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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 04/06/2026. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-11, 14-16, and 18 remain pending for consideration.
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.
Claims 5 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “wherein, in response to the temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than or equal to the predetermined value for a predetermined time, the controller is further configured to determine that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 from which claim 5 depends already discloses “a controller configured to: determine that excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than or equal to a predetermined value and being maintained for a predetermined period”. Therefore, it is unclear if the disclosed “predetermined time” of claim 5 and the disclosed “predetermined period” of claim 1 are referencing the same parameter or separate and distinct parameters. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the determining of whether excessive condensation occurs in the condenser comprises, in response to the temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than or equal to the predetermined value for a predetermined time, determining that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 11 from which claim 15 depends already discloses “the control method comprising: determining that excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than or equal to a predetermined value and being maintained for a predetermined period”. Therefore, it is unclear if the disclosed “predetermined time” of claim 15 and the disclosed “predetermined period” of claim 11 are referencing the same parameter or separate and distinct parameters. More clarity is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “in response to the temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than or equal to the predetermined value for a predetermined time, the controller is further configured to determine that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser”. However, claim 1 from which claim 5 depends previously disclosed “a controller configured to: determine that excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than or equal to a predetermined value and being maintained for a predetermined period”. As such it is unclear how claim 1 is further limited.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the determining of whether excessive condensation occurs in the condenser comprises, in response to the temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than or equal to the predetermined value for a predetermined time, determining that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser”. However, claim 11 from which claim 15 depends previously disclosed “the control method comprising: determining that excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than or equal to a predetermined value and being maintained for a predetermined period”. As such it is unclear how claim 11 is further limited.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14, 16, and 18 are allowed.
Claims 5 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record when consider as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a refrigerator comprising: a plurality of storage compartments including a refrigerating compartment and a freezing compartment; a plurality of evaporators arranged in series with each other and provided to correspond to each of the plurality of storage compartments; a compressor configured to compress a refrigerant evaporated by the plurality of evaporators; a condenser configured to condense the compressed refrigerant; a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the condenser; a plurality of evaporator temperature sensors configured to detect a temperature of each of the plurality of evaporators; and a controller configured to: determine that excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than or equal to a predetermined value and being maintained for a predetermined period, and based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser, adjust an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased while intermittently operating the heat dissipation fan”.
The closet prior art reference(s), Redlich (US6266968B1), Sakai (JP5194742B2), and Han (KR20050121104A), teach “a refrigerator comprising: a plurality of storage compartments including a refrigerating compartment and a freezing compartment; a plurality of evaporators arranged in series with each other and provided to correspond to each of the plurality of storage compartments; a compressor configured to compress a refrigerant evaporated by the plurality of evaporators; a condenser configured to condense the compressed refrigerant; a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the condenser; a plurality of evaporator temperature sensors configured to detect a temperature of each of the plurality of evaporators; and a controller configured to: determine that excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than or equal to a predetermined value, and based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser, adjust an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased while intermittently operating the heat dissipation fan”.
However, the reference(s) fail(s) to disclose, suggest or teach “the controller configured to determine that the excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on the temperature difference being greater than or equal to the predetermined value and being maintained for a predetermined period”.
Therefore, independent claim 1 with dependent claims therefrom (claims 4, 6-10, and 18) are considered allowable.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record when consider as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a control method of a refrigerator that includes a plurality of storage compartments including a refrigerating compartment and a freezing compartment, a plurality of evaporators arranged in series with each other and provided to correspond to each of the plurality of storage compartments, a compressor configured to compress a refrigerant evaporated by the plurality of evaporators, a condenser configured to condense the compressed refrigerant, a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the condenser, and a plurality of evaporator temperature sensors configured to detect a temperature of each of the plurality of evaporators, the control method comprising: determining that excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than or equal to a predetermined value and being maintained for a predetermined period; and based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser, adjusting an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased while intermittently operating the heat dissipation fan”.
The closet prior art reference(s), Redlich (US6266968B1), Sakai (JP5194742B2), and Han (KR20050121104A), teach “a control method of a refrigerator that includes a plurality of storage compartments including a refrigerating compartment and a freezing compartment, a plurality of evaporators arranged in series with each other and provided to correspond to each of the plurality of storage compartments, a compressor configured to compress a refrigerant evaporated by the plurality of evaporators, a condenser configured to condense the compressed refrigerant, a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the condenser, and a plurality of evaporator temperature sensors configured to detect a temperature of each of the plurality of evaporators, the control method comprising: determining that excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than or equal to a predetermined value; and based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser, adjusting an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased while intermittently operating the heat dissipation fan”.
However, the reference(s) fail(s) to disclose, suggest or teach “the control method comprising determining that the excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on the temperature difference being greater than or equal to the predetermined value and being maintained for a predetermined period”.
Therefore, independent claim 11 with dependent claims therefrom (claims 14 and 16) are considered allowable.
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 SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights