft galley with at least one trolley receiving space, or at least one galley insert receiving space, or both; wherein each container of the at least one container either is a trolley receivable in a trolley receiving space of the aircraft galley or is a galley unit receivable in a galley insert receiving space of the aircraft galley.
However, Dodd teaches an aircraft (“aircraft”, col. 2, line 27; to clarify, the “aircraft” of Dodd is inherently a passenger aircraft) comprising an aircraft galley (inherent) with a trolley receiving space (inherent) and a container (110) (to clarify, aircraft for passenger airlines inherently have a galley (i.e. kitchen) in which the trolley is stored when not being pushed through the aircraft cabin), wherein the container (110) is a trolley receivable in a trolley receiving space (space where the galley is stored when not in use) of the aircraft galley (i.e. inherent kitchen on the passenger aircraft) providing food readily movable through aisles of an aircraft (pg. 3, line 30). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an aircraft comprising an aircraft galley with a trolley receiving space and a container, wherein the container is a trolly receivable in a trolley receiving space of the aircraft galley, as taught by Dodd in the inventio of Ikemura, as modified, in order to advantageously provided food that is readily movable through aisles of an aircraft (pg. 3, line 30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 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.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on pages 8-9 that having a cooling unit comprising the cooling channel not “arranged in thermal contact” with the thermal electrical generator is definite; the Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Thermal contact” is considered a broad form of contact. A system with enough time and energy will transfer heat until a steady state (i.e. thermal equilibrium) is reached, thereby putting all elements of the system in “thermal contact”. Since the cooling channel and the thermal electrical generator are a part of the same system, the passive cooling unit, heat will transfer between the cooling channel and the thermal electrical generator until a steady state (i.e. thermal equilibrium) is reached. Thus, it is unclear how there two elements are not arranged in thermal contact. Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 10, first full paragraph, that Ikemura does not teach or suggest an insulation casing that has a rectangular shape with opposite parallel walls and the air inlet and the air outlet are on orthogonal walls, as set forth in claim 1; the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ikemura teaches wherein the insulation casing comprises a rectangular shape formed by two pairs of opposite parallel walls (see annotated figure above in the rejection of claim 1), and wherein the air inlet and the air outlet are disposed on orthogonal walls of the two pairs of opposite parallel walls (see annotated figure above in the rejection of claim 1). Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
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 DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights