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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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. air-moving device in at least claim 4.
b. fluid-heating device in at least claim 7.
c. refrigerant actuator in at least claim 8.
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.
Air-moving device is interpreted to cover at least one of a fan or an air blower as per para [0029] of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
Fluid-heating device is interpreted to cover a shelf heater tank per Fig. 4 of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
Refrigerant actuator is interpreted to cover a valve as per para [0054] 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 § 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 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 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rutishauser (US 3115019 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Rutishauser discloses a temperature-controlled foodservice unit (Fig. 1), comprising:
a body including a frame and defining a chamber (see Fig. 1); and
a plurality of temperature-controlled systems operatively coupled with the frame and configured for transferring heat with respect to a food product #24 positioned within the chamber, the plurality of temperature-controlled systems including:
a temperature-controlled shelf system including at least one shelf #26 and at least one fluid passageway #18, the at least one shelf being positioned within the chamber, the at least one fluid passageway being associated with the at least one shelf and configured for carrying a fluid therein so as to transfer heat by thermal conduction and thermal radiation with respect to the food product positioned on the at least one shelf (see airflow diagram of Fig. 1 and corresponding description thereof); and
a temperature-controlled air system #2 configured for moving air through the chamber so as to transfer heat by thermal convection with respect to the food product positioned on the at least one shelf and for supplying air to the chamber from opposing directions (see airflow diagram of Fig. 1 and corresponding description thereof).
Regarding claim 2:
Rutishauser further discloses wherein the temperature-controlled air system includes a first air supply plenum (see Fig. 1 of Rutishauser Reproduced and Annotated below), a second air supply plenum (see Fig. 1 below), and an air return plenum #30, the first air supply plenum including a first wall with a first plurality of holes #22, the second air supply plenum including a second wall with a second plurality of holes (see Fig. 1), the air return plenum including a third wall with a third plurality of holes (see Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
742
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Rutishauser Reproduced and Annotated
Regarding claim 3:
Rutishauser further discloses wherein the first wall is a first side wall, the second wall is a second side wall opposing the first side wall (see Fig. 1 above), and the third wall is a rear wall (the third wall is a rear wall at least with respect to the positioning of articles #24 in the unit).
Regarding claim 4:
Rutishauser further discloses wherein the temperature-controlled air system includes an air-moving device #16 configured for moving the air within the temperature-controlled air system and thereby for increasing or decreasing a velocity of the air (see Fig. 1 above), the air-moving device being configured for receiving the air from the third plurality of holes and for moving the air to the first plurality of holes and the second plurality of holes (see airflow diagram of Fig. 1 and corresponding description thereof).
Regarding claim 5:
Rutishauser further discloses a first heat exchanger #14 configured for conditioning the air before the air enters the chamber by way of the first plurality of holes and the second plurality of holes (see airflow diagram of Fig. 1 and corresponding description thereof; including airflow across evaporators #14).
Regarding claim 6:
Rutishauser further discloses wherein the temperature-controlled shelf system is configured such that the fluid carried therein flows through the first heat exchanger before the fluid enters the chamber such that the fluid and the air transfer heat by way of the first heat exchanger (see airflow diagram of Fig. 1 and corresponding description thereof).
Regarding claims 9-14:
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method of claims 9-14, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus of claims 1-6. See MPEP 2112.02. Refer to the rejection of claims 1-6 above for the rejection of claims 9-14.
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) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutishauser (US 3115019 A) in view of Swofford (US 20100212343 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Rutishauser further discloses a refrigerant system configured for circulating a refrigerant therein, and the temperature-controlled foodservice unit is configured for using the refrigerant to cool the fluid of the temperature-controlled shelf system and thereby also the air of the temperature-controlled air system. (see Fig. 1 and associated description thereof).
Rutishauser does not disclose wherein the temperature-controlled shelf system includes a fluid-heating device configured for heating the fluid and a second heat exchanger configured for cooling the fluid by way of the refrigerant.
In the same field of endeavor, Swofford teaches a temperature-controlled foodservice unit (Fig. 1) provided with a temperature-controlled shelf system #30 that includes a fluid-heating device #24 configured for heating a fluid (from #22; [0022]) and a second heat exchanger #42 configured for cooling the fluid by way of a refrigerant ([0020] & [0025]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Rutishauser with the claimed arrangement as taught by Swofford.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have minimized humidity within the storage space so as to prevent frost formation on the shelves as suggested by Swofford (abstract & para [0002]).
Regarding claim 14:
Refer to the rejection of claim 7 above (MPEP 2112.02).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art of record to incorporate a control system operatively coupled with the temperature-controlled shelf system and the temperature-controlled air system, the control system including a first sensor configured for (i) sensing an air temperature of the air in the temperature-controlled air system, (ii) outputting an air temperature signal corresponding to the air temperature that is sensed; a controller configured for (i) receiving the air temperature signal, (ii) determining, based at least in part on the air temperature signal, an air temperature adjustment, (iii) outputting, based at least in part on the air temperature adjustment, an air temperature adjustment signal to at least one of the air-moving device and a refrigerant actuator; a second sensor configured for (i) sensing a fluid temperature of the fluid in the temperature-controlled shelf system, (ii) outputting a fluid temperature signal corresponding to the fluid temperature that is sensed; wherein the controller is further configured for (i) receiving the fluid temperature signal, (ii) determining, based at least in part on the fluid temperature signal, a fluid temperature adjustment, (iii) outputting, based at least in part on the fluid temperature adjustment, a fluid temperature adjustment signal to at least one of the fluid-heating device and the refrigerant actuator; and the associated method thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nomura (US 7137438 B2), Greiner (US 11903499 B2), Berents (US 11045018 B2), Barroero (US 3584467 A), Weber (US 3168818 A), and Kleist (US 2405834 A).
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
Prosecution Insights