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 .
Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Drawings
FIGS. 4, 6, and 7 are objected to for containing unlabeled boxes. Regarding the content of drawings 37 C.F.R. 1.83 (a) states:
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables and sequence listings that are included in the specification are, except for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371, not permitted to be included in the drawings.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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(s) 1-20 is/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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 6-11, 15, and 18: The use of the terms “first characteristic” and “second characteristic” are indefinite (see 112b rejection below), however it appears from the specification that the Applicant is intending to allow for two different measurements of two different characteristics (e.g. pressure, temperature, composition) in making the determination as to whether the container has an air leak. The Applicant’s disclosure does not enable one skilled in the art to do this. Para. 16 and 92 of the specification as published purport to give examples of how this can be done by saying “For instance, an increase in a level of O2 in the atmosphere may be caused by the external atmosphere, which may be oxygen-rich, leaking into the cargo space 11. As such, the controller 20 may cause 410 a reduction in pressure of the atmosphere to the first value, and then receive and/or monitor signals representative of a level of O2 in the atmosphere following the stopping 420.” (para. 92). However this example relies on detecting “an increase in a level of O2.” The only way that an increase in a level of O2 can be detected is for a sensor to take a first O2 reading and then take a second O2 reading to detect the change. Therefore, no matter what measurement process or detected characteristic of the atmosphere is used, there will have to be at least two measurements of the same variable to detect a leak. Therefore the subject matter of claim 1, which intends to allow for the measurement of one quality (e.g. pressure, temperature, composition) and then the measurement of a different quantity, to detect a leak, is not enabled by the Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claims 2-14 and 16-20: These claims are rejected as lacking enablement due to their dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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(s) 1-20 is/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.
Regarding claim 1, 6-11, 15, and 18: The use of “characteristic” in the claims is unclear. One skilled in the art would understand a characteristic of an atmosphere as some quality of the atmosphere (pressure, temperature, composition), and this term “characteristic” is further refined in claim 1 such that it has a “value.” Therefore this characteristic is something that can be measured. Therefore, a straightforward reading of “first characteristic” and “second characteristic” would not allow these terms to be interpreted as the same quality of the atmosphere. A straightforward reading of claim 1 means that if the first characteristic is pressure, the second characteristic must be a different quality, such as temperature. Claim 9 seems to indicate that the two values determined can be of the same characteristic/quality. Therefore definite language is needed such as “performing a first measurement” and “performing a second measurement” or something similar. The claims have been examined as if they allow for the two values to be of the same characteristic/quality (e.g. pressure, temperature, composition).
Regarding claims 1 and 15: “Performing an action to permit determination of an air leak in the controlled atmosphere container, on the basis of the signal” is indefinite. It is unclear whether “performing an action” is done “on the basis of the signal” or if “determination of an air leak” is done “on the basis of the signal.” This language is further indefinite because “to permit” means “to allow” which is passive and “an action” could be literally anything that it is possible to do. The Examiner recommends using definite language such as “determining if the controlled atmosphere container has an air leak on the basis of the first value and the second value.” This reasoning also applies to claim 15.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 18: These claims use the term "and/or." This term is indefinite and the Examiner recommends using "or" which avoids ambiguity and has the same patentable scope as that sought to be covered by "and/or." The Applicant may also consider using phrasing such as "at least one of."
Regarding claims 2-14 and 16-20: These claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependence.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by STAVOVA et al. (WO 2016108953).
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: A controlled atmosphere container controller for a controlled atmosphere container (abstract), the controlled atmosphere container (100 in FIG. 1) comprising a cargo space (inside 100) for storing cargo (page 5 lines 1-5), the controlled atmosphere container controller (Controlled Atmosphere System [CAS] 200 comprising controller 2353 in FIG. 2) configured to perform a test for an air leak in the controlled atmosphere container (FIG. 5; pages 9-11), the test comprising the controlled atmosphere container controller: causing a first characteristic of an atmosphere in the cargo space to have a first value (Measuring initial pressure on page 10 lines 9-17); stopping causing the first characteristic to have the first value (by turning on the air compressor as discussed on page 10 lines 18-28); receiving, in a time period following the stopping, a signal from a sensor configured to sense a second characteristic of the atmosphere in the cargo space, the signal representative of a value of the second characteristic of the atmosphere in the cargo space during the time period (Measuring the pressure after the compressor is run as discussed on page 10 lines 18-28); and performing an action to permit determination of an air leak in the controlled atmosphere container, on the basis of the signal (Monitoring pressure difference and determining if there is a leak if the average pressure difference is not less than a minimum pressure threshold as discussed on page 10 line 29-page 11 line 9).
Regarding claim 2: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: a filter (membrane 220) configured to permit fluid flow therethrough to adjust a composition of the atmosphere in the cargo space (page 6 lines 14-24).
Regarding claim 3: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: the filter is a membrane (page 6 lines 14-24).
Regarding claim 4: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: a valve configurable to open into the cargo space (inherently installed on bypass line 270 shown connecting into the cargo space, but it is only connected in certain modes which means it must be closeable by a valve as discussed on page 7 lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 5: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: a pump (205 in FIG. 2) arranged to fluidically couple both the filter (220) and the valve (inherently installed in bypass 270 as discussed in the rejection of claim 4) to an external atmosphere (201) outside the cargo space (FIG. 2), wherein the valve is fluidically connected, or connectable, to the pump in parallel with the filter (FIG. 2 shows that the path containing membrane 220 is parallel to the bypass 270.).
Regarding claim 6: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: the controlled atmosphere container controller causing the first characteristic of the atmosphere in the cargo space to have the first value comprises the controlled atmosphere container controller causing the valve to open into the cargo space and/or causing the pump to operate (page 10 lines 9-28).
Regarding claim 7: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: the controlled atmosphere container controller stopping causing the first characteristic to have the first value comprises the controlled atmosphere container controller causing the valve to close and/or causing the pump to stop operating (page 10 lines 9-28).
Regarding claim 8: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: the first characteristic comprises a pressure (page 10 lines 9-28), a temperature, and/or a composition of the atmosphere in the cargo space.
Regarding claim 9: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: the second characteristic comprises the first characteristic (Initial pressure is measured and final pressure is monitored as discussed on page 10 lines 9-28).
Regarding claim 10: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: the controlled atmosphere container controller performing the action comprises the controlled atmosphere container controller comparing the value of the second characteristic during the time period to the first value (Monitoring the change in pressure as discussed on page 10 lines 9-28).
Regarding claim 11: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: the test comprises the controlled atmosphere container controller receiving, during the test, a further signal from the sensor or a further sensor, the further signal representative of a further value of the second characteristic during the test (The “second” pressure is pressure after the pump stops and is monitored over time so each data point is further value as discussed page 10 lines 9-28. FIG. 6 shows the pressure data over time.); and the performing the action comprises comparing the value of the second characteristic during the time period to the further value of the second characteristic during the test (Pressure monitored for a period of time as discussed on page 10 lines 9-28).
Regarding claim 12: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: A controlled atmosphere container (100 in FIG. 1) comprising the controlled atmosphere container controller of claim 1 (The rejection of claim 1 has been discussed above.) and the cargo space for storing cargo (inside 100).
Regarding claim 13: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: The controlled atmosphere container of claim 12 (The rejection of claim 12 has been discussed above.), comprising a filter (220 in FIG. 2) configured to permit fluid flow therethrough to adjust a composition of the atmosphere in the cargo space (col. 6 lines 14-23); a valve (inherently installed on bypass line 270 shown connecting into the cargo space, but it is only connected in certain modes which means it must be closeable by a valve as discussed on page 7 lines 5-9) configurable to open into the cargo space (270 connects to inside of cargo container as shown in FIG. 2); and a pump (205) arranged to fluidically couple both the filter and the valve (FIG. 2) to an external atmosphere (201) outside the cargo space (FIG. 2), wherein the valve is fluidically connected, or connectable, to the pump in parallel with the filter (FIG. 2 shows that the path containing membrane 220 is parallel to the bypass 270.).
Regarding claim 14: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: A kit of parts for performing a test for an air leak in a controlled atmosphere container, the kit of parts comprising: the controlled atmosphere container controller of claim 1 (The rejection of claim 1 has been discussed above.), wherein the controlled atmosphere container (100) comprises the cargo space (inside 100) for storing cargo; and a valve (inherently installed on bypass line 270 shown connecting into the cargo space, but it is only connected in certain modes which means it must be closeable by a valve as discussed on page 7 lines 5-9) configurable to selectively fluidically couple the cargo space with an external atmosphere outside the cargo space (Only connected in certain modes which means it is selectively connected between the cargo space and the atmosphere; FIG. 2; page 7 lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 15: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: A method of performing a test for an air leak in a controlled atmosphere container (abstract), the controlled atmosphere container (100 in FIG. 1) comprising a controller (Controlled Atmosphere System [CAS] 200 comprising controller 2353 in FIG. 2) and a cargo space (inside 100) for storing cargo, the method comprising the controller: causing a first characteristic of an atmosphere in the cargo space to have a first value (measuring initial pressure on page 10 lines 9-17); stopping causing the first characteristic to have the first value (by turning on the air compressor as discussed on page 10 lines 18-28); receiving, in a time period following the stopping, a signal from a sensor configured to sense a second characteristic of the atmosphere in the cargo space (Measuring the pressure after the compressor is run as discussed on page 10 lines 18-28), the signal representative of a value of the second characteristic of the atmosphere in the cargo space during the time period (Measuring the pressure after the compressor is run as discussed on page 10 lines 18-28); and performing an action to permit determination of an air leak in the controlled atmosphere container, on the basis of the signal (Monitoring pressure difference and determining if there is a leak if the average pressure difference is not less than a minimum pressure threshold as discussed on page 10 line 29-page 11 line 9).
Regarding claim 16: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: the controlled atmosphere container comprises: a filter (220 in FIG.2) configured to permit fluid flow therethrough to adjust a composition of the atmosphere in the cargo space (page 6 lines 14-24); a valve configurable to open into the space (inherently installed on bypass line 270 shown connecting into the cargo space, but it is only connected in certain modes which means it must be closeable by a valve as discussed on page 7 lines 5-9); and a pump (205) arranged to fluidically couple both the filter and the valve to an external atmosphere (201) outside the cargo space, wherein the valve is fluidically connected, or connectable, to the pump in parallel with the filter (FIG. 2 shows that the path containing membrane 220 is parallel to the bypass 270.).
Regarding claim 17: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: the filter is a membrane (page 6 lines 14-24).
Regarding claim 18: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: the controller causing the first characteristic of the atmosphere in the cargo space to have the first value comprises the controller causing the valve to open and/or causing the pump to operate (page 10 lines 9-28); and wherein the controller stopping causing the first characteristic to have the first value comprises the controller causing the valve to close and/or causing the pump to stop operating (page 10 lines 9-28).
Regarding claim 19: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a controlled atmosphere container controller, cause the processor to carry out the method according to claim 15 (page 5 lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 20: As best understood, STAVOVA discloses: A marine vessel (page 1 lines 10-17) comprising the controlled atmosphere container controller of claim 1 (The rejection of claim 1 has been discussed above.), the controlled atmosphere container of claim 12 (The rejection of claim 12 has been discussed above.), the kit of parts of claim 14 (The rejection of claim 14 has been discussed above.), or the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19 (The rejection of claim 19 has been discussed above.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights