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 .
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:
heating unit and refrigeration unit in at least claim 15.
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.
Heating unit and refrigeration unit are interpreted to cover a unit comprising a compressor, a condenser, an evaporator, and/or a refrigerant as per para [0037] of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 12-27 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond (US 6145333 A) in view of Devogel (US 4781243 A).
Regarding claim 12:
Richmond discloses a method of controlling temperature of a payload (abstract), comprising:
providing a temperature control cart (Fig. 1-5) comprising a top portion comprising one or more wells #214 operable to receive one or more pans (Fig. 5, col. 3, L 5-16),
a tank #224 located beneath the top portion (Fig. 5), and a phase change material (PCM) #222 located in the tank (col. 3, L 19-21 & col. 4, L 1-5);
heating or cooling the PCM of the temperature control cart above or below a phase transition temperature of the PCM (see at least claims 4 & 8; col. 4, L 1-5. Gel PCM change phase when operating); and
placing a payload on an exterior work surface of the temperature control cart (col. 4, L 17-31).
To the extent that applicant submit that Richmond does not disclose heating or cooling the PCM of the temperature control cart above or below a phase transition temperature of the PCM; Devogel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that it is known to employ a PCM to provide heating or cooling above or below a phase transition temperature of the PCM (see PCM #22; col. 1, L 5-14; col. 7, L 63 – col. 8, L 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the method of Richmond with heating or cooling the PCM of the temperature control cart above or below a phase transition temperature of the PCM; in a similar manner as taught by Devogel.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have allowed the PCM to absorbs or releases a greater amount of latent heat while holding a nearly constant temperature; thereby, optimizing the thermal usage of the PCM.
Regarding claim 13:
Richmond either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.Richmond further discloses transferring thermal energy from the payload to the PCM or from the PCM to the payload, thereby controlling the temperature of the payload (col. 4, L 17-31).
Regarding claim 14:
Richmond either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.Richmond further discloses providing one or more heat exchangers #228 located within the tank on the temperature control cart (Fig. 5, col. 4, L 48-53).
Regarding claim 15:
Richmond either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.Richmond further discloses wherein heating or cooling the PCM of the temperature control cart comprises a heating unit applying heat to a heat exchange fluid or a refrigeration unit applying cooling to a heat exchange fluid (col. 4, L 48-56).
Regarding claim 16:
Richmond either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.Richmond further discloses circulating a heat exchange fluid within a thermal exchange conduit #228 on the temperature control cart (col. 4, L 48-56).
Regarding claim 17:
Richmond either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.Richmond further discloses wherein placing the payload on an exterior work surface of the temperature control cart places the payload in the one or more wells on the temperature control cart (col. 4, L 17-31).
Regarding claim 18:
Richmond either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.Richmond further discloses placing serving dishes on an exterior surface of the temperature control cart (col. 4, L 17-31).
Regarding claims 19-27:
Richmond either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations; except for the specific phase transition temperature of the PCM.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, differences in temperature does not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. Since the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of the PCM by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
By official notice, the examiner also submits that PCM with the specifics phase transition temperature as claimed are known in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the method of Richmond with PCM having the specific phase transition temperature of the PCM.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have allowed for a large variety of items requiring them to be cooled at different temperatures to be accommodated by the method while providing optimal cooling/heating; thereby, improving the serviceability of the method.
Regarding claim 31:
Richmond either alone or as modified discloses wherein placing the payload on the exterior work surface comprises placing the payload in a pan received in one of the wells (see rejection of claim 12 above); wherein the pan is in metal-to-metal surface contact with the well (col. 3, L 7-9 & 43-46); wherein the well is at least partially immersed in and in thermal contact with the PCM, and wherein the thermal energy is transferred between the payload and the PCM through the pan and the well (see rejection of claim 12 above).
Regarding claims 29-30:
The subject matter claimed here is substantially similar to that of claims 12-17. Thus, for sake of simplicity, conciseness, and brevity, please refer to the rejection of claims 12-17 above for the rejection of claims 29-30.
To the extent that the applicant submit that Richmond does not disclose transferring thermal energy between the payload and the PCM through the top portion during a period in which no active heating or cooling is applied to the PCM;
Devogel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that it is known to employ a PCM to cool payloads, wherein no active heating or cooling applied to the PCM (see col. 1, L 5-14).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the method of Richmond either alone or as modified with no active heating or cooling applied to the PCM; in a similar manner as taught by Devogel.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided a simplified and reliable method; given that the method would comprise no moving parts, pumps, or powered controls.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond (US 6145333 A) in view of Devogel (US 4781243 A); and further in view of Muffett (US 5976400 A).
Regarding claim 28:
Richmond either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations; except for wherein cooling the PCM comprises cooling the PCM below the phase transition temperature using liquid nitrogen.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Muffett teaches that it is known to cool a PCM with below the phase transition temperature using liquid nitrogen (col. 4, L 11-17).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the method of Richmond either alone or as modified with cooling the PCM below the phase transition temperature using liquid nitrogen; in a similar manner as taught by Muffett.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided exceptionally rapid ramp rate; thereby allowing the PCM to be charged/solidified in a relatively short period of time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/14/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 12-31 have been rejection as being unpatentable over the prior art. Refer to the 103 section above for the detailed rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
