DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 3-4, recites “a cold pack”. However, it is unclear if this is the same “cold pack” from line 1. For purposes of examination “a cold pack” will be considered - - the cold pack - - .
Claim 10 recites “freezing the cold pack on one of its major faces”. It is unclear what “its” is referring to. For purposes of examination “freezing the cold pack on one of its major faces” will be considered - - freezing the cold pack on a major face of the cold pack - - .
Claim 13 recites “the top surface”. It is unclear what “top surface” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for a “top surface”. For purposes of examination “the top surface” will be considered - - a top surface - - .
Claim(s) 2-9 and 11-13 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brobeck (US 20170071784).
Per claim 1, Brobeck a system for freezing a cold pack comprising:
a plate (205) containing a low-temperature refrigerant; and
a mechanical refrigeration system (system motivated via 101),
wherein the system is configured to receive a cold pack (208) on top of the plate (205) and freeze the cold pack with a uni-directional freeze gradient (the cooling plate is from below only and thus the freeze gradient will go from the plate to the product in one (uni) direction).
Per claim 4, Brobeck meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Brobeck teaches wherein the plate (205) is made from copper (para. 0021).
Per claim 10, Brobeck teaches a method for freezing a cold pack (208), the method comprising: placing a cold pack upon a plate (205), wherein the plate contains a low-temperature refrigerant (inherent to system motivated by 101); and freezing the cold pack on a major face of the cold pack (face of 208 in contact with 205) with a freeze gradient emanating upward (see figure 6).
Per claim 13, Brobeck meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Brobeck teaches wherein the plate is oriented horizontally (see figure 6), and the cold pack (208) is resting on a top surface (uppermost surface of 205 shown in figure 6) of the plate (205) under gravity loads (see figure 6).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salyer (US 5254380).
Per claim 14, Slayer teaches a method for keeping an item (user of 100/material adjacent 100) at a desired temperature, the method comprising: placing a cold pack (100) adjacent to the item (see figure 6), wherein the pack includes one flat surface (see figure 7) and a convex surface opposite the one flat surface (see figure 7).
Per claim 15, Salyer meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 14. Further, Salyer teaches wherein the flat side of the cold pack (100) is adjacent to the item (see figure 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brobeck (US 20170071784) in view of Salyer (US 5254380).
Per claim 2, Brobeck meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Brobeck teaches wherein the freezing of the cold pack (208) produces a cold pack with an upper and lower major face (upper and lower side of 208 shown in figure 6) but fails to explicitly teach one flat major face and one major face with a convex geometry.
However, per MPEP 2144.04, section IV, paragraph B, a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Further, Slayer teaches a cold pack shape having a flat major face and a major face with a convex geometry (see figure 7) for a cooling vest (col. 8, line 36). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a cold pack shape having a flat major face and a major face with a convex geometry, as taught by Slayer in the invention of Brobeck, in order to advantageously provide a cooling vest (col. 8, line 36).
Per claim 11, Brobeck meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 2 and is rejected in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brobeck (US 20170071784).
Per claim 3, Brobeck meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Brobeck teaches the low temperature refrigerant but fails to explicitly teach wherein the low temperature refrigerant is selected from the group consisting of ammonia, carbon dioxide, freon, chlorofluorocarbons, and combinations thereof.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that freon is an old and well known low temperature refrigerant that is readily available. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide freon as the low temperature refrigerant in order to advantageously provide a readily available low temperature refrigerant.
Per claim 8, Brobeck meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Brobeck teaches the cold pack but fails to explicitly teach wherein the cold pack is a water-based cold pack, comprising >50% water.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to have cold packs be water-based comprising >50% water because water is one of the most widely readily available phase change materials. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cold pack be a water-based cold pack, comprising >50% water in order to advantageously use a widely readily available phase change material.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brobeck (US 20170071784) in view of Norr et al. (US 3156104).
Per claims 5-6, Brobeck meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Brobeck fails to explicitly teach wherein a thermally conductive tray is used to convey the cold pack onto and off the plate (claim 5), wherein the thermally conductive tray is made from a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum, copper, stainless steel, and combinations thereof (claim 6).
However, Norr teaches a quick freezing system wherein a thermally conductive tray (138) is used to convey a product onto and off a plate (32,96) (claim 5) for improved cooling of the product (col. 1, lines 53-54). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a thermally conductive tray used to convey a product onto and off a plate, as taught by Norr in the invention of Brobeck, in order to advantageously provide improved cooling to the product (col. 1, lines 53-54).
When the thermally conductive tray conveying the product onto and off the plate is combined with the cold pack, the result is wherein a thermally conductive tray is used to convey the cold pack onto and off the plate, as claimed.
Regarding the thermally conductive tray material, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that aluminum is an old and well known material that has excellent thermal conductive properties, is light weight, and is high strength. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the thermally conductive tray be made from aluminum (claim 6) in order to advantageously provide an excellent thermal conductive properties, light weight, and high strength tray.
Per claim 12, Brobeck meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Brobeck placing the cold pack on the plate but fails to explicitly teach placing the cold pack within a tray prior to placing the cold pack on the plate.
However, Norr teaches a method of operating a freezing system comprising placing a product to be cooled within a tray (138) prior to placing the product on a plate (32,96) for improved cooling of the product (col. 1, lines 53-54). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide place a product to be cooled within a tray prior to placing the product on a plate, as taught by Norr in the invention of Brobeck, in order to advantageously provide improved cooling to the product (col. 1, lines 53-54).
When the Norr method of placing the product to be cooled within the tray prior to placing the product on the plate is combined with the method of freezing the cold pack of Brobeck, the result is placing the cold pack within a tray prior to placing the cold pack on the plate, as claimed.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brobeck (US 20170071784) in view of Vale (US 20200191463).
Per claim 7, Brobeck meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Brobeck teaches an evaporator temperature setting (inherent) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the evaporator temperature setting for the refrigeration system is less than 0° C.
However, Vale teaches a cooling system wherein an evaporator temperature setting for a refrigeration system (114) being less than 0° C (para. 0047) for freezing a cold pack (para. 0031). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have an evaporator temperature setting for a refrigeration system be less than 0° C, as taught by Vale in the invention of Brobeck, in order to advantageously freeze a cold pack (para. 0031), thereby providing portable cooling to a user.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brobeck (US 20170071784) in view of Massenzo et al. (US 20210254877).
Per claim 9, Brobeck meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Brobeck teaches the cold pack (208) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the cold pack is encapsulated in a flexible plastic material or flexible paper material.
However, Massenzo teaches wherein a cold pack (303) is encapsulated in a flexible paper material (“liner 105 can include at least one of paper”, para. 0029) for controlling thermal losses of the cold pack (para. 0029). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a cold pack encapsulated in a flexible plastic material or flexible paper material, as taught by Massenzo in the invention of Brobeck, in order to advantageously control thermal losses of the cold pack (para. 0029).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim (KR 2019-0018210) teaches a method of freezing a cold pack.
Wormgoor (EP 1524481) teaches a method of freezing a product.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. 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.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights