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.
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: heat exchanging element (i.e. element [generic placeholder] for heat exchanger [functional language]) in claims 2-4.
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. In the case of heat exchanging element, heat pipe is found to be the corresponding structure(s) in the disclosure. Examiner notes that heat exchanger and heater are also considered equivalent structure(s).
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.
Claim 5 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 5 recites the limitation “wherein multiple heat exchanging elements are provided as heat pipes”. It is unclear if these are the same or different from the at least one heat exchanging element of the preceding claim(s). It is believed Applicant intended to link the multiple heat exchanging elements back to the at least one heat exchanging element.
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, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 20050057974: cited with English Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kim shows a tank configured to hold water (see at least Figures 3-7), comprising:
a dry ice compartment arranged inside the tank to be brought in contact with water to be cooled inside the tank (see at least space between walls #40 and #30 and space containing #D), wherein the compartment is provided with a hole for discharging evaporated gas from the compartment into a space that is closer to a top wall of the tank than a bottom wall of the tank (see at least gap with #S emanating therefrom), wherein a side wall of the tank connects the top and the bottom walls of the tank (see at least side wall #50), and extends above a full water volume within the tank (see at least side wall #50 which extends above the beverage containing space #31); and
a water outlet extending from the bottom wall of the tank (see at least beverage outlet #72).
Regarding claim 6, Kim further shows wherein the dry ice compartment is arranged at a center of the tank (see at least Figure 6, see portion of compartment containing #D arranged at a center of the tank beneath the base of beverage containing space #31), and wherein the water outlet extends from the bottom wall of the tank at a location closer to the dry ice compartment than to the side wall of the tank (see at least Figure 6, the origin of the outlet passage #72 is centrally located just above #D at the base of beverage containing space #31).
Regarding claim 10, Kim further shows wherein the dry ice compartment comprises an insulation that is configured to prevent the water volume from freezing to such an extent that passage to, through or both to and through the water outlet is blocked (see at least Figure 6, insulation between the outlet passage #72 and the dry ice compartment with #D to prevent freezing is inherent to the tank of Kim to allow for operation of the outlet).
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, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rowe et al. (US 2020/0378676).
Regarding claim 2, Kim does not disclose wherein said tank further comprises at least one heat exchanging element thermally contacting the dry ice compartment and extending into the water volume to be cooled.
Rowe et al. teaches another tank, wherein said tank further comprises at least one heat exchanging element thermally contacting the dry ice compartment and extending into the water volume to be cooled (see at least heat pipes #8 contacting dry ice in coolant chamber #140 and extending into the load chamber #150).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the tank of Kim with wherein said tank further comprises at least one heat exchanging element thermally contacting the dry ice compartment and extending into the water volume to be cooled, as taught by Rowe et al., to improve the tank of Kim by allowing for customizable heat transfer to the cooling chamber (see at least Rowe et al. paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified by Rowe et al. further discloses wherein the at least one heat exchanging element comprises a major portion extending in parallel to the side wall of the tank (see at least heat pipes #9 having major dimension parallel to the side wall(s) of the tank).
Regarding claim 5, Kim as modified by Rowe et al. further discloses wherein multiple heat exchanging elements are provided as heat pipes, which comprise a minor portion extending orthogonally from a bottom portion of the dry ice compartment (see at least Rowe et al. heat pipes #8 with minor dimension perpendicular to coolant chamber #140).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Rowe et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Brown (US 3,593,888).
Kim in view of Rowe et al. does not disclose wherein said major portion of the at least one heat exchanging element is closer to the side wall of the tank than to the dry ice compartment.
Brown teaches another tank (see at least tank #10) wherein the major dimension portion of at least one heat exchanging element (see at least heating element #23) is closer to the side wall of the tank than to the dry ice compartment (see at least Figure 2, heating element #23 is closer to the side wall(s) of the tanks #14/#15/#16 than to the dry ice compartment opposite insulated walls #18/#19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the tank of Kim in view of Rowe et al. with wherein said major portion of the at least one heat exchanging element is closer to the side wall of the tank than to the dry ice compartment, as taught by Brown, to improve the tank of Kim in view of Rowe et al. by allowing for increased heat transfer to the substance being conditioned.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Audet et al. (US 4,191,028).
Regarding claim 7, Kim does not disclose wherein said tank is equipped with a pump configured to pump water from the tank.
Audet et al. teaches another tank with dry ice compartment wherein said tank is equipped with a pump configured to pump water from the tank (see at least pump #32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the tank of Kim with wherein said tank is equipped with a pump configured to pump water from the tank, as taught by Audet et al., to improve the tank of Kim by allowing for removal of water within the tank without reliance on gravity.
Regarding claim 8, Kim is silent regarding wherein said tank further comprises a pressure control and ventilation valve configured to control a pressure inside the tank.
Audet et al. teaches another tank with dry ice compartment wherein said tank further comprises a pressure control and ventilation valve configured to control a pressure inside the tank (see at least safety valve #26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the tank of Kim with wherein said tank further comprises a pressure control and ventilation valve configured to control a pressure inside the tank, as taught by Audet et al., to improve the tank of Kim by relieving the pressure within the tank in the case of over pressure condition and failure of the set valve (see at least Audet et al. column 4, lines 54-56).
Regarding claim 9, Kim is silent regarding wherein said tank further comprises a manual valve configured to be opened to equalize a pressure within the tank.
Audet et al. teaches another tank with dry ice compartment wherein said tank further comprise a manual valve configured to be opened to equalize a pressure within the tank (see at least valve #25; column 4, lines 52-54: the valve is set, thus must have at least some manual component).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the tank of Kim et al. with wherein said tank further comprises a manual valve configured to be opened to equalize a pressure within the tank, as taught by Audet et al., to improve the tank of Kim by allowing for sufficient pressure to maintained in the tank to allow for desired operation (see at least Audet et al. column 4, lines 1-3).
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perez (US 2018/0266895).
Regarding claims 11-16, Kim discloses the tank according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above).
Kim does not disclose an aircraft cabin trolley including the tank according to claim 1; an aircraft galley including the tank according to claim 1; an aircraft galley including the aircraft cabin trolley according to claim 11; an aircraft including the tank according to claim 1; an aircraft including the aircraft cabin trolley according to claim 11; and/or an aircraft including the aircraft galley according to claim 13.
Perez teaches another tank including dry ice compartment (see at least paragraphs [0022]; [0024]) and teaches an aircraft cabin trolley including the tank; an aircraft galley including the tank; an aircraft galley including the aircraft cabin trolley; an aircraft including the tank; an aircraft including the aircraft cabin trolley; and/or an aircraft including the aircraft galley (see at least paragraphs [0006]; [0022]; [0024]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an aircraft cabin trolley including the tank according to claim 1; an aircraft galley including the tank according to claim 1; an aircraft galley including the aircraft cabin trolley according to claim 11; an aircraft including the tank according to claim 1; an aircraft including the aircraft cabin trolley according to claim 11; and/or an aircraft including the aircraft galley according to claim 13, since Perez teaches the aircraft, galley, trolley, and use of a similar tank in such an environment, and Kim discloses the tank of claim 1. Such provision would provide the predictable benefit of providing for storage and/or transportation for the tank of Kim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure.
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