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 § 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) 1-2, 8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chastine (US 7,032,407).
Regarding claim 1, Chastine discloses a refrigerator freezer unit (refer to figs. 5-7) comprising:
a single refrigeration unit (including evaporator 160) connected to a freezer chamber, the single refrigeration unit (160) providing cold air to a freezer compartment (150);
an intake channel (refer to channel 169) interconnected to the freezer chamber, the intake channel comprising a first outlet port (outlet port as can be seen from arrows 235 as in fig. 6) providing cold air from the freezer compartment (150) to a refrigerator compartment (154);
a recirculating channel (230) comprising a second outlet port (212) allowing to discharge recirculated air directly from the recirculating channel (230) to the refrigerator compartment (154);
at least one intake fan (162) positioned in the intake channel, the at least one intake fan (162) displacing air from the freezer compartment (150) to the refrigerator compartment (refer to fig. 6) via the intake channel (169); and,
at least one recirculating fan (192) positioned in the recirculating channel (refer to fig. 6), the at least one recirculating fan (192) displacing air in the recirculating channel (230),
wherein each one of the refrigerator compartment (154) and the freezer compartment (150) are cooled by the single refrigeration unit (160).
Regarding claim 2, Chastine meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Chastine discloses wherein the recirculating channel (230) is superposed (in the instant case, the term “superposed” is being considered as situated vertically over another layer or part) on the intake channel (169).
Regarding claim 8, Chastine meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Chastine discloses wherein the refrigeration unit (160) is in fluid communication with the freezer compartment (150) thereby allowing the transfer of thermal energy from the freezer compartment (refer to fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Chastine meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Chastine discloses wherein the second outlet port (212) is positioned within the refrigerator compartment (154) to discharge the recirculated air directly from the recirculating channel to the refrigerator compartment (refer to fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Chastine meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 10. Further, Chastine discloses wherein the recirculating channel further comprises a recirculating channel inlet port (refer to fig. 7 below) positioned within the refrigerator compartment, the recirculating channel inlet port allowing cold air within the refrigerator compartment (cold air has entered the refrigerator compartment, therefore, considered to be located within the refrigerator compartment) to enter directly into the recirculating channel (refer to fig. 7, wherein the recirculating channel inlet port allows the cold air to enter directly into the portion of the recirculating channel including recirculation fan 192).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chastine (US 7,032,407) in view of Sexton (US 10,094,610).
Regarding claim 3, Chastine meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Chastine discloses an opening (222 as in fig. 7) allowing warm air to travel from the refrigerator compartment to the freezer compartment, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein said opening are louvered openings.
However, Sexton teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide a refrigerator apparatus (refer to fig. 11) comprising louvered openings (refer to openings 120 including louvers 140), in order to adjustable direct air passing through the air channel (refer to col. 1, lines 49-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chastine such that said opening comprises louvered openings in view of the teachings by Sexton, in order to adjustable direct air passing through the air channel.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chastine (US 7,032,407) in view of Wissinger (US 2005/0200253).
Regarding claim 5, Chastine meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Chastine discloses the refrigerator freezer unit, but fails to explicitly disclose a safety lock.
However, Wissinger teaches a safety lock (24, Figs. 2-5) for a refrigerator door, in order to provide positive latching to keep the door closed (refer to par. 2, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chastine by providing a safety lock in view of the teachings by Wissinger, in order to provide positive latching to keep the door closed.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chastine (US 7,032,407), Wissinger (US 2005/0200253), and further in view of Denison (US 10,591,201).
Regarding claim 6, Chastine as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5. Further, Chastine as modified discloses wherein the safety lock comprises:
a) a mechanical lock (24 by Wissinger) for interconnection to a locking aperture (66 by Wissinger);
b) a lock release pin (52 by Wissinger) interconnected to the mechanical lock (24 by Wissinger) allowing to unlock the mechanical lock with the locking aperture;
c) a release cam (28 by Wissinger) interconnected to the lock release pin (52 by Wissinger) allowing to unlock the mechanical lock (refer to Figs. 4-5) by movement of the release cam (28 by Wissinger);
d) an actuator (38 by Wissinger) interconnected to the release cam (28 by Wissinger) allowing to move the release cam (refer to Figs. 4-5 by Wissinger) into contact with the lock release pin (52 by Wissinger); and
e) an entrapment release (60 by Wissinger) interconnected to the lock release pin (52 by Wissinger) allowing to activate the lock release pin (52 by Wissinger) from within the refrigerated compartment (by means of the hook from the locking aperture 66 as can be seen from Figs. 4-5 within the refrigerated compartment as can be seen from Fig. 2), but Sexton as modified fails to explicitly disclose a circuit board allowing to provide varied power levels to the mechanical lock and to lock and unlock the mechanical lock based on measured parameters within the refrigerated compartment by a refrigeration controller.
However, Denison further teaches a cooler lock, including a circuit board (10) allowing to provide varied power levels to a mechanical lock and to lock and unlock the mechanical lock based on measured parameters within the refrigerated compartment by a refrigeration controller (refer to Figs. 13-16, and col. 4, lines 23-36, wherein in the event that the temperature of the cooler exceeds a pre-determined limit for a period of time, there is a risk of spoilage of the food or beverage in the cooler, thus, when this occurs the cooler controller proceeds to enable the lock controller and in turn the lock
controller energizes the motor and latches the strike pro that the door is locked and
cannot be withdrawn from the cabinet; If the temperature returns to a safe/proper temperature, it may be possible for the controller to determine the contents are safe to
consume because the cooler temperature only stayed in the elevated range for a short
period of time, i.e. too short for the food to spoil, and in such a case, the controller may
unlock the door), in order to maintain products within the refrigerator at a proper temperature (refer to col. 4, lines 9-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Chastine by providing a circuit board allowing to provide varied power levels to the mechanical lock and to lock and unlock the mechanical lock based on measured parameters within the refrigerated
compartment by a refrigeration controller in view of the teachings by Denison, in order
to maintain products within the refrigerator at a proper temperature.
Regarding claim 7, Chastine as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 6. Further, Chastine as modified discloses wherein the safety lock allows for automatically controlled locking and manual unlocking of the refrigerator freezer unit from either the exterior or interior of the unit (refer to Fig. 2 by Wissinger).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp.5-9, filed on 09/16/2025, with respect to claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-11 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly amended claims.
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 ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ANA M VAZQUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3763