DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2025 and 07/07/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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 the abstract includes phrases which can be implied, such as “A refrigerated trailer adapted for towing by a tow vehicle is provided”. The phrase does not aid in understanding the invention and said phrasing is expressly discouraged in order to clearly and concisely describe the invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the term, “can”, is not clear and concise and does not definitively convey what the claimed invention comprises of or how it functions. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract appears to include language that refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention, such as “Advantageously, the refrigerated trailer can enable users to efficiently load and unload cargo without the need for auxiliary equipment or excessive manual effort,”. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be included in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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:
Height adjustment system 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 height adjustment system appears to be described as at least an actuator, a linear motion actuator, a pneumatic arm and hydraulic motor, or a combination thereof in at least ¶ [0009] 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-20 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 19, the recitation of “...a refrigerated trailer adapted for towing by a tow vehicle…,” renders the claim unclear Specifically, independent claim 1 has already disclosed “a refrigerated trailer adapted for towing by a tow vehicle”. Claim 19 makes a dependent reference to claim 1, therefore incorporating by reference all the limitations of independent claim 1. Thus, it is unclear if the new instance of the terms are referring to the previously disclosed elements, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second 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 1-5, 10, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tollefson (US 20080258372 A1) and further in view of Williams (US 20060137373 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tollefson teaches a refrigerated trailer [10] [Figs. 1-13] adapted for towing by a tow vehicle [72] [¶ 0033], comprising:
an enclosure [12 or 132] having at least one door [150] configured to provide entry to an interior space of the enclosure [¶ 0042; Fig. 11];
a frame [at least 24, 34 or 36] configured to support the insulated enclosure [¶ 0029; support frame 36 extends under the later lower surface to support the container];
a plurality of wheels [32] coupled to the frame for supporting the frame [Figs. 1-13; apparent from inspection wheels 32 are disposed to support the frame]; and
a height adjustment system [at least 34] configured to adjust the insulated enclosure between a first height and a second height [¶ 0029, 0032-0033; moving frame 34 may pick up the container 12 by moving between a lowered position and a raised position; see Fig. 5].
Tollefson does not explicitly teach wherein the enclosure is insulated, and a refrigeration system operably coupled to the insulated enclosure for maintaining a predetermined temperature within the interior space of the insulated enclosure.
However, Williams teaches a self-contained mobile walk-in cooler [10] [Figs. 1-9] comprising an enclosure [cooler 20] disposed upon a mobile carriage system (frame) [50] configured for transport utilizing a plurality of wheels [58], wherein the enclosure comprises insulation [¶ 0063-0066]. Williams further teaches a refrigeration unit system [30] disposed on the trailer system configured to provide cooling to the system [¶ 0064], such that the system may maintain a constant temperature of the insulated space [¶ 0025]. Williams further teaches that providing a refrigeration system within a towable trailer with walk-in capabilities is known in the art to provide easy transportation for perishables and convenience mobility with walk-in characteristics [¶ 0031]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the insulated enclosure and refrigeration system as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the insulated enclosure and refrigeration system 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. a refrigeration system within a towable trailer with walk-in capabilities provides easy transportation for perishables and convenience of mobility with walk-in characteristics [¶ 0031].
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 Tollefson to have wherein the enclosure is insulated, and a refrigeration system operably coupled to the insulated enclosure for maintaining a predetermined temperature within the interior space of the insulated enclosure, in view of the teachings of Williams 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. a refrigeration system within a towable trailer with walk-in capabilities provides easy transportation for perishables and convenience of mobility with walk-in characteristics.
Regarding Claim 2, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 1 above and Tollefson teaches wherein the frame includes a base portion [at least 38] having opposing ends and a first arm [36] extending from one opposing end and a second arm [36] extending from the other opposing end [¶ 0029; Fig. 2; apparent from inspection that moving frame structure 38 comprises first and second arms [36] on either side extending away from their respective perpendicular joints at 38].
Regarding Claim 3, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 2 above and Tollefson teaches wherein the first arm and the second arm are parallel to one another and perpendicular to the base portion, forming a U-shape [¶ 0009; Fig. 2; apparent from inspection members 36 are perpendicular to 38 forming a U-shape].
Regarding Claim 4, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 1 above and Tollefson teaches wherein the height adjustment system comprises one of an actuator [74], a linear motion actuator, a pneumatic arm and hydraulic motor, or a combination thereof [¶ 0033].
Regarding Claim 5, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 1 above and Tollefson teaches wherein the first height comprises a position for transporting the insulated enclosure [¶ 0031; the system is provided for movement over a roadway while in the raised position] and the second height comprises a position lower than the first height, wherein the second height comprises a position substantially at a ground level [¶ 0032; in the lowered position, the container is resting on the ground surface; See Fig. 5].
Regarding Claim 10, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 1 above and Tollefson teaches wherein an outer portion of the insulated enclosure is configured to shield the insulated enclosure from weather conditions, road debris, and other external impacts [Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim (i.e. an enclosure having at least one door configured to provide entry to an interior space of the enclosure), the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations].
Regarding Claim 12, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 1 above and Tollefson teaches wherein the at least one door is disposed on a rear side of the insulated enclosure [Figs. 1 and 11; apparent from inspection].
Regarding Claim 13, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 12 above and Tollefson teaches wherein a width of the at least one door is configured to permit a removal of a pallet from the interior space of the insulated enclosure [¶ 0042; Tollefson discloses embodiments with a number of varying sizes of widths for the rear container portion, discussing a known need for greater storage needing wider doors; therefore the claim language specifying an arbitrary dimension for the intended use of removing a pallet may be considered to amount to not much more than an obvious change in size, as mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled [MPEP 2144.04.IV.A]. A change in relative dimensions of the device would not change the manner in which the device operates (i.e. cooling an enclosed transportable space), therefore the claimed device may not be patentably distinct from the prior art device].
Regarding Claim 14, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 12 above and Tollefson teaches wherein a width of the at least one door is configured to enable one or more of a pallet jack and a forklift to enter the interior space of the insulated enclosure for placing an object within or removing an object from the insulated enclosure [¶ 0042; Tollefson discloses embodiments with a number of varying sizes of widths for the rear container portion, discussing a known need for greater storage needing wider doors; therefore the claim language specifying an arbitrary dimension for the intended use of removing a pallet may be considered to amount to not much more than an obvious change in size, as mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled [MPEP 2144.04.IV.A]. A change in relative dimensions of the device would not change the manner in which the device operates (i.e. cooling an enclosed transportable space), therefore the claimed device may not be patentably distinct from the prior art device].
Regarding Claim 15, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 1 above and Williams teaches wherein the interior space of the insulated enclosure comprises an interior deck, a plurality of walls, and a ceiling, and wherein each of the interior deck, the plurality of walls, the ceiling, and the at least one door include an insulating material [Fig. 1; ¶ 0024, 0063; the cooler is made of at least urethan modular panels (insulation), wherein the cooler comprises a top panel, door panel, front panel, side panels, and floor].
Regarding Claim 17, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 1 above and Williams wherein the refrigeration system is configured to be electrically coupled to an external power source [Abstract; the refrigeration unit may be coupled to a gasoline generator, or another permanent power source].
Regarding Claim 19, Tollefson, as modified, teaches a method of using a refrigerated trailer adapted for towing by a tow vehicle to transport cargo, the method comprising steps of:
providing the refrigerated trailer adapted for towing by the tow vehicle of Claim 1 above [as modified];
adjusting the insulated enclosure from the first height to the second height relative to the frame [¶ 0032; Fig. 5; the system lowers the moving frame to a lowered position for picking up the container];
loading cargo into the interior space of the insulated enclosure [¶ 0005; 0032; The system may lower the container to a level just above ground level, wherein movable floors are known be utilized for loading and unloading]; and
adjusting the insulated enclosure from the second height to the first height relative to the frame [¶ 0032, 0036; the moving frame 34 may move up or down relative to the stationary frame 24 when moving a distance 64 or 66].
Regarding Claim 20, Tollefson, as modified, teaches method Claim 19, further comprising steps of:
adjusting the insulated enclosure from the first height to the second height relative to the frame [¶ 0032; Fig. 5; the system lowers the moving frame to a lowered position for picking up the container];
unloading cargo from the interior space of the insulated enclosure [¶ 0005; 0032; The system may lower the container to a level just above ground level, wherein movable floors are known to be utilized for loading and unloading]; and
adjusting the insulated enclosure from the second height to the first height relative to the frame [¶ 0032, 0036; the moving frame 34 may move up or down relative to the stationary frame 24 when moving a distance 64 or 66].
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tollefson and Williams as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Doskocil (US 20120213622 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 1 above and while Tollefson generally teaches comprising: a lower lateral surface [18] of the enclosure, such that the surface is configured to cooperate with support members [36] of the height adjustment system to facilitate adjusting the insulated enclosure between the first height and the second height relative to the frame [¶ 0029], Tollefson does not explicitly disclose a track system disposed on the insulated enclosure, such that the track system is configured to cooperate with support members.
However, Doskocil teaches a level lift detachable trailer system [10] comprising a cargo bed [14] [¶ 0052; the cargo bed may be any container useful for transporting cargo (i.e. a refrigeration enclosure)] as well as a chassis [12] for hailing the cargo bed [¶ 0050-0051]. Doskocil further teaches the cargo bed comprising of a track system [52, 56; Fig. 2], wherein the track system is configured to cooperate with the chassis to lift the cargo bed from a first to second elevation for transport [¶ 0054-0055]. Doskocil further teaches that this configuration provides a means for lifting rollers to self-align with channel tracks, thereby providing means to lift the bed at different heights or parallels, as well as a means to load trailer through use of the vehicle in reverse [¶ 0055-0056]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the track system as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the track system 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. to provide a means for lifting rollers to self-align with channel tracks, thereby enabling the system to lift the bed at different heights or parallels, as well as a means to load trailer through use of the vehicle in reverse, thereby improving function of the system [¶ 0055-0056].
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 Tollefson to have a track system disposed on the insulated enclosure, the track system configured to cooperate with the height adjustment system to facilitate adjusting the insulated enclosure between the first height and the second height relative to the frame, in view of the teachings of Doskocil, 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. to provide a means for lifting rollers to self-align with channel tracks, thereby enabling the system to lift the bed at different heights or parallels, as well as a means to load trailer through use of the vehicle in reverse, thereby improving function of the system.
Regarding Claim 7, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 6 above and Doskocil teaches wherein the track system is comprised of a plurality of tracks disposed on the insulated enclosure [¶ 0055; Fig. 2; the track comprises of at least tracks 52 and 56].
Regarding Claim 8, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 6 above and Doskocil teaches wherein the track system can include tracks, C-rail tracks, racks, and guide rails [Note: the recitation that “…the track system can include…”, is language that may be interpreted as optional features under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and therefore does not necessarily limit the scope of the claim [MPEP 2143.03]] [¶ 0054; the tracks may be inclined channel tracks].
Regarding Claim 9, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 6 above and Doskocil teaches wherein the frame includes a connecting portion [at least 44 or 48] configured to couple with the track system to support and guide the insulated enclosure during transition from the first height to the second height [¶ 0053-0055; struts 44 and 48, extending from the frame, comprise rollers 44 and 46, wherein the rollers are configured to engage with the tracks of the cargo assembly 14 to lift the cargo to different heights].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tollefson and Williams as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20200318424 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 11, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 1 above but Tollefson does not teach wherein the insulated enclosure includes a barrier configured to insulate the interior space of the insulated enclosure when the at least one door is displaced in an open position.
However, Chen teaches a curtain and refrigerated unit for transportation in a refrigerated vehicle [Figs. 1-6], wherein Chen discloses that providing a door curtain (or barrier) an in insulated truck configured to transport perishable goods is a known technique in the art [¶ 0025]. Chen further discloses that the barriers may have a thermal insulation function, and serve to effectively close/open the refrigeration space, even when the door is open, thereby reducing temperature fluctuations of the space to be cooled [¶ 0016]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the barrier as claimed by known methods/techniques and that in combination, the barrier 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 to reduce temperature fluctuations of the space when the doors are open, thereby improving the system [¶ 0016].
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 Tollefson to have wherein the insulated enclosure includes a barrier configured to insulate the interior space of the insulated enclosure when the at least one door is displaced in an open position, in view of the teachings of Chen 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 to reduce temperature fluctuations of the space when the doors are open, thereby improving the system.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tollefson and Williams as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Andrews (GB 2589833 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Tollefson, as modified, teaches the refrigerated trailer of Claim 1 above but Tollefson does not further teach comprising a user interface configured to enable a user to control the refrigeration system, the user interface disposed on the insulated enclosure.
However, Andrews teaches a mobile refrigerator [12] [Fig. 1] comprising at least an enclosed space [16] configured to be cooled to a target temperature selected using a control panel [24] [¶ 0030]. Andrews discloses that the control panel may be located on an outside of the housing at a front outer surface of the trailer [¶ 0029]. Andrews teaches that this configuration provides a means for a user to select an input for the refrigeration device, thereby improving the control capabilities of the system [¶ 0029-0030]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the controller as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the controller 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 a user to select an input for the refrigeration device, thereby improving the control capabilities of the system [¶ 0029-0030].
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 Tollefson to have a user interface configured to enable a user to control the refrigeration system, the user interface disposed on the insulated enclosure, in view of the teachings of Andrews 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 a user to select an input for the refrigeration device, thereby improving the control capabilities of the system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tollefson further in view of Williams and Doskocil.
Regarding Claim 18, Tollefson teaches a trailer adapted for towing by a tow vehicle, comprising:
an enclosure [12 or 132] having at least one door [150] configured to provide entry to an interior space of the insulated enclosure [¶ 0042; Fig. 11];
a frame [at least 24, 34 or 36] configured to support the insulated enclosure [¶ 0029; support frame 36 extends under the later lower surface to support the container];
a plurality of wheels [32] coupled to the frame for supporting the frame [Figs. 1-13; apparent from inspection wheels 32 are disposed to support the frame];
a height adjustment system [at least 34] configured to adjust the insulated enclosure between a first height and a second height [¶ 0029, 0032-0033; moving frame 34 may pick up the container 12 by moving between a lowered position and a raised position; see Fig. 5];
Tollefson does not explicitly teach wherein the trailer is refrigerated, wherein the enclosure is insulated, and a refrigeration system operably coupled to the insulated enclosure for maintaining a predetermined temperature within the interior space of the insulated enclosure.
Also, while Tollefson generally teaches comprising: a lower lateral surface [18] of the enclosure, such that the surface is configured to cooperate with support members [36] of the height adjustment system to facilitate adjusting the insulated enclosure between the first height and the second height relative to the frame [¶ 0029], Tollefson does not explicitly disclose a track system disposed on the insulated enclosure, such that the track system is configured to cooperate with support members, wherein the frame includes a connecting portion configured to couple to the track system and guide the insulated enclosure as it transitions from a first height to a second height, the height adjustment system includes an actuator configured to push and pull the insulated enclosure along the track system, and the track system is comprised of a plurality of tracks disposed on the insulated enclosure.
However, Williams teaches a self-contained mobile walk-in cooler [10] [Figs. 1-9] comprising an enclosure [cooler 20] disposed upon a mobile carriage system (frame) [50] configured for transport utilizing a plurality of wheels [58], wherein the enclosure comprises insulation [¶ 0063-0066]. Williams further teaches a refrigeration unit system [30] disposed on the trailer system configured to provide cooling to the system [¶ 0064], such that the system may maintain a constant temperature of the insulated space [¶ 0025]. Williams further teaches that providing a refrigeration system within a towable trailer with walk-in capabilities is known in the art to provide easy transportation for perishables and convenience mobility with walk-in characteristics [¶ 0031]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the insulated enclosure and refrigeration system as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the insulated enclosure and refrigeration system 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. a refrigeration system within a towable trailer with walk-in capabilities provides easy transportation for perishables and convenience of mobility with walk-in characteristics [¶ 0031].
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 Tollefson to have wherein the trailer is refrigerated, wherein the enclosure is insulated, and a refrigeration system operably coupled to the insulated enclosure for maintaining a predetermined temperature within the interior space of the insulated enclosure, in view of the teachings of Williams 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. a refrigeration system within a towable trailer with walk-in capabilities provides easy transportation for perishables and convenience of mobility with walk-in characteristics.
Furthermore, Doskocil teaches a level lift detachable trailer system [10] comprising a cargo bed [14] [¶ 0052; the cargo bed may be any container useful for transporting cargo (i.e. a refrigeration enclosure)] as well as a chassis [12] for hailing the cargo bed [¶ 0050-0051]. Doskocil further teaches the cargo bed comprising of a track system [52, 56; Fig. 2], wherein the track system is configured to cooperate with the chassis to lift the cargo bed from a first to second elevation for transport [¶ 0054-0055]. Doskocil states that the elevating device may be a piston arm of an actuator, winch, or any other cable system capable of lifting or elevating [¶ 0058, 0065; see Fig. 12; the piston necessarily provides some horizontal force along the track, as the rail is diagonally oriented to raise the container]. Doskocil further teaches struts 44 and 48 as connecting portions, extending from the frame, comprising rollers 44 and 46, wherein the rollers are configured to engage with the tracks of the cargo assembly 14 to lift the cargo to different heights [¶ 0053-0055]. Doskocil further teaches that this configuration provides a means for lifting rollers to self-align with channel tracks, thereby providing means to lift the bed at different heights or parallels, as well as a means to load trailer through use of the vehicle in reverse [¶ 0055-0056]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the track system as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the track system 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. to provide a means for lifting rollers to self-align with channel tracks, thereby enabling the system to lift the bed at different heights or parallels, as well as a means to load trailer through use of the vehicle in reverse, thereby improving function of the system [¶ 0055-0056].
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 Tollefson to have a track system disposed on the insulated enclosure, wherein the frame includes a connecting portion configured to couple to the track system and guide the insulated enclosure as it transitions from a first height to a second height, the height adjustment system includes an actuator configured to push and pull the insulated enclosure along the track system, and the track system is comprised of a plurality of tracks disposed on the insulated enclosure, in view of the teachings of Doskocil, 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. to provide a means for lifting rollers to self-align with channel tracks, thereby enabling the system to lift the bed at different heights or parallels, as well as a means to load trailer through use of the vehicle in reverse, thereby improving function of the system.
Conclusion
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