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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A (claims 13-23) in the reply filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a securing means” in claim 22;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
After reviewing the specification, the securing means can be a drawn to a digital lock or known equivalents (per paragraph [0083]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted (US 2017/0108260) in view of Banal (US 2023/0112280).
Regarding claim 13, Ansted teaches a portable storage apparatus for storing and transporting goods at a predefined temperature (see Title)), comprising:
a sensor system including a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature inside the portable storage apparatus (see paragraph [0069]);
a microcontroller operatively connected to the sensor system and configured to receive the measured temperature (see paragraph [0067]);
a heating means connected to the separation plate and configured to generate heat within the hot chamber to maintain a first predefined temperature (see PCM module in paragraph [0037]);
a cooling means operatively connected to the portable storage apparatus and configured to generate cooling within the cold chamber to maintain a second predefined temperature (see PCM module in paragraph [0037])); and
wherein the microcontroller is further configured to control the heating means and the cooling means based on the measured temperature and the predefined first and second temperatures, thereby maintaining independent thermal conditions in the hot chamber and the cold chamber (see paragraphs [0071]-[0075]).
Ansted does not teach:
at least one separation plate movably mounted within the portable storage apparatus and configured to define at least one hot chamber and at least one cold chamber; a guiding mechanism coupled to the separation plate, wherein the guiding mechanism facilitates vertical movement of the separation plate.
Banal teaches a portable cooler (Banal, Title) which features at least one separation plate movably mounted within the portable storage apparatus (Banal, 26, Fig. 8, paragraph [0058]) and configured to define at least multiple chambers; a guiding mechanism coupled to the separation plate, wherein the guiding mechanism facilitates vertical movement of the separation plate (Banal, 15, 17, Fig. 8, paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted with a movable separation plate with a guiding mechanism, as taught by Banal, in order to allow for easy removal of the separation plate if desired.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted in view of Banal, further in view of Affleck (US 2015/0204598).
Regarding claim 14, Ansted as modified teaches the portable storage apparatus of claim 13, but does not teach an operating unit including a plurality of control buttons and a display unit,
wherein the operating unit is mounted on an external surface of the portable storage apparatus; wherein the operating unit is operatively connected to the microcontroller and configured to: receive user input via the control buttons and transmit the received input to the microcontroller; and display the received user input and sensor parameters measured by the sensor system on the display unit.
Affleck teaches a portable workstation (Affleck, Title) which features a display that is connected to a processor to receive user input through a plurality of buttons (Affleck, 169, Fig. 1J, paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a display to receive user input, as taught by Affleck, in order to allow greater user control over the apparatus.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted in view of Banal and Affleck, further in view of FOR1 (WO2016125290A1).
Regarding claim 15, Ansted as modified teaches the portable storage apparatus of claim 14, but does not teach a humidity sensor configured to measure humidity within the hot chamber and the cold chamber; a weight sensor configured to measure the weight of the goods stored in the hot chamber and the cold chamber; and wherein the microcontroller is configured to: receive data from the humidity sensor and the weight sensor; and process and display the measured humidity and weight values on the display unit of the operating unit.
FOR1 teaches a refrigerator (FOR1, Title) which features a humidity sensor (FOR1, 51, see Description) and a weight sensor (FOR1, 54a, 54b, see Description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a humidity sensor and a weight sensor, as taught by FOR1, in order to have greater insight over the parameters impacting the operation of the apparatus.
Through the combination, the display taught by Affleck is capable of displaying values of the humidity sensor and weight sensor.
Regarding claim 16, Ansted as modified teaches the portable storage apparatus of claim 13, but does not teach the sensor system further comprises: a humidity sensor configured to measure humidity within the hot chamber and the cold chamber; a weight sensor configured to measure the weight of the goods stored in the hot chamber and the cold chamber; and wherein the microcontroller is configured to: receive data from the humidity sensor and the weight sensor; and process and display the measured humidity and weight values on the display unit of the operating unit.
FOR1 teaches a refrigerator (FOR1, Title) which features a humidity sensor (FOR1, 51, see Description) and a weight sensor (FOR1, 54a, 54b, see Description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a humidity sensor and a weight sensor, as taught by FOR1, in order to have greater insight over the parameters impacting the operation of the apparatus.
Affleck teaches a portable workstation (Affleck, Title) which features a display that is connected to a processor to receive user input through a plurality of buttons (Affleck, 169, Fig. 1J, paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a display to receive user input, as taught by Affleck, in order to allow greater user control over the apparatus.
Through the combination, the display taught by Affleck is capable of displaying values of the humidity sensor and weight sensor.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted in view of Banal, further in view of Chintala (US 2019/0285338).
Regarding claim 17, Ansted as modified teaches the portable storage apparatus of claim 13, but does not specifically teach that the heating means comprises at least one of a heating coil, a silicon heating element, or a thermoelectric heating element for heating the hot chamber to the first predefined temperature; and the cooling means comprises at least one of a refrigerator or a thermoelectric cooling chip for cooling the cold chamber to the second predefined temperature.
Chintala teaches a portable container (Chintala, Title) which features a heating element that comprises a heating coil (Chintala, paragraph [0030]) and a cooling element that comprises a thermoelectric cooling element (Chintala, paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a heating coil and a thermoelectric cooler, as taught by Chintala, in order to utilize known elements in the art to provide conditioning to assess how it impacts the desired optimization of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 18, Ansted as modified teaches the portable storage apparatus of claim 13, but does not teach that the heating means comprises at least one of a heating coil, a silicon heating element, or a thermoelectric heating element for heating the hot chamber to the first predefined temperature; and the cooling means comprises at least one of a refrigerator or a thermoelectric cooling chip for cooling the cold chamber to the second predefined temperature.
Chintala teaches a portable container (Chintala, Title) which features a heating element that comprises a heating coil (Chintala, paragraph [0030]) and a cooling element that comprises a thermoelectric cooling element (Chintala, paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a heating coil and a thermoelectric cooler, as taught by Chintala, in order to utilize known elements in the art to provide conditioning to assess how it impacts the desired optimization of the apparatus.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted in view of Banal, further in view of Zavitsanos (US 2015/0238033).
Regarding claim 19, Ansted as modified teaches the portable storage apparatus of claim 13, but does not teacha holder provided inside the hot chamber and/or the cold chamber for storing goods; and a plurality of sliding panels provided in the holder, wherein the sliding panels are configured to: slide relative to the holder; and rigidly hold the goods based on the dimensions of the goods.
Zavitsanos teaches a container (Zavitsanos, Title) which features a holder (Zavitsanos, 5046, Fig. 10, paragraph [0072]) with repositionable dividers (Zavitsanos, 5045, Fig, 10, paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a holder with sliding panels, as taught by Zavitsanos, in order to provide greater personalization for users to augment the design to their preference.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted in view of Banal, further in view of Jung (US 2019/0331409).
Regarding claim 20, Ansted as modified teaches the portable storage apparatus of claim 13, but does not teach a system for controlling the portable storage apparatus, the system comprising: a cloud server connected to the microcontroller of the portable storage apparatus via a communication network; a plurality of user devices connected to the cloud server through the communication network; wherein each user device comprises a user interface configured to allow a user to: submit order instructions, including a user-defined first temperature and/or second temperature; and wherein the cloud server is configured to: determine a predefined first temperature and/or second temperature based on the user-defined temperature and/or the nature of the goods being stored and transported.
Jung teaches a refrigerator which features a cloud server connected to a plurality of devices (Jung, Fig. 14) that receives a user set temperature and further sets the optimal setting temperature to the refrigerator (Jung, paragraph [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with a cloud server connected to a user device to receive temperature information, as taught by Jung, in order to provide greater accuracy in control over the system.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted in view of Banal, further in view of Alexander (US 2020/0333057).
Regarding claim 21, Ansted as modified teaches the system of claim 20, but does not teach the cloud server is further configured to: generate a locking unique code and an unlocking unique code based on the order instructions submitted by the user; transmit the locking unique code and the unlocking unique code to the microcontroller of the portable storage apparatus; and wherein the microcontroller is configured to: control a securing means for locking and unlocking the portable storage apparatus based on verification of the locking unique code and the unlocking unique code received from the cloud server and user input through the operating unit.
Alexander teaches a portable cooler (Alexander, Title) which features a locking/unlocking mechanism that locks/unlocks based off a user access code (Alexander, claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with user code to lock/unlock the apparatus, as taught by Alexander, in order to protect from theft.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted in view of Banal and Jung, further in view of Alexander (US 2020/0333057).
Regarding claim 22, Ansted as modified teaches the system of claim 20, but does not teach the cloud server is further configured to:generate a locking unique code and an unlocking unique code based on the order instructions submitted by the user;transmit the locking unique code and the unlocking unique code to the microcontroller of the portable storage apparatus; andwherein the microcontroller is configured to:control a securing means for locking and unlocking the portable storage apparatus based on verification of the locking unique code and the unlocking unique code received from the cloud server and user input through the operating unit.
Alexander teaches a portable cooler (Alexander, Title) which features a locking/unlocking mechanism that locks/unlocks based off a user access code (Alexander, claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with user code to lock/unlock the apparatus, as taught by Alexander, in order to protect from theft.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansted in view of Banal and Jung, further in view of Kim (US 2021/0108854).
Regarding claim 23, Ansted as modified teaches the system of claim 20, but does not teach an artificial intelligence module provided in the cloud server, wherein the artificial intelligence module is configured to: predict a first temperature and/or second temperature for the goods based on: historical data related to the goods, and predefined temperature requirements for storing and transporting the goods; and transmit the predicted first temperature and/or second temperature to the microcontroller of the portable storage apparatus for temperature control.
Kim teaches an AI model used to predict food spoilage and performs refrigeration to reach the target environment for the food in the refrigerator (Kim, paragraph [0153], Fig. 5, paragraph [0211]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Ansted as modified with an AI model to predict food temperature and provide temperature control based on the prediction, as taught by Kim, in order to prevent food spoilage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. 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, 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763