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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference numeral(s) not mentioned in the description: 200, 400-428. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
"H-bridge [DC switching circuit]" in claims 5, 16
“one or more fans for active assistance to natural convection” in claims 6, 17
“system logic controller” in claims 8, 19
"Active Cooling System dashboard and/or control interface" in claims 11, 22
“a cooling system” in claim 12
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because the following figures do not include reference numeral(s): 1, 3B, 5-16. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the manner in which the figures are drawn appears to be generally informal, mixing photographs and added drawing lines indiscriminately and unclearly. For example, figure 12 appears to contain photographs and/or computer generated renders of various components of the proposed defrost system. Some portions have labels which refer to a legend on the same page, but the labels should refer back to the specifications and the legend should be removed and its contents added to the specifications if necessary. As another example, figures 13-15 have photographs with text boxes describing the process of condensation and corrosion that are difficult to make out from the images.
The drawings are objected to because the drawings include photographs in figures 12-15, which are both not the only practicable medium for illustration of the invention, but are also of insufficient clarity to actually illustrate the invention. The applicant is directed to consult the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 608.02, and more specifically, 37 CFR 1.84, Standards for Drawings, section (b) (1), as quoted below:
(b) Photographs (1) Black and white, Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
In this case, the Examiner is requiring illustration by drawings in lieu of photographs or photograph/drawing combinations.
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 in sentence 2, "a method of method of" should read "a method of". A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0008, sentence 2, "a method of method of" should read "a method of".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 12-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 and 15 recite “the polarity” and “the DC power supply” which lack antecedent basis and, for examination purposes, claim 4 will be interpreted to depend from claim 2 and claim 15 will be interpreted to depend from claim 13.
Claims 8 and 19 recite “system logic controller/firmware” which lacks antecedent basis and will be interpreted to recite -- a system logic controller/firmware --.
Claims 9 and 20 recite “since last vaporization cycle” which lack antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to recite – “since last instance of a vaporization cycle” --.
Claims 11 and 22 recite “control interface” which lacks antecedent basis and, for examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to recite -- a control interface --.
Claim 12 recites “the TEM” which lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted to recite -- a TEM --.
Claims 5, 13-14, 16-21 are objected to based on dependency from an objected to claim.
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: “a cooling system” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 further recites the limitations “a cooling system”. The term “system” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique for a cooling system. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of cooling. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim
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 8-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Regarding claims 8-11 and 19-22 recite “a drying cycle” which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the drying is the same cycle as recited in claims 1 and 12 or a different cycle. Clarity is advised.
Regarding claims 11 and 22, the claims recite “determining to initiate a drying cycle for the TEM is via manual control from an Active Cooling System dashboard and/or control interface” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a drying cycle is initiated through manual control when an Active cooling system dashboard or a control interface is not described or illustrated. There is no way of determining what structure is required to have the system to operate manually. Since there is no way of determining what are the metes and bounds of the claim, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended. Clarity is advised.
Regarding claims 11 and 22, the term “manual control” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “manual” 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.
Regarding claims 11 and 22, the claims recite “and/or” which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the drying cycle is capable of being initiated the active cooling system dashboard, or the control interface, or optionally both at the same time. For examination purpose, the limitation will be interpreted in the alternative. Clarity advised.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a cooling system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of cooling.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 13-18 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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 1-2, 6, 8, 12-13, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tuskiewicz et al. (US 2005/0210884 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tuskiewicz teaches: a method of operating a Thermoelectric Module, TEM (thermoelectric device 210), comprising: determining to initiate a drying cycle (defrosting, paragraph 0068) for the TEM; activating the drying cycle for the TEM (to perform defrost sequence, paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 2, Tuskiewicz teaches: the method of claim 1 wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises: reversing a polarity of a Direct Current, DC, power supply to the TEM (“reverse polarity of the DC power current delivered to the thermoelectric device”, Paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 6, Tuskiewicz teaches: the method of claim 1 further comprising, after activating the drying cycle for the TEM, removing vaporized moisture by: active assistance from one or more fans (condensation evaporation fan 320, Figure 10, Paragraph 0077).
Regarding claim 8, in view of indefiniteness, Tuskiewicz teaches: The method of claim 1 wherein determining to initiate a drying cycle (to perform defrost sequence, paragraph 0068) for the TEM is controlled by a system logic controller/firmware (control unit 208, Figure 7A, Paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 12, in view of indefiniteness, Tuskiewicz teaches: an actively cooled container (portable cooled merchandizing unit 10), comprising: a cooling system (thermoelectric device 210); one or more fans (316-320); and a controller (control unit 208); the controller operable to: determine to initiate a drying cycle (to perform defrost sequence, paragraph 0068) for a TEM (thermoelectric device 210); activate the drying cycle for the TEM.
Regarding claim 13, in view of indefiniteness, Tuskiewicz teaches: the actively cooled container of claim 12 wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises the controller operable to: reverse a polarity of a Direct Current, DC, power supply to the TEM (“reverse polarity of the DC power current delivered to the thermoelectric device”, Paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 17, in view of indefiniteness, Tuskiewicz teaches: the actively cooled container of claim 12 further comprising, after activating the drying cycle for the TEM, the controller operable to remove vaporized moisture by: active assistance from one or more fans (condensation evaporation fan 320, Figure 10, Paragraph 0077).
Regarding claim 19, in view of indefiniteness, Tuskiewicz teaches: the actively cooled container of claim 12 wherein determining to initiate a drying cycle for the TEM is controlled by a system logic controller/firmware (control unit 208, Figure 7A, Paragraph 0068).
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.
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 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuskiewicz et al. (US 2005/0210884 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Tully et al. (US 20220065501 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Tuskiewicz teaches the invention as described above, but fails to teach: wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises: providing an Alternating Current, AC, power supply to the TEM.
However, Tully teaches: wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises: providing an Alternating Current, AC, power supply to the TEM ("The thermoelectric coolers have a power supply using 120 volts ac", Paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Tuskiewicz to include wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises: providing an Alternating Current, AC, power supply to the TEM in view of the teachings of Tully to heat both sides of the TEM simultaneously.
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuskiewicz et. al. (US 2005/0210884 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Lim et. al. (US 20150377526 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tuskiewicz teaches the invention as described above, but fails to teach: wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises: repeatedly switching the polarity of the DC power supply to the TEM.
However, Lim teaches: wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises: repeatedly switching the polarity of the DC power supply to the TEM ("the H-bridge 230 switches the voltage polarity of the TEC 210 from heating to cooling or vice versa", Paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Tuskiewicz to include wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises: repeatedly switching the polarity of the DC power supply to the TEM in view of the teachings of Lim as: Alternating the current through the TEM allows for heating of both sides of the TEM simultaneously, and in the case that only a DC power supply is available, a square wave AC can be utilized as the H-bridge 130 allows the unipolar power supply 120 to drive the bipolar TEC 110 in either direction for heating or cooling of a temperature-sensitive device (Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teaches: wherein repeatedly switching the polarity comprises: repeatedly switching the polarity of the DC power supply to the TEM using an H-bridge wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises: repeatedly switching the polarity of the DC power supply to the TEM ("the H-bridge 230 switches the voltage polarity of the TEC 210 from heating to cooling or vice versa", Paragraph 0029 of Lim).
Regarding claim 15, Tuskiewicz teaches the invention as described above, but fails to teach: wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises the controller operable to: repeatedly switching the polarity of the DC power supply to the TEM.
However, Lim teaches: wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises the controller operable to: repeatedly switching the polarity of the DC power supply to the TEM wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises: repeatedly switching the polarity of the DC power supply to the TEM ("the H-bridge 230 switches the voltage polarity of the TEC 210 from heating to cooling or vice versa", Paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Tuskiewicz to include wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises the controller operable to: repeatedly switching the polarity of the DC power supply to the TEM in view of the teachings of Lim as: Alternating the current through the TEM allows for heating of both sides of the TEM simultaneously, and in the case that only a DC power supply is available, a square wave AC can be utilized as the H-bridge 130 allows the unipolar power supply 120 to drive the bipolar TEC 110 in either direction for heating or cooling of a temperature-sensitive device (Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach: wherein repeatedly switching the polarity comprises: repeatedly switching the polarity of the DC power supply to the TEM using an H-bridge wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM comprises: repeatedly switching the polarity of the DC power supply to the TEM ("the H-bridge 230 switches the voltage polarity of the TEC 210 from heating to cooling or vice versa", Paragraph 0029 of Lim).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuskiewicz et al. (US 2005/0210884 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Krainer et al. (US 20160025403 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Tuskiewicz teaches the invention as described above, but fails to teach: wherein activating the drying cycle for the TEM is in conjunction with activation of a defrost cycle.
However, Krainer teaches: wherein activating the drying cycle (“to initiate deicing, processor 36 may the control system 10 to reverse the cycle to inverse the heat flow in the system, e.g., by reversing the direction of engine 22”, Paragraph 0040) for the TEM (thermoelectric heat transfer device 76, thermoelectric engine 22, Paragraph 0016) is in conjunction with activation of a defrost cycle (“Additionally or alternatively, processor 36 may initiate thermoelectrical deicing of evaporator 18. For example, system 10 may include one or more electric heating coils proximate to the icing surface of evaporator 18” Paragraph 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Tuskiewicz to include wherein activating a drying cycle for the TEM in conjunction with the activation of a defrost cycle in view of the teachings of Krainer for: efficiently deicing of systems for heating and/or cooling (Paragraph 0001).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuskiewicz et al. (US 2005/0210884 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Kim et. al. (US 20220205712 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Tuskiewicz teaches the invention as described above, but fails to teach: wherein determining to initiate a drying cycle for the TEM is at a regular timed interval, based on elapsed time since last instance of a vaporization cycle.
However, Kim teaches: wherein determining to initiate a drying cycle (defrost mode 282, figure 11) for the TEM is at a regular timed interval, based on elapsed time since last instance of a vaporization cycle (“The controller 180 may be configured to start a defrosting operation based on the … cumulative operating time of the thermoelectric device module 170”, paragraph 0131).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Tuskiewicz to include wherein determining to initiate a drying cycle for the TEM is at a regular timed interval, based on elapsed time since last instance of a vaporization cycle in view of the teachings of Kim because it is known in the art that frost build-up on the heat sink lowers the efficiency of the cooling cycle, and if the thermoelectric device module has run continuously or cumulatively for a preset amount of time after a previous defrosting operation, it is expected that frost will form on the thermoelectric device module (paragraph 0131).
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuskiewicz et al. (US 2005/0210884 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sanders et al. (US 20170030628 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Tuskiewicz teaches the invention as described above, but fails to teach: wherein determining to initiate a drying cycle for the TEM is based on measurement of relative humidity.
However, Sanders teaches: wherein determining to initiate a drying cycle (defrost cycle) for the TEM is based on measurement of relative humidity (“The controller 50 may also adjust a time interval between defrost cycles of the refrigeration system 10 as well based on the signals received from the switch 34 and the relative humidity sensor 40”, Paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings Tuskiewicz to include a determination to initiate the drying cycle for the TEM based on the measurement of relative humidity in view of the teachings of Sanders because: Sometimes frost or condensate may accumulate on evaporator coils of the evaporator assembly, which decreases the efficiency of the refrigeration assembly. Defrosting cycles are typically utilized to remove the condensate from the evaporator coils. It is beneficial for the refrigeration unit to consume as little energy as possible. Thus, it would be desirable to provide a control system and method for reducing the energy consumed by the refrigeration unit (Paragraph 0003).
Claims 11, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuskiewicz et al. (US 2005/0210884 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Dalton et al. (US 20180251058 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Tuskiewicz teaches the invention as described above, but fails to teach: wherein determining to initiate a drying cycle for the TEM is via manual control from an Active Cooling System dashboard [a control interface.
However, Dalton teaches: wherein determining to initiate a drying cycle for the TEM is via manual control from an Active Cooling System dashboard [a control interface ("a switch or other type of input device such as a touch screen or a smart phone or tablet, (iii) controlling the polarity of electricity provided to the cooling/heating device to switch from cooling to heating and vice versa, (iv) running a maintenance/cleaning cycle to defrost", Paragraph 0171).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Tuskiewicz to include a determination to initiate a drying cycle for the TEM via manual control from an active cooling system dashboard [a control interface in view of the teachings of Dalton for: controlling various aspects of the holder (cooled container) accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M STICKEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (9-5-4).
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.
/J.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights