DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
Drawings
The drawings dated 9/9/2026 are accepted.
Specification
The amendment to the specification dated 9/9/2026 is accepted.
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.
Claim limitation “power storage elements” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and is interpreted as electrical batteries (spec. para. 8).
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 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, 2, 5, 8, 9, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh (US 2019/0162460). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim(s) 1, 8, 14, Oh teaches a capsule container (see whole disclosure and all figures) for storing or transporting one or more injector pens (C within S1; para. 47), comprising:
a container vessel (at least 1, 2, including features identified herein) having an outer wall (outside of 2) that extends from a proximal end (top) that has an opening (“opening” para. 56) and a distal end (bottom) having a base (5; bottom of 1), the opening (opening) selectively closed by a lid (3), the container vessel (1, 2) having a chamber (S1) sized to receive the one or more injector pens (see C; para. 47; fully capable thereof),
a chamber wall (at least top of 51) being spaced inward (toward inside of chamber) of an inner wall (bottom of 51) and a base wall (part of 52) to define a gap (S2) between the chamber wall (top of 51) and the inner wall (bottom of 51) and the base wall (part of 52), the gap (S2) filled with a phase change material (55; para. 96); and
a temperature control system (see identifications below) comprising:
one or more thermoelectric elements (4; para. 46) configured to heat or cool at least a portion of the chamber (S1),
a heat sink (at least 52A) in thermal communication with one side (top side) of the one or more thermoelectric elements (4) and in thermal communication with the phase change material (55),
one or more power storage elements (para. 82, battery),
circuitry (controller 95, 96; para. 84) configured to control the one or more thermoelectric elements (4; para. 83) to heat or cool the at least the portion of the chamber (S1) to a predetermined temperature or temperature range (para. 84),
one or more sensors (temperature sensor, para. 146) configured to sense one or more parameters (temperature) of the chamber (para. 146) and to communicate the sensed parameters to the circuitry (controller 95, 96),
wherein the one or more thermoelectric elements (4) are operable to heat or cool the phase change material (55; para. 71), and wherein the phase change material (55) absorbs heat from the chamber (S1; material 55 can absorb heat from the chamber S1).
In regard to claim(s) 2, 9, Oh teaches a second heat sink (6) is in thermal communication with an opposite side (bottom) of the one or more thermoelectric elements (4).
In regard to claim(s) 5, Oh teaches that one or more fans (7) are operable to draw air through one or more air intake vents (H3), to flow said air over the second heat sink (6) to dissipate heat from the second heat sink (6), and to then flow said air through one or more exhaust vents (H1).
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, 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) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2019/0162460) in view of Tsuno (US2019/0242636). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 3, 10, 15, Oh teaches most claim limitations but does not explicitly teach a user interface configured to display information indicative of a temperature in the chamber. However, such are well known as taught by Tsuno. Tsuno teaches a user interface (172; para. 70) configured to display information (para. 70) indicative of a temperature in the chamber (para. 72). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Oh with a user interface to display the temperature in the chamber for the purpose of informing a user what operational temperature is being achieved therein.
In regard to claim(s) 6, 12, 18, as well as claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 14, 15, Oh, or Oh as modified, teaches all of the claim limitations as explained above, but does not explicitly teach phase change material in a cylindrical gap. However, providing a cylindrical gap having phase change material is routine and ordinary for the purpose of providing more phase change material with greater encompassing thermal features. Tsuno teaches a cylindrical gap (see cylindrical space for 120) between an inner wall (111) and a chamber wall (150), the cylindrical gap (in space for 120) having a phase change material (120; para. 31, 16). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Oh with a cylindrical gap having phase change material therein to increase the cooling capacity of the phase change material (55) of Oh thereby providing longer cooling times therewith.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2019/0162460) in view of Alexander (US 2019/0008317). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 3, 10, 15, Oh teaches most claim limitations but does not explicitly teach a user interface configured to display information indicative of a temperature in the chamber. However, such are well known as taught by Alexander. Alexander teaches a user interface (UI1, UI2, para. 133) configured to display information (“information” para. 133) indicative of a temperature in the chamber (para. 133 see temperature sensors). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Oh with a user interface to display the temperature in the chamber for the purpose of informing a user what operational temperature is being achieved therein.
In regard to claim(s) 6, 12, 18, as well as claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 14, 15, Oh, or Oh as modified, teaches all of the claim limitations as explained above, but does not explicitly teach that phase change material in a cylindrical gap.
However, providing a cylindrical gap having phase change material is routine and ordinary for the purpose of providing more phase change material with greater encompassing thermal features. However, providing a cylindrical gap having phase change material is routine and ordinary for the purpose of providing more phase change material with greater encompassing thermal features. Alexander teaches (see Figures 1, 2, 6-9) a cylindrical gap (24) between an inner wall (20) and a chamber wall (10), the cylindrical gap (24) having a phase change material (25; para. 38). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Oh with a cylindrical gap having phase change material therein to increase the cooling capacity of the phase change material (55) of Oh thereby providing longer cooling times therewith.
Claim(s) 7, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2019/0162460) in view of Alexander (US 2017/0314851). Also
Claim(s) 7, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2019/0162460) in view of Alexander (US 2019/0008317) and Alexander (US 2017/0314851). Also
Claim(s) 7, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2019/0162460) in view of Tsuno (US2019/0242636) and Alexander (US 2017/0314851). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Oh teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach a power base configured to receive the container vessel thereon and to provide power to the one or more thermoelectric elements or one or more power storage elements via inductive coupling. However, such is routine and ordinary as taught by Alexander. Alexander teaches a power base (charging base para. 26) configured to receive a container vessel (100) thereon and to provide power to one or more thermoelectric elements (40) or one or more power storage elements (60) via inductive coupling (para. 26 “inductive power”). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Oh with the inductive power base of Alexander for the purpose of providing power to the system conveniently in a manner that is easy for a user to locate and initiate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights