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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/004,403 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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 “thermoelectric cooling system”, “vacuum sealing system”, “vacuum system”, and “semiconductors” 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 1-2: “food or beverage product” should read “food product or beverage product”
Claim 4, line 1: “food or beverage product” should read “food product or beverage product”
Claim 4, line 2: “food or beverage product” should read “food product or beverage product”
Claim 9, line 2: “to interior” should read “to the interior”
Claim 2 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 2.
Claim 5 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 4.
Claim 6 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 7 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 8 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
Claim 9 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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:
Claim 3, line 1 recites, “vacuum sealing system” which does not correspond to any structure in the specification to define the components of the vacuum sealing system. See 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
Claim 4, line 3 recites, “vacuum system” which does not correspond to any structure in the specification to define the components of the vacuum system. See 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
Claim 6, line 1 recites, “vacuum system” which does not correspond to any structure in the specification to define the components of the vacuum system. See 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
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.
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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3, line 1 recites “vacuum sealing system” which is interpreted herein under 35 U.S.C 112(f), however the present disclosure does not describe any structure to define the components of the vacuum sealing system. The closet support is “The vacuum system is used to actively remove moisture from the air by lowering the pressure, thus maintaining a reduced humidity level inside the cooler compartment while also reducing the bacteria which may be airborne inside the compartment and cause harm to food or beverages (Paragraph 11)”, however, this is a further recitation of the function of the vacuum sealing system rather than its components.
Claim 4, line 3 recites “vacuum system” which is interpreted herein under 35 U.S.C 112(f), however the present disclosure does not describe any structure to define the components of the vacuum system. The closet support is “The vacuum system is used to actively remove moisture from the air by lowering the pressure, thus maintaining a reduced humidity level inside the cooler compartment while also reducing the bacteria which may be airborne inside the compartment and cause harm to food or beverages (Paragraph 11)”, however, this is a further recitation of the function of the vacuum system rather than its components. Further, claim 4 recites, “vacuum system to lower the pressure and humidity to maintain a lower relative humidity and vacuum seal for freshness” but does not provide any written description as to how the use of the vacuum system would maintain a lower relative humidity as vacuuming air, which includes moisture, from the container would remove air and moisture uniformly, meaning the relative moisture in the remaining air does not change from air removal alone. No further structure or control method is defined in the specification to describe how a lower relative humidity would be maintained by the vacuum system (i.e., desiccant or heating).
Claim 6, line 1 recites “vacuum system” which is interpreted herein under 35 U.S.C 112(f), however the present disclosure does not describe any structure to define the components of the vacuum system. The closet support is “The vacuum system is used to actively remove moisture from the air by lowering the pressure, thus maintaining a reduced humidity level inside the cooler compartment while also reducing the bacteria which may be airborne inside the compartment and cause harm to food or beverages (Paragraph 11)”, however, this is a further recitation of the function of the vacuum system rather than its components.
Claim 5 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 4.
Claim 6 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 7 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 8 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
Claim 9 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3-9 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 “vacuum sealing system” 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. No corresponding structure is provided in the present disclosure to define the components of the vacuum sealing system. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the vacuum sealing system to include a vacuum pump or equivalent thereof. 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 4 recites the limitation "said cooler" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “said cooler” in line 3 to “said miniature cooler” which is given sufficient antecedent basis in line 2 of claim 4. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret said cooler and the miniature cooler to be the same components.
Claim limitation “vacuum system” 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. No corresponding structure is provided in the present disclosure to define the components of the vacuum sealing system. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the vacuum sealing system to include a vacuum pump or equivalent thereof. 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 4 recites the limitation "the pressure and humidity" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the pressure and humidity” in line 3 to “a pressure and a humidity”.
Claim 4, lines 3-4 recite, “a vacuum system to lower the pressure and humidity to maintain a lower relative humidity and vacuum seal for freshness” which is unclear to the Examiner as to what the relative humidity is lower in comparison to (i.e., a relative humidity of the same space before vacuum sealing, a relative humidity of the ambient space outside of the miniature cooler, etc.). Further, vacuum sealing alone does not lower the relative humidity as vacuuming air, which includes moisture, from the container would remove air and moisture uniformly, meaning the relative moisture in the remaining air does not change much, if at all, from air removal alone. No further structure or control method is defined in the specification to describe how a lower relative humidity would be maintained by the vacuum system (i.e., desiccant or heating). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the recitation, “a vacuum system to lower the pressure and humidity to maintain a lower relative humidity and vacuum seal for freshness” to simply require a vacuum pump capable of removing the air containing moisture from the container creating a vacuum seal.
Claim limitation “vacuum system” 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. No corresponding structure is provided in the present disclosure to define the components of the vacuum sealing system. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the vacuum sealing system to include a vacuum pump or equivalent thereof. 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 6, line 1 recites, “a vacuum system” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the vacuum system of claim 6 relates to the previously claimed vacuum system of claim 4 from which claim 6 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the vacuum systems of claims 4 and 6 to be the same components.
Claim 7, line 1 recites, “semiconductors” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the semiconductors of claim 7 relates to the previously claimed thermoelectric cooling system of claim 5 from which claim 7 depends as the Peltier effect achieved by thermoelectric cooling systems is done by the use of semiconductors. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the semiconductors of claim 7 to be a part of the thermoelectric cooling system. The Examiner recommends amendments to clarify the relationship between the thermoelectric cooling system and the semiconductors.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said interior" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “said interior” in cline 1 to “an interior”.
Claim 5 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 4.
Claim 6 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 7 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 8 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
Claim 9 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 8.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Torre (EP 2 950 023), hereinafter Torre.
Regarding claims 1-3, Torre discloses a miniature cooler sized to contain at least one portion of a food or beverage product within a container on a counter-top (Fig. 1, portable container 1; Pg. 2. paragraph 9-10, With reference to Figure 1, a preferred embodiment of the portable container of the present invention is shown and described. It will be immediately obvious that numerous variations and modifications (for example related to shape, sizes, arrangements and part with equivalent functionality) could be made to what is described, without departing from the scope of the invention as appears from the enclosed claims… the portable container 1 for foodstuff with refrigeration and partial vacuum functionalities; Pg. 2, paragraph 19, With this arrangement, the main specifications of the inventive container 1 are as follows:… having small sizes (preferably 400 x 300 x 400 mm));
having a thermoelectric cooling system (Fig. 1, device 7, Peltier cells 8; Pg. 2, paragraph 10, at least one device 7 for cooling the base 5, placed inside the container 1; Pg. 2, paragraph 12, the device 7 for cooling the base 5 can be composed of at least one Peltier cell 8 with related dissipating devices, probes and venting elements 9; Pg. 2, paragraph 17, The machine interior has therefore been divided into four identical sectors, each one completed with a Peltier cell 7, a dissipating device and the related fan for increasing the dissipation efficiency);
having a vacuum sealing system (Fig. 1, device 6; Pg. 2, paragraph 10-11, at least one device 6 for creating vacuum inside the container 1 and placed inside it… In particular, the device 6 for creating vacuum can be composed of at least one pump with relative solenoid valves (not shown); Pg. 2, paragraph 19, With this arrangement, the main specifications of the inventive container 1 are as follows:…creating vacuum with a residual pressure of 200 mBar; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claims 4-7, Torre discloses a method of storing a food or beverage product while maintaining freshness and a desired level of softness by storing said food or beverage product in a miniature cooler, said cooler further comprising a vacuum system to lower the pressure and humidity to maintain a lower relative humidity and vacumn seal for freshness (Fig. 1, portable container 1, device 6; Pg. 2. paragraph 9-10, With reference to Figure 1, a preferred embodiment of the portable container of the present invention is shown and described. It will be immediately obvious that numerous variations and modifications (for example related to shape, sizes, arrangements and part with equivalent functionality) could be made to what is described, without departing from the scope of the invention as appears from the enclosed claims… the portable container 1 for foodstuff with refrigeration and partial vacuum functionalities… at least one device 6 for creating vacuum inside the container 1 and placed inside it… In particular, the device 6 for creating vacuum can be composed of at least one pump with relative solenoid valves (not shown); Pg. 2, paragraph 11, In particular, the device 6 for creating vacuum can be composed of at least one pump with relative solenoid valves (not shown); Pg. 2, paragraph 12, the device 7 for cooling the base 5 can be composed of at least one Peltier cell 8 with related dissipating devices, probes and venting elements 9; Pg. 2, paragraph 19, With this arrangement, the main specifications of the inventive container 1 are as follows:… having small sizes (preferably 400 x 300 x 400 mm); Pg. 3, paragraph 22-24, After having closed the cover 3 of the container 1, by pressing a start-up pushbutton 18, the pump 6 starts removing air present inside the container, in order to reach a residual pressure of about 200 m Bar. After having reached such value {detected by the pressure sensor), the pump 6 stops and refrigeration starts. The cells 8 start cooling the plate 16 and this latter one, due to conduction, lowers the temperature inside the container 1. After having reached the desired temperature (about 5 °C), detected through a suitable sensor (not shown), the container 1 enters in a wait or stand-by state. Should temperature and/or pressure fall below the desired values, the cells 8 and/or the pump 6 will be re-activated; Pg. 3, paragraph 27, The advantages offered by the inventive container thereby are: slowing down the proliferation of aerobic micro-organisms; reduced oxidations; keeping freshness and protection from external bad odours; preventing the contamination of odours and tastes between foodstuff inside it, due to lack of air, which would be a vehicle for odours; and the combination of vacuum and refrigeration allows a longer storage time for foodstuff, two or three times greater than storage in a common refrigerator; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above);
wherein said miniature cooler has a thermoelectric cooling system (Fig. 1, device 7, Peltier cells 8; Pg. 2, paragraph 10, at least one device 7 for cooling the base 5, placed inside the container 1; Pg. 2, paragraph 12, the device 7 for cooling the base 5 can be composed of at least one Peltier cell 8 with related dissipating devices, probes and venting elements 9; Pg. 2, paragraph 17, The machine interior has therefore been divided into four identical sectors, each one completed with a Peltier cell 7, a dissipating device and the related fan for increasing the dissipation efficiency);
wherein said miniature cooler has a vacuum system (Fig. 1, device 6; Pg. 2, paragraph 10-11, at least one device 6 for creating vacuum inside the container 1 and placed inside it… In particular, the device 6 for creating vacuum can be composed of at least one pump with relative solenoid valves (not shown); Pg. 2, paragraph 19, With this arrangement, the main specifications of the inventive container 1 are as follows:…creating vacuum with a residual pressure of 200 mBar; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above);
wherein said miniature cooler has semiconductors (Fig. 1, device 7, Peltier cells 8; Pg. 2, paragraph 10, at least one device 7 for cooling the base 5, placed inside the container 1; Pg. 2, paragraph 12, the device 7 for cooling the base 5 can be composed of at least one Peltier cell 8 with related dissipating devices, probes and venting elements 9; Pg. 2, paragraph 17, The machine interior has therefore been divided into four identical sectors, each one completed with a Peltier cell 7, a dissipating device and the related fan for increasing the dissipation efficiency; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
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.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torre (EP 2 950 023), hereinafter Torre in view of Pidarow (US Patent No. 8,823,690), hereinafter Pidarow.
Regarding claim 8, Torre discloses the method of claim 7 (see the rejection of claim 7 above), wherein portions of said interior that have contact with food can be cleaned (Pg. 2, paragraph 19, showing an hygienic and easy-to-clean surface for foodstuff to be stored).
However, Torre does not explicitly disclose wherein portions of said interior that have contact with food can be removed for washing in a dishwasher.
Pidarow teaches wherein portions of said interior that have contact with food can be removed for washing in a dishwasher (Fig. 1A, tray 100; Col. 3, lines 41-46, The tray 100 may be made of any material that provides sufficient insulation properties. Non-limiting examples of suitable materials include plastic, ceramic, stoneware, glass, stainless steel, wood, and fiberglass. It may be preferable, in some applications, to select materials that are more easily cleaned and/or dishwasher safe).
Torre fails to teach wherein portions of said interior that have contact with food can be removed for washing in a dishwasher, however Pidarow teaches that it is a known method in the art of food and beverage product coolers to include wherein portions of said interior that have contact with food can be removed for washing in a dishwasher. This is strong evidence that modifying Torre as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing quick and easy cleaning of system components to improve overall user friendliness). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torre by Pidarow and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing quick and easy cleaning of system components to improve overall user friendliness.
Regarding claim 9, Torre as modified discloses the method of claim 8 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 8 above), wherein said miniature cooler has a removable lid for access to interior and maintaining a seal when replaced (Torre, Fig. 1, removable cover 3; Pg. 3, paragraph 22, After having closed the cover 3 of the container 1, by pressing a start-up pushbutton 18, the pump 6 starts removing air present inside the container, in order to reach a residual pressure of about 200 m Bar. After having reached such value {detected by the pressure sensor), the pump 6 stops and refrigeration starts; Pg. 3, paragraph 25, In order to lift the cover 3 after the container 1 has been actuated, it will be necessary to allow air to enter inside and thereby removing vacuum: in order to do this, another dedicated pushbutton 18 will be provided; Further, the teachings of Torre at least imply the lid must be removed for access to the interior and must be in place for vacuum sealing since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oohira et al. (WO 2018092477) discloses a similar cooler with thermoelectric cooling and vacuum sealing.
Sargent (US Patent No. 5,611,206) discloses a similar miniature cooler sized to contain at least one portion of a food or beverage product within a container on a counter-top.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 August 03rd, 2026
Prosecution Insights