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 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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the cradle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0087812 to Armstrong et al., hereinafter referred to as Armstrong, in view of DE20211894 to Ecker et al., hereinafter referred to as Ecker, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 1, Armstrong and Ecker disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong discloses an apparatus (see figure 1) for controlling a temperature of a beverage container, the apparatus comprising:
a housing having an upper portion (10) and a lower portion (12), the upper portion including a receptacle (19) adapted to receive the beverage container (soda can);
a thermoelectric element (2) positioned in the lower portion (12, see figure 13), the thermoelectric element having a first side (4) at a first temperature and a second side (3) at a second temperature lower than the first temperature, the second side (3) being in thermal communication with the receptacle (19) [0017];
a heat sink (24) in thermal communication with the first side (4); and
at least one battery (50) positioned in the lower portion (12) and electrically connected to the thermoelectric element to provide power to the thermoelectric element [0005].
Armstrong fails to disclose the heat sink having a slanted upper rim.
Ecker teaches that it is a known method in the art of beverage coolers utilizing thermoelectric coolers (4) to provide a heat sink (6) having a slanted upper rim (see figure 3 where the upper rim of heat sink (6) is slanted with respect to a vertical axis). This is strong evidence that modifying (Armstrong) as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., incline the bottle such that deposits settles in an ideal place and decanting isn’t necessary, see underlined portion of page 3 of the English language translation). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Armstrong by Ecker such that the heat sink had a slanted upper rim, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of eliminating the need to decant).
In reference to claims 3 and 4, Armstrong and Ecker disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong discloses at least one temperature sensor (25) in the lower portion of the housing (12) for measuring at least one measured temperature in the receptacle.
In reference to claim 11, Armstrong and Ecker disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong discloses a sensor (thermistor) provided to sense the temperature of incoming air to the heat sink [0031].
In reference to claim 17, Armstrong and Ecker disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong discloses an apparatus, see figure 1, for controlling a temperature of a beverage container, the apparatus comprising:
a cylindrical housing having an upper portion (10) and a lower portion (12), the upper portion including a cylindrical receptacle (19) adapted to receive the beverage container, the cylindrical housing comprising a heat sink (24);
a thermoelectric element (2) positioned in the lower portion (12), the thermoelectric element having a first side (4) at a first temperature and a second side (3) at a second temperature lower than the first temperature, the second side (3) being in thermal communication with the receptacle (19), the heat sink (24) being in thermal communication with the first side (4);
at least one battery (50) positioned in the lower portion (12) and electrically connected to the thermoelectric element to provide power to the thermoelectric element [0005],
Armstrong fails to disclose the heat sink having a slanted upper rim nor the cylindrical housing comprises a plurality of heat radiating fins positioned parallel to an axis of the cylindrical housing.
Ecker teaches that it is a known method in the art of beverage coolers utilizing thermoelectric coolers (4) to provide a heat sink (6) having a slanted upper rim (see figure 3 where the upper rim of heat sink (6) is slanted with respect to a vertical axis), and the cylindrical housing comprises a plurality of heat radiating fins (6) positioned parallel to an axis of the cylindrical housing, see figure 3. This is strong evidence that modifying Armstrong as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., eliminate decanting and promote heat exchange between the temperature control elements and the environment). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Armstrong by Eskers such that, the heat sink having a slanted upper rim and the cylindrical housing comprises a plurality of heat radiating fins positioned parallel to an axis of the cylindrical housing, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of eliminating the need to decant and promote heat exchange between the temperature control elements and the environment.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0087812 to Armstrong and Ecker and in further view of US2018/0164034 to Banks, hereinafter referred to as Banks.
In reference to claim 2, Armstrong, Ecker, and Banks disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong as modified supra fails to disclose the lower portion of the housing includes a temperature display.
Banks teaches that in the art of beverage cooling systems, that it is a known method to provide a temperature display (66) in a lower portion of the cooling housing. This is strong evidence that modifying Armstrong as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., notify a consumer as to the temperature of their beverage). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Armstrong by Banks such that, the lower portion of the housing includes a temperature display, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of notifying a consumer as to the temperature of their beverage.
In reference to claim 5, Armstrong, Ecker, and Banks disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong discloses the apparatus further comprises a detector (25) arranged to detect a characteristic of a container placed in the receptacle but fails to disclose the apparatus selects the second temperature based on the characteristic. Banks teaches that in the art of beverage cooling systems that it is known to provide a detector (62) arranged to detect a characteristic of a container placed in the receptacle and the apparatus selects the second temperature based on the characteristic [0110-0113]. This is strong evidence that modifying Armstrong as claimed would produce predictable result (e.g. operating the cooling element if the temperature sensed is too warm). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Armstrong by Banks such that the apparatus selects the second temperature based on the characteristic, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of operating the cooling element if the sensed temperature is too high.
In reference to claim 7, Armstrong, Ecker, and Banks disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong discloses a temperature detector (25) arranged to detect a detected temperature of the container but fails to disclose an indicator adapted to provide an indication of the detected temperature. Banks teaches that in the art beverage cooling systems, that it is known to provide a temperature indicator (66) providing an indication of the detected temperature [0116]. This is strong evidence that modifying Armstrong as claimed would produce predictable result (e.g. notify a consumer as to the temperature of their beverage). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Armstrong by Banks such that the system include an indicator adapted to provide an indication of the detected temperature, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of notifying a consumer as to the temperature of the beverage.
In reference to claim 10, Armstrong, Ecker, and Banks disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong fails to disclose a sensor for sensing a temperature in the receptacle at a mid-level location. Banks teaches that in the art of beverage coolers, that it is a known method to provide a sensor (62/63, see figure 4A-4B) for sensing a temperature in the receptacle at a mid-level location. This is strong evidence that modifying Armstrong as claimed would produce predictable result (e.g. detect the level of liquid [0112]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Armstrong by Banks such that the cooling included a sensor for sensing a temperature in the receptacle at a mid-level location, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of detecting the level of liquid.
In reference to claim 16, Armstrong, Ecker, and Banks disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong fails to disclose a communication interface including a device for communicating data to or from the apparatus and an outside device. Banks teaches that in the art of beverage coolers, it is a known method to provide a communication interface (69) including a device (65) for communicating data to or from the apparatus and an outside device (70), see figure 1A. This is strong evidence that modifying Armstrong as claimed would produce predictable result (e.g. provide controls remotely from the device). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Armstrong by Banks such that the system included a communication interface including a device for communicating data to or from the apparatus and an outside device, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of remotely controlling the system.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0087812 to Armstrong and Ecker and in further view of US 2018/0240229 to Yuki et al., hereinafter referred to as Yuki.
In reference to claim 6, Armstrong, Ecker, and Yuki disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong fails to disclose a volume detector arranged to detect a detected volume of liquid in a container inserted into the cradle and an indicator adapted to provide an indication of the detected volume. Yuki teaches that in the art of beverage cooling, that it is known to provide the system with a volume detector (weight sensor used to obtain the volume within the bottle [0164]) arranged to detect a detected volume of liquid in a container inserted into the cradle and an indicator adapted to provide an indication of the detected volume [0164]. This is strong evidence that modifying Armstrong as claimed would produce predictable result (e.g. notify a user of the remaining amount of beverage). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Armstrong by Yuki such that the system included a volume detector arranged to detect a detected volume of liquid in a container inserted into the cradle and an indicator adapted to provide an indication of the detected volume, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of notifying a user of the remaining amount of beverage.
In reference to claim 9, Armstrong, Ecker, and Yuki disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong fails to disclose a touch sensitive sensor for imputing control data. Yuki teaches that in the art of beverage coolers, that it is a known method to provide the system with a touch sensitive sensor for imputing control data, see [0148] touch panel display implies a touch sensitive sensor. This is strong evidence that modifying Armstrong as claimed would produce predictable result (e.g. the display portion provides both display and input function). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Armstrong by Yuki such that the system includes a touch sensitive sensor for imputing control data, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of providing a display portion that also provides input.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0087812 to Armstrong and Ecker and in further view of KR2020-0006670 to Kim, hereinafter referred to as Kim, (see English language translation provided herewith).
In reference to claim 8, Armstrong, Ecker, and Kim disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong fails to disclose a communications module arranged to receive control data from an external device. However Kim teaches that in the art of beverage coolers, it is a known method to provide a communications module (160) arranged to receive control data from an external device (200). This is strong evidence that modifying Armstrong as claimed would produce predictable result (e.g. communication with cooler from a remote location). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Armstrong by Kim such that the cooler included a communications module arranged to receive control data from an external device, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of allowing remote communication with the cooler.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong and Ecker and in further view of US2020/0224964 to Alexander hereinafter referred to as Alexander ‘964.
In reference to claim 12, Armstrong, Ecker, and Alexander ‘964 disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong fails to disclose a sensor provided on the housing to measure at least one of ambient temperature, humidity, light intensity, wind speed, and atmospheric pressure. Alexander ‘964 discloses that it is a known method in the art of beverage coolers to provide a sensor provided on the housing to measure ambient temperature [0066]. This is strong evidence that modifying Armstrong as claimed would produce predictable result (e.g. provide alerts on ambient temperature effect on operation of the system). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Armstrong by Alexander ‘964 such that a sensor was provided on the housing to measure ambient temperature, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of alerting a user as to the ambient temperature effect on the operation of the system.
In reference to claim 13, Armstrong, Ecker, and Alexander ‘964 disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong fails to disclose a phase change material between the receptacle and the housing. Alexander ‘964 teaches that it is a known method in the art of beverage coolers to provide a phase change material (130) between a receptacle (126D’) and a housing (126B’), see figure 8 and [0060]. This is strong evidence that modifying Armstrong as claimed would produce predictable result (e.g. passively absorb and release energy). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Armstrong by Alexander ‘964 such that a phase change material was between the receptacle and the housing, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of passively absorbing and releasing energy.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong and Ecker and in further view of US2017/0314851 to Alexander, hereinafter referred to as Alexander ‘851.
In reference to claim 14, Armstrong, Ecker, and Alexander ‘851 disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong fails to disclose a tip tilt detection sensor arranged to detect tipping or tilting of the housing. However Alexander ‘851 teaches that in the art of beverage coolers, that it is a known method to provide a tip tilt detection sensor arranged to detect tipping or tilting of the housing [0044]. This is strong evidence that modifying Armstrong as claimed would produce predictable result (e.g. detect if the container has accidentally tipped over). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Armstrong by Alexander ‘851 such that the system included a tip tilt detection sensor arranged to detect tipping or tilting of the housing, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of detecting if the container had been accidentally tipped over.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong and Ecker and in further view of US2012/0093650 to Huber et al., hereinafter referred to as Huber.
In reference to claim 15, Armstrong, Ecker, and Huber disclose the claimed invention.
Armstrong fails to disclose a gyroscopic stabilizer mechanically coupled to the housing and positioned to cause the housing to tend to remain upright. However, Huber teaches that in the art of fans, that it is known to balance a fan using weights (18). Note that in [0026] of Applicant’s originally filed specification, Applicant notes that weight distribution of the fan blades may be adapted to provide some degree of gyroscopic stabilization. As such, a balanced fan such as that disclosed by Huber is considered to meet the limitations of the claim of being a gyroscopic stabilizer. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Armstrong by Huber such that the fan was balanced (which is considered to be analogous to an example disclosed by Applicant for being a gyroscopic stabilizer mechanically coupled to the housing and positioned to cause the housing to tend to remain upright, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of balancing the fan to prevent vibrating the apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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 at 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 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights