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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on a has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the amendment. The drawing objection has been maintained due to new matter objections, see also specification objection. The originally filed claims and specification do not appear to indicate that the structures in question are arranged as indicated in the replacement drawings.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the specification objection regarding the “close up” have been considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. The amendment filed 29 December 2025 is entered. The remaining objections regarding the previous specification amendment are maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, “air curtain guide” (claims 11 and 12), “at least one light source disposed in the air curtain guide” (claim 13), “wherein the air curtain guide further comprises a front portion, wherein the front portion comprises a housing formed of a transparent plastic material for displaying at least one product label” (claim 14) 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The amendment filed 6/30/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “air curtain guide” (claims 11 and 12), “at least one light source disposed in the air curtain guide” (claim 13), “wherein the air curtain guide further comprises a front portion, wherein the front portion comprises a housing formed of a transparent plastic material for displaying at least one product label” (claim 14) amended to the drawings are not sufficiently supported since the arrangement of the air curtain guide/housing(s)/light source(s) do not appear to be supported by the original disclosure (e.g. the size of the airfoils in the drawings appear to be different at each shelf, and the placement of the air curtain guides/housing(s)/light source(s) in Fig 1 and 2 (which also differ in respective Figures) on the shelves is not supported).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 18 and 19 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. Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitation “wherein a lowermost end of the first weir screen is substantially vertically aligned with a lowermost end of the second weir screen”. The disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation in the claims.
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 1-2, 11-15, and 18 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.
The term “smooth” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It cannot be determined how smooth the curve must be to meet or fail to meet the claim. To expedite prosecution, any degree of smoothness is considered to meet the claim. Claims 2, 11-15, and 18 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 18 and 19 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 18 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It cannot be determined how substantially the alignment must be to meet or fail to meet the claim.
Claims 16-17 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.
The term “smooth” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It cannot be determined how smooth the curve must be to meet or fail to meet the claim. To expedite prosecution, any degree of smoothness is considered to meet the claim. Claim 17 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 16 and therefore include the same error(s).
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, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagen et al. (US 3,134,243).
Regarding claim 1, Hagen et al. shows a refrigerator (see at least refrigerator #10), comprising:
a refrigerated interior space (see at least interior space #34), air in the refrigerated interior space being separated from air in a space exterior to the refrigerator by an air curtain (see at least air curtain #60) established by a fan (see at least fan #46) which blows air through an air outlet (see at least nozzle #56) towards a corresponding air inlet (see at least inlet screen #68) which recovers air from the air curtain for recirculation to the air outlet (see at least airflow loop);
a first weir screen positioned proximal to the exterior space (see at least deflecting lip #72); and
a second weir screen positioned distal to the exterior space (see at least deflecting lip #70), whereby a channel is formed in between the first weir screen and the second weir screen (see at least space between #72/#70), the channel for receiving air from the air curtain before it is recovered by the air inlet (see at least area between #72/#70 upstream of inlet screen #68), wherein the second weir screen has a cross-section that comprises a smooth curve convex toward the first weir screen (see at least deflecting lip #70 having a smooth curve convex toward deflecting lip #72).
Regarding claim 15, Hagen et al. further shows wherein the refrigerator is an open display refrigerator (see at least column 1, lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 18, Hagen et al. further shows wherein a lowermost end of the first weir screen is substantially vertically aligned with a lowermost end of the second weir screen (see at least Figure 1, deflecting lips #70/#72 are vertically aligned).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagen et al. (US 3,134,243).
Regarding claim 16, Hagen et al. shows a method, comprising:
attaching a first weir screen proximal to a space exterior to a refrigerator (see at least deflecting lip #72); and
attaching a second weir screen distal to the space exterior to the refrigerator (see at least deflecting lip #70) such that a channel is formed in between the first weir screen and the second weir screen (see at least space between #72/#70), the channel configured to receive air from an air curtain (see at least air curtain #60) established by a fan (see at least fan #46) which blows air through an air outlet (see at least nozzle #56) towards a corresponding air inlet (see at least inlet screen #68) before it is recovered by the air inlet (see at least airflow loop), wherein the second weir screen has a cross-section that comprises a smooth curve convex toward the first weir screen (see at least deflecting lip #70 having a smooth curve convex toward deflecting lip #72).
Regarding claim 17, Hagen et al. further shows wherein the refrigerator is an open display refrigerator (see at least column 1, lines 9-14).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagen et al. (US 3,134,243).
Regarding claim 19, Hagen et al. shows a refrigerator (see at least refrigerator #10), comprising:
a refrigerated interior space (see at least interior space #34), air in the refrigerated interior space being separated from air in a space exterior to the refrigerator by an air curtain (see at least air curtain #60) established by a fan (see at least fan #46) which blows air through an air outlet (see at least nozzle #56) towards a corresponding air inlet (see at least inlet screen #68) which recovers air from the air curtain for recirculation to the air outlet (see at least airflow loop);
a first weir screen positioned proximal to the exterior space (see at least deflecting lip #72); and
a second weir screen positioned distal to the exterior space (see at least deflecting lip #70), whereby a channel is formed in between the first weir screen and the second weir screen (see at least space between #72/#70), the channel for receiving air from the air curtain before it is recovered by the air inlet (see at least area between #72/#70 upstream of inlet screen #68), wherein the second weir screen has a cross-section that comprises an arcuate curve (see at least deflecting lip #70 having an arcuate curve), and wherein a lowermost end of the first weir screen is substantially vertically aligned with a lowermost end of the second weir screen (see at least Figure 1, deflecting lips #70/#72 are vertically aligned).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herrmann (DE29804724U1: cited by Applicant, translation provided by Applicant in IDS 10/06/2023: previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Hagen et al. does not disclose wherein the first and second weir screens have respective first edges that are positioned proximal to the air inlet and wherein the first and second weir screens have respective second edges that are positioned distal to the air inlet and wherein the distance between the respective first edges is larger than the distance between the respective second edges.
However, there are only a finite number of options available to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement of first and second weir screens in a refrigerator. In this regard, it is noted that Herrmann teaches wherein the first and second weir screens have respective first edges that are positioned proximal to the air inlet and wherein the first and second weir screens have respective second edges that are positioned distal to the air inlet and wherein the distance between the respective first edges is larger than the distance between the respective second edges (see annotated Fig A and page 2: the angle 4 located at the top of the inner part 2 narrows the suction slot , see also distances between the edges in Fig 3).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Hagen et al. with wherein the first and second weir screens have respective first edges that are positioned proximal to the air inlet and wherein the first and second weir screens have respective second edges that are positioned distal to the air inlet and wherein the distance between the respective first edges is larger than the distance between the respective second edges, since, as taught by Herrmann, such provision is a suitable and known provision for arranging first and second weir screens for a refrigerator (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for a constrained air curtain expanding out to a larger process air channel.
PNG
media_image1.png
816
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eget (US 2017/0231403: previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Hagen et al. does not disclose wherein the refrigerator further comprises an air curtain guide for guiding the flow of air within the air curtain.
Eget teaches wherein a refrigerator (Eget Fig 1 temperature controlled case 100) further comprises an air curtain guide (Eget Fig 1 flow guide 160) for guiding the flow of air within an air curtain (Eget Fig 1 and par 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Hagen et al. with wherein the refrigerator further comprises an air curtain guide for guiding the flow of air within the air curtain, as taught by Eget, as doing so would benefit the system of Hagen et al. by enabling the air curtain to be more effective at providing a barrier between the refrigerated zone of temperature controlled case (Eget par 0042).
Regarding claim 12, Hagen et al. as modified by Eget further discloses wherein the air curtain guide is in the form of an aerofoil (Eget par 0042).
Regarding claim 13, Hagen et al. alone does not disclose at least one light source disposed in the air curtain guide so as to illuminate the interior refrigerated storage space.
Eget further teaches at least one light source disposed in the air curtain guide so as to illuminate the interior refrigerated storage space (Eget par 0047: “flow guides 160 may incorporate LEDs configured to illuminate the interior of temperature controlled case 100”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Hagen et al. with at least one light source disposed in the air curtain guide so as to illuminate the interior refrigerated storage space, as taught by Eget, as doing so would benefit the system of Hagen et al. by illuminating the interior of the refrigerated space thereby allowing a customer to clearly identify products within the refrigerator (Eget par 0047).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen et al. in view of Eget, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Reddit (NPL: Reddit, “Sodas in the Pepsi cooler in Bahrain”: previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Hagen et al. alone does not disclose wherein the air curtain guide further comprises a front portion, wherein the front portion comprises a housing formed of a transparent plastic material for displaying at least one product label.
Eget further teaches wherein the air curtain guide further comprises a front portion (Eget Fig 1 front portion would be on side of flow guide 160 facing exterior of case 100).
Reddit teaches refrigerators having a housing formed of a transparent plastic material for displaying at least one product label (see image in attached NPL: Reddit reference depicting a housing with plastic material displaying “Pepsi” labels).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Modified Hagen et al. with wherein the air curtain guide further comprises a front portion, wherein the front portion comprises a housing formed of a transparent plastic material for displaying at least one product label, since, as evidenced by Eget and Reddit, such provision is old and well-known, and would provide the predictable benefit(s) of allowing customers to obtain information about products contained within the refrigerator while in use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763