DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 16 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a lid” in line 5, despite already reciting the same in line 3. It is unclear whether two separate lids are required for infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation in line 5 will be construed as –the lid—.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kennedy (US 20050005612 A1).
As per claim 1, Kennedy discloses a food-cooling device (10) comprising:
a body (26) comprised of a cooling element (14, 18, 20, etc.);
a control (34, 36, etc.) that controls a temperature of the cooling element (see at least fig. 2 and last sentence of ¶ 15);
an inner body (12); and
a lid (32).
As per claim 2, Kennedy discloses wherein the body (26) is comprised of an insulating material (30).
As per claim 3, Kennedy discloses wherein the inner body (12) is comprised of a non-stick coating (see second sentence of ¶ 15, and also ¶ 18).
As per claim 6, Kennedy discloses wherein the cooling element (14, 18, 20, etc.) is comprised of a vent (22), or a fan (20).
As per claim 7, Kennedy discloses wherein the control (34, 36, etc.) is comprised of a button or a knob (as shown in fig. 1).
As per claim 8, Kennedy discloses wherein the control (34, 36, etc.) is comprised of a touchscreen display (e.g., via 36, 40; see also last sentence of ¶ 32).
As per claim 9, Kennedy discloses a food-cooling device (10) comprising:
a body (26) comprised of a cooling element (14, 16, 18, 20, etc.);
a control (34, 36, etc.) that controls a temperature of the cooling element (see at least fig. 2 and last sentence of ¶ 15);
a timer (¶ 32); and
mobile application (evident from at least ¶¶ 33-34).
As per claim 10, Kennedy discloses wherein the timer controls the run-time of the cooling element (¶ 30).
As per claim 11, Kennedy discloses wherein the timer is controlled by the mobile application (evident from at least ¶¶ 32-34).
As per claim 12, Kennedy discloses wherein the control (34, 36, etc.) is controlled by the mobile application (¶ 34).
As per claim 13, Kennedy discloses the device further comprised of a battery (¶ 29).
As per claim 14, Kennedy discloses wherein the battery is comprised of a charging port (e.g., via 24).
As per claim 15, Kennedy discloses the device further comprised of a power cord (24).
As per claim 16, Kennedy discloses a method of using (see figs. 1-2) a food-cooling device (10), the method comprising the following steps:
providing a food-cooling device (10) comprised of a body (26) comprised of a cooling element (14, 16, 18, 20, etc.), an inner body (12), and a lid (32);
placing (fig. 1) the inner body (12) inside the body (26) and placing a food in the inner body (see at least last sentence of the abstract, and ¶ 2);
placing the lid (32) on the body (26; see fig. 2); and
configuring a temperature (¶ 32) and a run-time (¶ 30) of the cooling element (14, etc.).
As per claim 17, Kennedy discloses wherein the food-cooling device (10) is comprised of a control (34, 36, etc.).
As per claim 18, Kennedy discloses wherein the food-cooling device (10) is comprised of a timer (¶¶ 30 & 32).
As per claim 19, Kennedy discloses wherein the food-cooling device (10) is comprised of a mobile application (¶¶ 33-34) that controls the control (34, etc.).
As per claim 20, Kennedy discloses wherein the food-cooling device (10) is comprised of a mobile application (¶¶ 33-34) that controls the timer (¶¶ 30 & 32).
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, 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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy (US 20050005612 A1) in view of Keller et al. (WO 2018075157 A1), herein Keller.
As per claim 4, Kennedy may not appear to explicitly disclose the device further comprised of a fastener.
On the other hand, Keller, directed to a refrigerated container, discloses a device (see fig. 1) comprising a fastener (116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, etc.).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.1
As per (1), it should be noted that in Keller, the fasteners (116, 118, etc.) are used to secure the lid structure (104) in a closed configuration (see at least lines 2-10 of page 4). They describe examples of fasteners that include latches, tabs, locking mechanisms, clips, ties, hooks, straps, magnets, etc., to maintain a secure closure of the lid (see at least ¶ 23). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Keller has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the fastener, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Kennedy. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Kennedy and Keller are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. food cooling devices). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Kennedy may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Keller, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Kennedy by virtue of suggesting a lid closure configuration that secures it to the body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Kennedy and to have modified them with the teachings of Keller, by having the device further comprised of a fastener, in order to properly secure the lid to the body, as similarly suggested by Keller, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 5, Kennedy discloses wherein the fastener (116, 118, etc., of Keller) secures the lid to the body (see at least fig. 1 and ¶ 23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 C. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See MPEP § 2143.