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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the battery is configured to be cooled by a fan”, and the “capillary tube” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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: power transfer unit/inductive power transfer unit (i.e. “unit” [generic placeholder] for “power transfer” [functional language]) in claims 1-15.
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. Please see below.
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 1-15 are 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 limitation “power transfer unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 8 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 8 recites the limitation “wherein a freezer compartment is proved at the top”. It is unclear how a freezer compartment may be “proved”. Did Applicant intend “provided”?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Hearne (US 5,069,273).
Regarding claim 1, O’Hearne shows an aircraft cabin trolley (see at least server #20: capable of intended use as “aircraft cabin trolley”), comprising:
a body with a top, a bottom, a front and a rear (inherent to cabinet #22 as shown), wherein a door for accessing the inside of the trolley is provided at the front, which is an operator side of the trolley (see at least door #46/#90);
an electrical cooling unit (see at least cooling unit #30#34), including a compressor, an evaporator and a condenser, configured to actively cool the inside of the trolley (see at least column 3, lines 1-19); and
a power transfer unit configured to transfer electrical power from a power source outside the trolley to the cooling unit (see at least Figure 8; see also plug Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, O’Hearne further shows wherein the electrical cooling unit is arranged at the top (see at least Figure 2, cooling unit #30/#34 is/are located at the top of server #20).
Regarding claim 8, O’Hearne further shows wherein a freezer compartment is proved at the top, inside the trolley (see at least compartment #24 and/or #26; column 6, lines 16-22: Examiner notes that either compartment #24 or #26 may be considered to meet freezer compartment since both are situated at the top of the inside of the server and since Applicant has not provided a temperature range for “freezer compartment”; further, O’Hearne is deemed capable of meeting “freezer compartment” in view that the structure(s) disclosed correspond to those claimed, and the temperatures listed by O’Hearne are merely exemplary).
Regarding claim 12, O’Hearne further shows comprising a human machine interface configured to perform any combination of the following functions:
switching on/off the cooling unit;
selecting a target temperature of an inside of the trolley;
showing an actual temperature of an inside of the trolley; or
showing a temperature curve of a temperature of an inside of the trolley over a certain time (see at least column 6, lines 8-40: one or more of the above functions are performable by the control depicted in Figure 8 and upper right hand corner of Figures 2 and 5).
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.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hearne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schalla et al. (US 2011/0277489).
Regarding claims 2-3, O’Hearne does not disclose wherein the power transfer unit is an inductive power transfer unit; further comprising a battery configured to be charged via the power transfer unit only when a desired cooling state of the trolley is obtained.
Schalla et al. teaches another trolley wherein the power transfer unit is an inductive power transfer unit (see at least paragraphs [0046]-[0047]; [0130]-[0131]); further comprising a battery configured to be charged via the power transfer unit only when a desired cooling state of the trolley is obtained (see at least paragraphs [0046]-[0047]; [0130]-[0131]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the trolley of O’Hearne with wherein the power transfer unit is an inductive power transfer unit; further comprising a battery configured to be charged via the power transfer unit only when a desired cooling state of the trolley is obtained, as taught by Schalla et al., to improve the trolley of O’Hearne by allowing for operation while the trolley is in motion and direct powering without the need to connect cables. To the extent that Applicant may consider that the teaching of Schalla et al. does not meet only when a desired cooling state of the trolley is obtained, a point Examiner does not concede, Examiner reminds Applicant that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hearne in view of Schalla et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Iwatsuki et al. (US 5,558,949).
Regarding claim 4, O’Hearne in view of Schalla et al. is silent regarding wherein the battery is configured to be cooled by a fan.
It was, however, old and well-known in the art to provide wherein the battery is configured to be cooled by a fan, as evidenced by Iwatsuki et al. (see at least column 3, lines 1-3).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the trolley of O’Hearne in view of Schalla et al. with wherein the battery is configured to be cooled by a fan, since, as evidenced by Iwatsuki et al, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of ensuring the battery does not overheat.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hearne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claim 5, O’Hearne does not disclose wherein the condenser and the evaporator are directly connected to each other by means of a capillary tube, instead teaching expansion valve (see at least column 3, lines 1-19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute capillary tube for expansion valve since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of capillary tube and expansion valve for their use in the vapor-compression refrigeration art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to provide for the expansion of the refrigerant would be with.in the level of ordinary skill in the art: such substitution would provide the predicable benefit of simplifying the mechanism through use of a fixed body (capillary tube) rather than a variable body (expansion valve).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hearne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (US 8,171,749: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 6, O’Hearne further discloses further comprising:
a handle for an operator to move the trolley (see at least Figure 2, handle on left side);
O’Hearne is silent regarding wherein the electrical cooling unit is configured to create an airflow of air heated by the condenser during operation that is directed towards the handle of the trolley, that is directed along the bottom and beyond the front or is both directed towards the handle of the trolley and directed along the bottom and beyond the front.
However, it is noted that there are only a finite number of options available to one having ordinary skill in the art for providing airflow to/from a cooling unit. In this regard, it is noted that Lu et al. teaches wherein the electrical cooling unit (for a trolley) is configured to create an airflow of air heated by the condenser during operation that is directed towards the handle of the trolley, that is directed along the bottom and beyond the front or is both directed towards the handle of the trolley and directed along the bottom and beyond the front (see at least airflow from fan #30 which is along the bottom and beyond the front).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of O’Hearne with wherein the electrical cooling unit is configured to create an airflow of air heated by the condenser during operation that is directed towards the handle of the trolley, that is directed along the bottom and beyond the front or is both directed towards the handle of the trolley and directed along the bottom and beyond the front, since, as taught by Lu et al, such is a suitable and known provision for providing airflow to/from a cooling unit of a trolley (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the predictable benefit of dissipating waste heat outside of the trolley.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hearne (US 5,069,273).
O’Hearne discloses all the elements of claim 1, upon which claims 9-10 depend. See rejection(s) above.
Regarding claims 9-10, O’Hearne does not disclose wherein the electrical cooling unit is arranged at the bottom; wherein the electrical cooling unit is arranged at the door; instead teaching at the top (see rejection of claim 7, above).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the electrical cooling unit is arranged at the bottom; wherein the electrical cooling unit is arranged at the door would result in a difference in function of the O’Hearne device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of O’Hearne, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed positioning. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed alignment solves any stated problem, indicating that the electrical cooling unit is arranged at the top, at the bottom, or at the door (see paragraphs [0016]; [0018]; [0019]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the positioning as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of O’Hearne with a wherein the electrical cooling unit is arranged at the bottom; wherein the electrical cooling unit is arranged at the door as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Claim(s) 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hearne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schalla et al. (US 2011/0277489) and, alternatively, further in view of Dodd (US 4,397,159).
Regarding claim 11, O’Hearne discloses the aircraft cabin trolley of according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above).
O’Hearne does not disclose an aircraft galley arrangement, wherein the power transfer unit is configured to dock with a galley power transfer unit on a galley wall.
Schalla et al. teaches an aircraft cabin trolley (see at least #10), an aircraft galley arrangement, wherein the power transfer unit is configured to dock with a galley power transfer unit on a galley wall (see at least paragraphs [0046]-[0047]; [0130]-[0131]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the trolley of O’Hearne with an aircraft galley arrangement, wherein the power transfer unit is configured to dock with a galley power transfer unit on a galley wall, as taught by Schalla et al., to improve the trolley of O’Hearne by providing with charging and storage infrastructure for the trolley.
To the extent that Applicant may argue that the trolley of O’Hearne is not suitable for use in an aircraft, a point that Examiner does not concede, Examiner notes that the intended use in a hospital (as disclosed by O’Hearne) and in an aircraft are considered art recognized alternatives, as evidenced by Dodd (see at least column 1, lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 13, O’Hearne in view of Schalla et al. further discloses comprising a human machine interface configured to perform any combination of the following functions:
switching on/off the cooling unit;
selecting a target temperature of an inside of the trolley;
showing an actual temperature of an inside of the trolley; or
showing a temperature curve of a temperature of an inside of the trolley over a certain time (see at least O’Hearne column 6, lines 8-40: one or more of the above functions are performable by the control depicted in Figure 8 and upper right hand corner of Figures 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, O’Hearne discloses the aircraft cabin trolley of according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above).
O’Hearne does not disclose an aircraft.
Schalla et al. teaches an aircraft cabin trolley (see at least #10) in an aircraft (see at least aircraft #200).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the trolley of O’Hearne with an aircraft, as taught by Schalla et al., to improve the trolley of O’Hearne by providing with charging and storage infrastructure for the trolley.
To the extent that Applicant may argue that the trolley of O’Hearne is not suitable for use in an aircraft, a point that Examiner does not concede, Examiner notes that the intended use in a hospital (as disclosed by O’Hearne) and in an aircraft are considered art recognized alternatives, as evidenced by Dodd (see at least column 1, lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 15, O’Hearne in view of Schalla et al. further discloses an aircraft (see at least Schalla et al. aircraft #200) with the aircraft galley arrangement in an aircraft galley according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11, above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights