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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 7/9/2024 are as follows:
Claims 1-15 are pending and are being examined.
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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“heat transfer system” in claim 1, interpreted as a loop of piping, pump, and a heat transfer fluid (see paragraph 34), and equivalent structure;
“pumping system” in claim 4, interpreted as a pump (see paragraph 16);
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teutsch (WO2014/140030A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Teutsch teaches a vehicle galley heat management system (Figure 1), the system comprising:
a water vessel (11, 29) (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 26-35, 42-45);
at least one galley chiller unit (1, 2, or 3) (Figure 1; Paragraphs 26-35); and
a heat transfer system (8, 9, 10, 30, 34) (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 26-35, 42-45; As interpreted under 112(f), the heat transfer system of Teutsch comprises a closed loop of piping, heat transfer fluid, and a pump);
wherein the heat transfer system is configured to transfer heat from the or each galley chiller unit to the water vessel (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45).
Re Claim 13. Teutsch teaches a method for heating water in a vehicle galley (Figure 1; Paragraph 2 teaches an aircraft galley), the method comprising:
extracting heat from at least one galley chiller unit (1, 2, or 3) (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45);
transferring the heat to water in a water vessel (11, 29) thereby heating the water (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45).
Re Claim 2. Teutsch teaches the vehicle galley heat management system further comprises a hot beverage maker (4) configured to receive heated water from the water vessel (Figures 1, 2, 4; Paragraphs 26-35, 42-45).
Re Claim 3. Teutsch teaches the heat transfer system is a closed loop system (Figure 1).
Re Claim 4. Teutsch teaches the heat transfer system comprises a pumping system (8, 34; Interpreted as a pump as outlined above under 112(f)) operable to circulate a working fluid between the galley chiller unit and the water vessel (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45).
Re Claim 5. Teutsch teaches a plurality of galley chiller units (1, 2, 3), and wherein the pumping system comprises of a single centralized pump (8, 34) (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45).
Re Claim 6. Teutsch teaches operation of the pumping system is linked to the operation of the at least one galley chiller unit (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45; The systems are interconnected, thus operation go the pump is linked to operation of the chiller unit).
Re Claim 7. Teutsch teaches the or each galley chiller unit is configured to cool an internal volume to predetermined temperature (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45; The units 1, 2,3 are designed for an operational temperature, thus the internal volumes are cooled to a predetermined temperature).
Re Claim 11. Teutsch teaches the water vessel is connected to an external water supply (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45; The system must have an external water supply to replenish the consumed water at the beverage maker).
Re Claim 12. Teutsch teaches the vehicle galley is an aircraft galley, and wherein the vehicle galley heat management system is configured to be installed in an aircraft (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45).
Re Claim 14. Teutsch teaches the method further comprises: transferring the heated water to a hot beverage maker (4); and preparing a hot beverage (via 14 and 15) using the heated water (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45).
Re Claim 15. Teutsch teaches the transferring of heat comprises pumping (via 8, 34) liquid in a closed loop system between the at least one galley chiller unit and the water vessel (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45).
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teutsch (WO2014/140030A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 8. Teutsch teaches the heat transfer system is configured to heat water in the water vessel (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45) but fails to specifically teach to at least 40 degrees centigrade.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to heat the water to 40 degrees centigrade in order to provide preheated water for coffee brewing, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Re Claim 9. Teutsch teaches the water vessel (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45) but fails to specifically teach has a capacity of up to 5 liters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a vessel size of 5 liters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a vessel size of 5 liters, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).
Re Claim 10. Teutsch teaches the or each galley chiller unit is configured to have a power (Figures 1 and 6; Paragraphs 13-14, 26-35, 42-45), but fails to specifically teach of at least 250 Watts.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a chiller of 250Watts, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). The selection of the chiller wattage is an obvious mechanical design feature that is sized during the design phase for a given design use. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a chiller of 250Watts, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763