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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 07/16/2025. 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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“or container” on Page 5, Line 10 should be deleted.
“forms” on Page 9, Line 23 should read “form”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “switching device” in claim 10.
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 § 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 1-11 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.
The term “close to” in claim 1, Lines 5 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is meant by the air inlet being disposed “close to” the door body or the air baffle unit whose top portion is disposed “close to” the air inlet. Unlike the other limitations in the claim of the air duct “extending in a direction close to” or the “bottom portion is extendable in a direction close to”, the limitations above are unclear as to what “close to” means.
The term “near the air inlet” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is meant by the air baffle plate being “near” the air inlet.
Claims 3-11 are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected independent Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng (CN 109515293 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Zheng discloses a refrigerated transport container (Figure 1, No. 2), comprising a door body (5) disposed on a rear wall of the refrigerated transport container; an air duct (7) disposed on a top wall of the refrigerated transport container and extending in a direction close to or away from the door body (Figure 1); an air inlet (16) disposed at one end of the air duct close to the door body and configured to introduce conditioned air into the refrigerated transport container (Paragraph [0031]); and an air baffle unit (10, 11) whose top portion (10) is correspondingly disposed on one side of the air duct close to the air inlet and whose bottom portion (11) is extendable in a direction close to a bottom wall of the refrigerated transport container (Figures 2-3).
Regarding Claim 2: Zheng discloses the refrigerated transport container according to Claim 1, wherein the top portion of the air baffle unit is an air baffle plate disposed around the air duct near the air inlet (Figures 2-3).
Regarding Claim 5: Zheng discloses the refrigerated transport container according to Claim 1, wherein the air baffle unit is fixedly and detachably connected to the top wall of the refrigerated transport container (Figures 2-3).
Regarding Claim 6: Zheng discloses the refrigerated transport container according to Claim 1, wherein the bottom portion of the air baffle unit is a baffle plate rotatably connected to the top portion of the air baffle unit (Figures 2-3 & 5).
Regarding Claim 7: Zheng discloses the refrigerated transport container according to Claim 1, wherein the top portion of the air baffle unit abuts against the top wall (Figures 2-3).
Regarding Claim 9: Zheng discloses the refrigerated transport container according to Claim 1, further comprising a first air return port (8), wherein the first air return port is disposed on a front wall of the refrigerated transport container opposite to the door body and is disposed adjacent to the top wall in terms of height in a vertical direction (Figures 2-3), and the first air return port is configured to allow air to flow out of the refrigerated transport container (Paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 11: Zheng discloses a refrigerated transport vehicle equipped with the refrigerated transport container according to Claim 1 (Figure 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Mitsuo (JP 3212953 B2).
Regarding Claim 3: Zheng discloses the refrigerated transport container according to Claim 1; however, Zheng fails to disclose the bottom portion of the air baffle unit being a curtain.
Mitsuo teaches a refrigerated transport container (Figure 5, No. 2) comprising an air baffle unit (21), the air baffle unit comprising a bottom portion being a curtain (Figure 5; Paragraph [0013]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the bottom portion of the air baffle unit of Zheng a curtain, as taught by Mitsuo, for the purpose of making it possible to sort and load cargo into the container, thus enabling multiple deliveries (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 4: Zheng, as modified by Mitsuo, discloses the refrigerated transport container according to Claim 3, wherein the curtain is coiled and stored at the top portion of the air baffle unit and is configured to be unfolded to extend toward the bottom wall of the refrigerated transport container (Mitsuo: Figure 5; Paragraph [0013]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Kleist (US Patent No: 2,534,272).
Regarding Claim 8: Zheng discloses refrigerated transport container according to Claim 1; however, Zheng fails to disclose a loading surface that allows gas to pass therethrough, wherein the loading surface is spaced apart from and parallel to the bottom wall of the refrigerated transport container.
Kleist teaches a refrigerated transport container (Figure 1) comprising a loading surface (85) that allows gas to pass therethrough (Column 5, Lines 7-15), wherein the loading surface is spaced apart from and parallel to a bottom wall (“C”) of the refrigerated transport container (Figure 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the refrigerated transport container of Zheng with a loading surface, as taught by Kleist, for the purpose of improving the ability to maintain different parts of the interior of the refrigerated transport container at different temperatures (Column 1, Lines 6-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose a refrigerated transport container as claimed in Claim 9, further comprising a second air return port and an air return port switching device, wherein the second air return port is disposed on the front wall of the refrigerated transport container opposite to the door body and is disposed adjacent to the bottom wall in terms of height in the vertical direction, and the air return port switching device is configured to alternatively open the first air return port or the second air return port. Zheng fails to disclose a second air return port, wherein the second air return port is disposed on the front wall of the refrigerated transport container opposite to the door body and is disposed adjacent to the bottom wall. Sato (US Patent No: 10,337,790) discloses a refrigerated transport container (Figure 2, No. 1) comprising multiple air return ports (4); however, Sato fails to disclose any of the air return ports disposed on the front wall of the refrigerated transport container opposite to a door body and disposed adjacent to a bottom wall in terms of height in the vertical direction or an air switching device. The prior art fails to disclose a refrigerated transport container as claimed in Claim 10; therefore, Claim 10 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L SEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-3564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-6 PM, every other Friday off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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.
/MICHAEL L SEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights