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).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/08/2024 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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 the term, “may”, is not clear and concise and does not definitively convey what the claimed invention comprises of or how it functions. The Abstract uses the term in multiple instances. Correction is required. 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: The term “panel contact portion” in at least claim 7 cannot be found in the specification.
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:
Cooler (i.e. a device configured to cool) in at least claim 1
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.
A review of the specification show that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A cooler appears to be described as a thermoelectric element, a cooling block, and a heat sink in at least ¶ 0031 of the specification.
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 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 1, 3-7, 11, 14 and 19 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 1 recites the limitation "the pair of second ends" in lines 20-21 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the spacing portion" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the spacing portion" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the spacing portion" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the spacing portion" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the spacing portion" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the cooling block" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the cooling block" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 11, the recitation of “…an insulating portion…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 1, has already disclosed “an insulating portion”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the terms are referring to the previously disclosed elements, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
721
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-11, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braz Ferro (US 20190257570 A1), and further in view of Jaffe et al. (US 20150225222 A1, hereinafter “Jaffe”).
Regarding Claim 1, Braz Ferro teaches a refrigerator [1], comprising:
a cabinet [4] configured to store a drink container therein [¶ 0019; compartment 4 comprises sectorized compartments for multiple storage sectors [6] and containers of consumer products [7]];
a cooling guide [partition walls 8] located in the cabinet [¶ 0019; see Fig. 7];
an inner frame [at least 11, including 13, 14, 15, 16] forming an insulating portion [See Annotated Fig. 7] partitioned from a storage compartment [9] therein [Figs. 6-7; apparent from inspection that at least member 11 covers the rear side of partition walls 8, thereby creating an insulating space between the wall surfaces];
an insulating panel [20] disposed in front of the storage compartment [Fig. 6; ¶ 0022; front panel 20 closes the sectorized compartment from the exterior]; and
wherein the cooling guide includes:
a first guide [See Annotated Fig. 7], the first guide defining a rear portion of the storage compartment configured to store the drink container [¶ 0019-0021; partition walls 8 form the separate storage spaces 9], the first guide having a pair of ends [Annotated Fig. 7; apparent from inspection that each curved portion of the guides (first guides) comprises a second straight portion of wall to encase the container for cooler]; and
a pair of second guides [See Annotated Fig. 7] connected to the pair of ends of the first guide, respectively, the pair of second ends extending toward a front surface of the cabinet [Fig. 7; apparent from inspection the second guides are facing the front panel 20],
wherein a space between the pair of second guides is opened forward through the insulating panel [¶ 0028; Annotated Fig. 7; apparent from inspection that second guides do not enclose towards one another, and are therefore opened forward towards the insulating panel, such that a window 23 may provide a viewing window of the consumer product],
wherein the pair of second ends of the pair of second guides are connected to the inner frame [Annotated Fig. 7; apparent from inspection that wall portions extend from the second guide portions perpendicularly such that the guides connect to the supporting side frame member], and
wherein the insulating panel is located opposite to the pair of second ends of the pair of second guides with the inner frame located therebetween [Fig. 6; apparent from inspection at least frame portions 13, 14, 15, 16 are disposed between the storage space 9 and the outer front panel 20, wherein the second guide part from the storage space 9 is facing the panel 20].
While Braz Ferro teaches cooling slots 12, such as to allow an airflow therethrough to cool the storage space [¶ 0021], Braz Ferro does not explicitly teach a cooler located in the cabinet, the cooler being configured to cool the cooling guide; a dispenser nozzle disposed to be at least partially exposed outside the cabinet and configured to be connected to the drink container to be able to supply a drink in the drink container to outside the cabinet, and wherein the first guide is connected to the cooler.
However, Jaffe teaches a beverage preservation, chilling and dispensing system, comprising a cabinet [112; Fig. 5], wherein a chill chamber [20], configured to store a drink [124], may comprise a thermoelectric unit [30] disposed within the cabinet, configured to provide cooling to the chill chamber via connection to the walls of the chill chamber [¶ 0046-0047]. The system further comprises a thermally insulated door 118 disposed at the front of the cabinet [¶ 0044], wherein the chill chamber is disposed between the front door and the back of the cabinet [Fig. 5]. Jaffe further teaches a dispensing head [166], disposed at least partially outside of the cabinet, such that liquid in the bottle may be dispensed via at least the dispensing tube [164] [¶ 0052; Fig. 5]. Jaffe further teaches that this configuration of device aids in the known need for preservation of wine or spirit temperatures, as well as reducing the presence of oxygen exposed to the wine surfaces, thereby improving the invention [¶ 0006-0007, 0013]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the dispenser nozzle and cooler as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the dispenser nozzle and cooler would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means for preservation of wine or spirit temperatures, as well as reducing the presence of oxygen exposed to the wine surfaces, thereby improving the invention [¶ 0006-0007, 0013].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Braz Ferro to have a cooler located in the cabinet, the cooler being configured to cool the cooling guide; a dispenser nozzle disposed to be at least partially exposed outside the cabinet and configured to be connected to the drink container to be able to supply a drink in the drink container to outside the cabinet, and wherein the first guide is connected to the cooler, in view of the teachings of Jaffe where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means for preservation of wine or spirit temperatures, as well as reducing the presence of oxygen exposed to the wine surfaces, thereby improving the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein a spacing portion [See Annotated Fig. 7] is connected to a pair of sides of the inner frame, and wherein the spacing portion is located between the cooling guide and the insulating panel [Figs. 6-7; apparent from inspection that the front panel 20 is spaced away from the front of the cooling guide].
Regarding Claim 3, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein the spacing portion extends in a front-to-back direction [Fig. 7; apparent from inspection],
wherein a first end of the spacing portion is in contact with said insulation panel, and
wherein a second end of the spacing portion is in contact with the pair of second ends of the pair of second guides [Fig. 7; apparent from inspection that the spacing portion is in contact with the front panel 20 and the guide connection to the inner frame].
Regarding Claim 4, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein the spacing portion defines at least a portion of the storage compartment [Fig. 7; ¶ 0019-0021; storage spaces 9 are formed in the space formed between the walls 8 and the space leading up to the front panel 20; see example container to be chilled in Fig. 7].
Regarding Claim 5, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein the spacing portion forms a continuous plane with the pair of second ends of the pair of second guides [Annotated Fig. 7; apparent from inspection that the spacing portion connects the pair of second guides via continuous connection with Guide Connection to inner frame].
Regarding Claim 6, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein the spacing portion includes a pair of spacing portions spaced apart from each other, and
wherein the pair of spacing portion are in contact with the pair of second ends of the pair of second guides, respectively [Annotated Fig. 7; apparent from inspection the spacing portion exists on either side of the container, such that the spacing portions are in contact with a guide connection to the second ends of the pair of second guides].
Regarding Claim 7, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein the inner frame is provided with a panel contact portion that makes surface contact with the insulation panel, and
wherein the spacing portion extends from the panel contact portion toward the pair of second ends of the pair of second guides [See Figs. 6 and 7; ¶ 0022; frames 13, 14, 15 and 16 are mounted such as to close the space for containers between inner frame portion 11 and insulating panel 20].
Regarding Claim 8, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Braz Ferro further teaches comprising an inner case [5] located in the cabinet [¶ 0019; Fig. 6], the inner case including:
the inner frame [at least 11, including 13, 14, 15, 16]; and
the cooling guide [partition walls 8] defining the storage compartment together with the insulating panel [Fig. 6; apparent from inspection].
Regarding Claim 9, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Jaffe teaches wherein the cooling guide [Fig. 5; structure forming chill chamber 20] is coupled to the inner frame at a different height from an insertion guide [dispensing cartridge 122] of the inner frame [¶ 0045, 0051; Fig. 5; Given its plain meaning, the term, insertion guide, is considered to be the structure guiding the beverage bottle into its operational position. Therefore, bottle 124 is provided into the dispensing cartridge 122 via at least stopper element 154 and gasket element 156 for chilling and dispensing. Thus, the height of the cartridge 122 is different in the container 112, from that of the chill chamber 20].
Regarding Claim 10, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein an inner case [5] is located in the cabinet [¶ 0019; Fig. 6], the inner case including the inner frame [at least 11, including 13, 14, 15, 16],
wherein the cooling guide is coupled to the inner frame [¶ 0021-0022; Fig. 6; apparent from inspection], and
wherein at least a portion of a storage compartment configured to store the drink container is located in the inner case [Figs. 6-7; apparent from inspection].
Regarding Claim 11, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 10 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein a portion around the storage compartment is filled with an insulating portion [Annotated Fig. 7; apparent from inspection], and
wherein the cooling guide is located between the insulating portion and the storage compartment to prevent the insulating portion from being exposed to the storage compartment [Annotated Fig. 7; apparent from inspection that wall portion 8 separates the compartments. Furthermore, when in combination with Jaffe, the original cooling means of the compartment 12, in Braz Ferro, is replaced with the peltier element, thereby replacing the slits 12 and insulating the sections].
Regarding Claim 17, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein the cooling guide has a constant horizontal cross-section [Fig. 7; apparent from inspection].
Regarding Claim 18, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 17 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein the cooling guide defines at least a portion of a storage compartment configured to store the drink container by extending in a vertical direction [Figs. 6-7; ¶ 0019-0021; walls 8 form separate storage spaces 9, such that the drinks sit in the compartments in the vertical direction], and
Jaffe teaches wherein the cooler [at least 30] is located behind the cooling guide [Fig. 5; ¶ 0046-0047; apparent from inspection that the cooling component is disposed behind the chill chamber 20, relative to the front door 118].
Regarding Claim 20, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein the insulating panel surrounds at least a portion of the storage compartment in cooperation with the cooling guide [Figs. 6-7; ¶ 0022-0023; apparent from inspection panel 20 cooperates with the walls 8 to aid in forming the cooling sections 9].
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braz Ferro and Jaffe, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kawasaki (US 20180313583 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 11 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein the storage compartment is provided in plurality [Fig. 7; apparent from inspection],
Braz Ferro does not teach wherein the storage compartments are separated by the insulating portion such that the storage compartments define independent spaces.
However, Kawasaki teaches a beverage cooler or warming apparatus [Figs. 1-23] comprising a main container [Fig. 12] [¶ 0041-0042] containing a plurality of beverage conduction units [100; Fig. 16]. Each individual unit comprises a cylindrical sleeve [110[ to house a beverage, an interface block [1202] in contact with a peltier device [130], a heat sink [140], and an insulation layer 170 [¶ 0050], such that the insulation layer surrounds the cylindrical sleeve [¶ 0051; Fig. 16]. Kawasaki further teaches that the disclosed configuration providing insulation around independent temperate spaces reduces the impact of ambient air entering the case, thereby improving the efficiency of the system [¶ 0011]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the insulating portion as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the insulating portion would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. insulation around independent temperate spaces reduces the impact of ambient air entering the case, thereby improving the efficiency of the system [¶ 0011].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Braz Ferro to have wherein the storage compartments are separated by the insulating portion such that the storage compartments define independent spaces, in view of the teachings of Kawasaki, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. insulation around independent temperate spaces reduces the impact of ambient air entering the case, thereby improving the efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 13, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 12 above and Kawasaki wherein the cooler [100] is provided in plurality such that each storage compartment of the plurality of storage compartments is provided with a respective cooler [¶ 0007; Fig. 16; apparent from inspection].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braz Ferro and Jaffe, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of OH (US 20180023887 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Braz Ferro teaches wherein the first guide is curved [Figs. 6-7; apparent from inspection].
Braz Ferro does not teach wherein the second surface of the cooling block is curved to be in surface contact with a surface of the first guide.
However, OH teaches a heating and cooling cup holder [Figs. 1-5], comprising an inner cylindrical body [100] configured to hold a drink, in communication with a heat exchanger [300], a thermoelectric element [400] and a heat radiator [500] [¶ 0031], wherein one surface of the heat exchanger is curved such that it contacts the inner cylindrical body [See Figs. 2 and 5]. OH further teaches that the curved configuration of the heat exchanger provides a large contact area with the inner body, thereby increasing heat transfer potential and improving the system [¶ 0051]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the curved heat exchanger as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the curved heat exchanger would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. the curved configuration of the heat exchanger provides a large contact area with the inner body, thereby increasing heat transfer potential and improving the system [¶ 0051].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Braz Ferro to have wherein the second surface of the cooling block is curved to be in surface contact with a surface of the first guide, in view of the teachings of OH where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. the curved configuration of the heat exchanger provides a large contact area with the inner body, thereby increasing heat transfer potential and improving the system.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braz Ferro and Jaffe, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 20190255980 A1, hereinafter “Jung”).
Regarding Claim 19, Braz Ferro, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and
Jaffe teaches wherein the cooler further includes a heat sink [138] located opposite to the cooling block [at least cooling material 136], and wherein the thermoelectric element [30] is located between the heat sink and the cooling block [Jaffe ¶ 0047; Fig. 5; apparent from inspection].
Braz Ferro does not explicitly teach wherein the cooling guide is made of metal.
However, Jung teaches a vacuum insulator in a storehouse [Figs. 2-6] comprising a holder [90] for storing a beverage in thermal communication with a heat sink [83], configured to heat or cool the drink in the holder [¶ 0057-0060]. Jung discloses that the drink holder [90] may be made from a material having high thermal conductivity, such as aluminum [¶ 0060], wherein providing a material with high thermal conductivity provides the known benefit of more quickly performing transfer of energy to/from the drink [¶ 0060]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the metal cooling guide as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the metal cooling guide would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. utilizing materials with high thermal conductivity provides the known benefit of more quickly performing transfer of energy to/from the drink, thereby improving the system [¶ 0060].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Braz Ferro to have wherein the cooling guide is made of metal, in view of the teachings of Jung where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. utilizing materials with high thermal conductivity provides the known benefit of more quickly performing transfer of energy to/from the drink, thereby improving the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 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.
Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
As per dependent Claim 15, the prior art, Braz Ferro (US 20190257570 A1) and Jaffe et al. (US 20150225222 A1) does not teach the device as recited, in particular “…wherein an inner case is located in the cabinet, the inner case including: a pair of sides; a bottom connected to the pair of sides; and an insertion guide connected to the pair of sides or the bottom, the insertion guide being configured to surround an opening of the drink container, and wherein the cooling guide is coupled between the bottom and the insertion guide.…,” when added to the other features claimed in independent Claim 1. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the device of Braz Ferro to arrive at the claimed invention.
It would not be obvious to modify the prior art structure to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight. Therefore, Claim 15 and all claims depending therefrom are currently allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763