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
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed 08/17/2026. The objection to drawings have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to abstract have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claims 1-20 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
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:
Cooler (i.e. a device configured to cool) in at least claim 1
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.
A review of the specification show that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A cooler appears to be described as a thermoelectric element using the Peltier effect in at least ¶ 0151 of the specification.
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 § 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 1-4, 6-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsen (US 20190335921 A1), and further in view of Jaffe et al. (US 20150225222 A1, hereinafter “Jaffe”).
Regarding Claim 1, Jakobsen teaches a refrigerator [100; Figs. 1-9], comprising:
a cabinet [100] configured to store a drink container therein [¶ 0027; a beverage chiller], the cabinet having a top [130] with an opening [160] through which the drink container is insertable [¶ 0028; Figs. 2-3; a bottle 190 may be inserted];
an insertion guide [perimeter of 160; see Figs. 6A-6C and 7B] located in the cabinet, the insertion guide communicating with the opening of the cabinet [¶ 0036; Figs. 6-7; apparent from inspection], the insertion guide having a width that changes in a height direction of the cabinet [¶ 0036; edges of aperture 160 are angled such that the width increases with height; see Figs. 6B-6C], the insertion guide including a front [edge of 160 closest to 190; i.e. closest to the front] and an expansion [remainder of 160 not considered to be the front] spaced apart from each other, each of the front of the insertion guide and the expansion of the insertion guide being inclined toward the opening of the cabinet [See Figs. 6B-6C; the front (left side of Fig. 6B) is inclined at an angle of Y degrees from vertical, and the expansion is inclined at an angle of X degrees from vertical, both considered to be inclined toward the opening, as they have edges next to the opening that are inclined] and
a cooler [340] located in the cabinet [¶ 0038-0039; Fig. 8; cooler module assembly 340 is disposed within the cabinet].
Jakobsen does not explicitly teach a dispenser nozzle disposed to be at least partially exposed outside the cabinet, the dispenser nozzle being configured to supply a drink in the drink container to outside the cabinet; a door located at the cabinet, the door being configured to open and close the opening of the cabinet; and wherein the expansion guide is inclined in a direction away from the dispenser nozzle.
However, Jaffe teaches a beverage preservation, chilling and dispensing system, comprising a cabinet [112; Fig. 5], wherein a chill chamber [20], configured to store a drink [124], may comprise a thermoelectric unit [30] disposed within the cabinet, configured to provide cooling to the chill chamber via connection to the walls of the chill chamber [¶ 0046-0047]. The system further comprises a thermally insulated door [118] disposed at the front of the cabinet [¶ 0044], wherein the chill chamber is disposed between the front door and the back of the cabinet [Fig. 5]. Jaffe further teaches a dispensing head [166], disposed at least partially outside of the cabinet, such that liquid in the bottle may be dispensed via at least the dispensing tube [164] [¶ 0052; Fig. 5]. Jaffe further teaches that this configuration of device aids in the known need for preservation of wine or spirit temperatures, as well as reducing the presence of oxygen exposed to the wine surfaces, thereby improving the invention [¶ 0006-0007, 0013]. Lastly, upon combination of Jakobsen and Jaffe, one would likely provide the nozzle of Jaffe in a similar location into Jakobsen, i.e. providing the nozzle at the front of the device. Therefore, the angled front and expansion sections of the insertion guide in Jakobsen are necessarily inclined in a direction away from the nozzle, as they are inclined away from the front of the device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the dispenser nozzle and door as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the dispenser nozzle and door would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means for preservation of wine or spirit temperatures, as well as reducing the presence of oxygen exposed to the wine surfaces, thereby improving the invention [¶ 0006-0007, 0013].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Jakobsen to have a dispenser nozzle disposed to be at least partially exposed outside the cabinet, the dispenser nozzle being configured to supply a drink in the drink container to outside the cabinet; a door located at the cabinet, the door being configured to open and close the opening of the cabinet; and wherein the front and expansion sections of the insertion guide are inclined in a direction away from the dispenser nozzle, in view of the teachings of Jaffe where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means for preservation of wine or spirit temperatures, as well as reducing the presence of oxygen exposed to the wine surfaces, thereby improving the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Jakobsen teaches wherein, in at least a portion of the insertion guide, the width of the insertion guide gradually increases towards the opening of the cabinet in the height direction of the cabinet [¶ 0036; Fig. 6C; the sides of 160 are inclined towards the top at angles of W and Z degrees].
Regarding Claim 3, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Jakobsen teaches wherein the refrigerator further comprises a front panel [at least 150], and
wherein the insertion guide is configured to guide the drink container inserted through the opening of the cabinet toward the front panel [Fig. 7B; apparent from inspection that the top insertion guide is angled to provide a drink in the direction of the front panel].
Regarding Claim 4, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 3 above and Jakobsen wherein the refrigerator further comprises an inner case [220] located in the cabinet [under broadest reasonable interpretation 220 may be considered the inner case in the claim, as it meets the functional limitations described below], the inner case defining at least a portion of a storage compartment configured to store the drink container therein [¶ 0032-0033; Fig 8; cradle 220 forms a back and side wall of cavity 170], and
wherein the insertion guide forms an inlet of the storage compartment [Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0005; apparent from inspection].
Regarding Claim 6, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Jakobsen wherein a cooling guide [220] connected to the cooler is arranged at a bottom of the insertion guide [Fig. 7B; apparent from inspection that 220 is disposed below 160], and
wherein the cooling guide defines a storage compartment [170] together with the insertion guide [Figs. 1-3 and 7; ¶ 0037; apparent from inspection that 220 is disposed within internal cavity 170, wherein aperture 160 guides beverages into 170].
Regarding Claim 7, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 6 above and Jakobsen further teaches comprising an insulating panel disposed in front of the cooling guide [¶ 0027; Jakobsen discloses a viewing window 150, wherein the window may further comprise of insulating panes],
wherein the cooling guide is opened forward [Fig. 8A; apparent from inspection], and
wherein the insulating panel is disposed below the insertion guide [Fig. 7B; apparent from inspection that 150 is below 160].
Regarding Claim 8, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 7 above and Jakobsen teaches wherein the insulating panel is disposed in front of the insertion guide [Fig. 7B; apparent from inspection that 150 is disposed forward relative to 160].
Regarding Claim 9, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Jakobsen teaches wherein the expansion of the insertion guide is inclined such that an inlet widens toward sides of the cabinet at left and right sides of the insertion guide and toward a rear plate [300] of the cabinet behind the insertion guide [Fig. 6C; apparent from inspection that the left and right sides of the insertion guide incline to wide at angles of W degrees and Z degrees respectively] [Fig. 6B; apparent from inspection that the back of the insertion guide inclines to widen at X degrees towards the rear plate].
Regarding Claim 10, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Jakobsen teaches wherein the expansion of the insertion guide is a curved shape protruding rearward [Figs. 5A and 7B; apparent from inspection that the surface of the aperture 160 above 220 curves towards the rear of the device], and
wherein the front of the insertion guide is a flat structure [Fig. 7B; apparent from inspection that the front of the insertion guide is transitioned to via flat surfaces (i.e. 150 and underside of 130 adjacent to 290)].
Regarding Claim 11, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Jakobsen teaches wherein the front of the insertion guide and an inner surface of the cabinet [at least inside surface of panel 150, or the inside surfaces of base 120] are spaced apart from each other to define a mount space [140] in which a display or an operation panel is located [¶ 0027; window panel 150 may be made of transparent material to display the bottle within the system].
Regarding Claim 12, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 11 above and Jaffe teaches wherein at least a portion of the dispenser nozzle overlaps the mount space at a same height in the height direction of the cabinet [Upon inspection of Jaffe Fig. 5, it is apparent that the dispensing head 166 is disposed at the front end of the chamber at a top end of the front surface, at the top of the housing 102. Upon combination of Jakobsen and Jaffe, one of ordinary skill in the art would ordinarily dispose a dispensing head in Jakobsen at an equivalent location similar to the location in Jaffe (i.e. at the front of the housing at the top end of the housing). Therefore, in the combination, the dispenser nozzle is considered to overlap with the mount space in Jakobsen, also located at a front end of the device at the top of the housing, therefore necessarily meeting the claim limitation].
Regarding Claim 14, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Jaffe teaches wherein the insertion guide is provided in plurality [Figs. 1-4; Jaffe discloses that the chill chamber 20 may be provided in a plurality in a singular dispensing system [10], and
wherein a partition wall [at least 104] is located between adjacent insertion guides] [¶ 0023, 0042; See Fig. 4; wherein upstanding walls 104 are disposed between respective cooling sections].
Regarding Claim 15, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Jaffe teaches wherein the dispenser nozzle includes a connection pipe [164] connected to an inside of the cabinet [¶ 0050, 0052; Fig, 5; apparent from inspection], a portion of the connection pipe overlapping the insertion guide in the height direction of the cabinet [Fig. 5; Jaffe does not necessarily have an equivalent to the insertion guide, however it is apparent from inspection that the connection pipe [164] is disposed near the upper side of the housing [102], travels toward the back of the housing from the front and bends downward approximately 90 degrees to enter the beverage container [124] from the top. Therefore, when in combination with Jakobsen, a connection pipe would enter the beverage container from the top and therefore necessarily overlap with the aperture 160 making up the insertion guide].
Regarding Claim 16, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Jakobsen further teaches comprising a cooling guide [220] in the cabinet, the cooling guide being located between the drink container and the cooler [Figs. 8A-8C; ¶ 0037-0038; apparent from inspection 220 is disposed between the space configured to hold a beverage (inside of 220) as well as the cooling elements 240 and 250 of the cooler assembly 340], and
Jaffe teaches wherein a lower end of the dispenser nozzle [166] is located at a height that is the same as or higher than a height of the cooling guide [Jaffe Fig. 5; apparent from inspection that the dispensing nozzle is disposed above the chill chamber [20], considered equivalent to the cabinet [170] from Jakobsen, wherein the cooling guide of Jakobsen is relatively disposed within the cabinet. Upon combination of Jakobsen and Jaffe, one of ordinary skill in the art would ordinarily dispose a dispensing head in Jakobsen at an equivalent location similar to the location in Jaffe (i.e. at the front of the housing at the top end of the housing). Therefore, in the combination, the dispenser nozzle is considered to be the same height or higher than the height of the cooling guide in Jakobsen, also located at a front end of the device at the top of the housing, therefore necessarily meeting the claim limitation].
Regarding Claim 17, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Jakobsen teaches wherein the cabinet further includes an insulating panel defining a front surface of the cabinet, at least a portion of the insulating panel being transparent [¶ 0027; Jakobsen discloses a viewing window 150, wherein the window may further comprise of insulating panes], and
Jaffe teaches wherein the dispenser nozzle protrudes forward of the insulating panel [Jaffe Fig. 5; Jakobsen teaches the insulating panel being disposed at the front of the device, wherein Jaffe also teaches the dispenser nozzle protruding out from the front of the device. Therefore, an obvious combination would necessarily dispose the nozzle to be protruding out of the front panel (insulating panel)].
Regarding Claim 18, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 17 above and Jakobsen teaches wherein the insulating panel includes:
an insulating frame [140] having a first surface facing the insertion guide and a second surface opposite the first surface [¶ 0027; aperture 140 is configured to hold or “frame” window 150];
a first panel fixed to the first surface of the insulating frame; and
a second panel fixed to the second surface of the insulating frame to be spaced apart from the first panel, the second panel defining the front surface of the cabinet, the second panel being arranged such that a portion of the second panel does not overlap the first panel [¶ 0027; Jakobsen discloses that the aperture 140 may comprise of a plurality of window panes 150, such that an insulating vacuum may exist between said panes, therefore not overlapping in the height direction], and
Jaffe teaches wherein the dispenser nozzle is connected to an inside of the cabinet through the portion of the second panel that does not overlap the first panel [Upon combination of Jakobsen and Jaffe, one of ordinary skill in the art would ordinarily dispose a dispensing head in Jakobsen at an equivalent location similar to the location in Jaffe (i.e. at the front of the housing at the top end of the housing). Therefore, in the combination, the dispenser nozzle would necessarily be connected through the gap between the two panels (i.e. the vacuum) as the dispenser provides liquid from within the container to the outside of the container].
Regarding Claim 19, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above and Jakobsen teaches wherein the cabinet further includes a mount space [140] in which a display or an operational panel is located [¶ 0027; window panel 150 may be made of transparent material to display the bottle within the system], and
Jaffe teaches wherein at least a portion of the dispenser nozzle overlaps the mount space in the height direction of the cabinet [Upon inspection of Jaffe Fig. 5, it is apparent that the dispensing head 166 is disposed at the front end of the chamber at a top end of the front surface, at the top of the housing 102. Upon combination of Jakobsen and Jaffe, one of ordinary skill in the art would ordinarily dispose a dispensing head in Jakobsen at an equivalent location similar to the location in Jaffe (i.e. at the front of the housing at the top end of the housing). Therefore, in the combination, the dispenser nozzle is considered to overlap with the mount space in Jakobsen, also located at a front end of the device at the top of the housing, therefore necessarily meeting the claim limitation].
Regarding Claim 20, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 19 above and Jakobsen teaches wherein the insertion guide is configured to surround an opening of the drink container [Fig. 2; apparent from inspection that the top of the drink container is the opening of the drink container, wherein 160 surrounds the opening of the container], and
wherein at least a portion of the dispenser nozzle overlaps the insertion guide and the mount space at a same height in the height direction of the cabinet [Upon inspection of Jaffe Fig. 5, it is apparent that the dispensing head 166 is disposed at the front end of the chamber at a top end of the front surface, at the top of the housing 102. Upon combination of Jakobsen and Jaffe, one of ordinary skill in the art would ordinarily dispose a dispensing head in Jakobsen at an equivalent location similar to the location in Jaffe (i.e. at the front of the housing at the top end of the housing). Therefore, in the combination, the dispenser nozzle is considered to overlap with the mount space in Jakobsen, also located at a front end of the device at the top of the housing, as well as the insertion guide being disposed near the top of the container, therefore necessarily meeting the claim limitation].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobsen and Jaffe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawasaki (US 20180313583 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Jakobsen, as modified, teaches the refrigerator of claim 1 above but Jakobsen does not explicitly teach wherein the top of the cabinet includes an upper cover defining the opening of the cabinet, and wherein the refrigerator further comprises a cover assembly configured to surround an opening of the drink container, the cover assembly being couplable to the upper cover of the cabinet to selectively cover and uncover the opening of the cabinet or an inlet of the insertion guide.
However, Kawasaki teaches a beverage cooler or warming apparatus [Figs. 1-23] comprising a main container [Fig. 12] [¶ 0041-0042] containing a plurality of beverage conduction units [100; Fig. 16]. Each individual unit comprises a cylindrical sleeve [110] to house a beverage, wherein the drinks are inserted into the cylindrical sleeve via protrusions in the roof [60] [¶ 0040-0045], wherein the protrusion 60 may be considered to be the upper cover defining the opening in the cabinet [Fig. 12]. Kawasaki further discloses a pivot lid [80] (cover assembly) configured to provide a closing means over the case [12], such that components 92 and 94 provide coupling of the lid to the top of the device [¶ 0045-0047; Figs. 12-15]. Kawasaki further discloses that providing cover to the roof of the container and openings provides an aspect of insulation to the cavity of the interior, reducing the impact of ambient air that enters the case, thereby improving the cooling capabilities of the system [¶ 0011]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the cabinet upper cover and cover assembly as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the cabinet upper cover and cover assembly would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing cover to the roof of the container and openings provides an aspect of insulation to the cavity of the interior, reducing the impact of ambient air that enters the case, thereby improving the cooling capabilities of the system [¶ 0011].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Braz Ferro to have wherein the storage compartments are separated by the insulating portion such that the storage compartments define independent spaces, in view of the teachings of Kawasaki, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing cover to the roof of the container and openings provides an aspect of insulation to the cavity of the interior, reducing the impact of ambient air that enters the case, thereby improving the cooling capabilities of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
As per dependent Claim 5, the prior art, Jakobsen (US 20190335921 A1), Jaffe et al. (US 20150225222 A1) and Kawasaki (US 20180313583 A1) does not teach the device as recited, in particular “…wherein an inner case is located in the cabinet, the inner case including: a pair of sides; a bottom connected to the pair of sides; the insertion guide connected to the pair of sides or the bottom, the insertion guide being in communication with the opening of the cabinet; and a cooling guide coupled between the bottom and the insertion guide,” when added to the other features claimed in independent Claim 1. More specifically, the closest structure to an inner case in the cabinet is disclosed by Kawasaki in the prior art. However the structure in Kawasaki does not meet the further structural limitation requiring the inner case to be connected to the insertion guide via the pair of sides or bottom. Thus, dependent claim 5 has narrowed the broadest reasonable scope of the structure implied by the claim language, thereby overcoming a further combination of the cited prior arts. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the device of Jakobsen to arrive at the claimed invention.
It would not be obvious to modify the prior art structure to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight. Therefore, Claim 5 and all claims depending therefrom are currently allowable.
Response to Arguments
In regarding to applicant' s argument that the term “cooler” should not invoke 112(f), the Examiner disagrees. The term “cooler” may be interpreted as a substitute for “device for cooling”. While many devices take their names from the functions it performs (i.e. a cooler), the recitation does not limit the scope of the claim to any specific manner or structure for performing the claimed function, thus the term “cooler” is a generic placeholder and invokes § 112(f). Lastly, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would recognize that a cooler could be absorption refrigeration, mechanical compression refrigeration, thermoelectric refrigeration, or thermoelectric heat pump, chillers, evaporative coolers, cold plate refrigeration, or a peltier element, therefore a POSITA would not have a clear understanding of what type of structure that provides cooling is being claimed contrary to Applicant’s arguments.
On pages 9-14 of the remarks, Applicant argues that independent claim 1 is allowable in light of the currently applied prior art. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to be highlighting the distinction wherein the application provides the door over the opening at the top of the container to receive an insertable drink, whereas the prior art Jaffe teaches their opening and door at a relative front end to receive an insertable drink. It is respectfully noted that in the rejection above, Jaffe is not cited for its structure to teach the limitation requiring the cabinet having a top with an opening. This limitation is taught by Jakobsen, wherein the top of the cabinet has an opening through which the drink container is insertable. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Jaffe is recited to teach the structure of a door located at the cabinet, being configured to close and open the opening of the cabinet. Jaffe teaches that the disclosed structure provides the benefit of preserving temperatures of the beverage. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to modify the opening of Jakobsen to also have a door, as there is nothing in the prior art, Jaffe, that explicitly criticizes or discredits the modification proposed, and should not be necessarily negated by desirable alternative (i.e. providing the door and opening at the front) [MPEP 2143]. As such, because the modification would not change the principal operation or render the device unsatisfactory for its purpose (i.e. to store and cool a beverage), the proposed modification would not require a substantial reconstruction of the design elements, contrary to Applicant’s arguments. Additionally, one must consider the teachings of structural similarity [MPEP 2144.08 4.(c)] wherein structurally similar species usually have similar properties and one of reasonable skill in the art would therefore expect that the claimed subject matter will function in an equivalent manner to the genus. The rejection is therefore maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that Jakobsen allegedly cannot be modified in the proposed manner due to the top of the bottle protruding above the top in the figures, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights