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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a cooling unit" in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The “cooling unit” is described in the disclosure as a refrigeration cycle with evaporator, fan and duct (see paragraphs 11, 45).
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 10, 14 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.
The limitations, “first tray and second tray… unloaded or loaded” are confusing because the original claim only contains a single tray and the alternative limitations include the phrase “some trays” while the amended claim 10 has bunched the single tray and multiple tray limitations together without providing the necessary loading and temperature data for the multiple trays. Since, claim 10 contains no mention of multiple trays or a process of acquiring loading data and temperature data for the first or second trays, it is unclear how the control method makes decision based on the unloaded/loaded state of first and second trays. All the references to the multiple trays (first and second trays) should be directed towards the alternative limitations of “some trays” in the independent claim 10 because first and second trays in the dependent claims (claims 12 and 13) cannot refer to the same tray of independent claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the tray is loaded," “the first and/or second tray is/are loaded,” and “some trays are loaded” in line 15 onwards till the end of claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 requires a control method of a refrigerator, comprising acquiring load information and temperature of a tray in the refrigerator; however, from line 15 onwards claim 10 assumes that loading data and temperature is available for multiple trays including first tray, second tray or some trays. It is unclear what the limitation “the tray” refers to in the claims, with first, second or some trays, because the primary alternative in the beginning of the claim only contains one tray and loading and temperature data for that one tray. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon the rejected base 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.
Claim(s) 10, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tadano (JP 2001/280775 A).
In regards to claim 10, Tadano teaches a control method of a refrigerator (cooling control method for refrigerator 1, see figs. 1-3 and paragraph 10), comprising:
acquiring load information of a tray in the refrigerator (controller 24 determines whether new hot food is placed on tray 10, see paragraphs 17-18);
acquiring a compartment temperature in a constant temperature compartment (internal temperature Tr, see paragraph 16), and
acquiring a tray temperature (temperature sensor 20 detecting temperature of tray 10, see fig. 2 and paragraph 15); and
controlling a cooling unit (controller 24 configured to control compressor 23 and fan 21 for evaporator 27 to supply air through duct 7, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 13-16) to be started and stopped (compressor 23 stopped and started by controller 24, see paragraphs 15-18) according to starting point temperatures and stopping point temperatures (controlling cool air fan 21 and compressor, see paragraphs 18-19, based on temperatures at which compressor is started and stopped, see paragraphs 16-20) of a compartment temperature sensor for detecting the compartment temperature and a tray temperature sensor for detecting the tray temperature under a current load condition (compressor 23 operated based on new hot food placed on tray 10, and based on changes in temperature of the tray and internal temperature Tr with respect to the set temperature Tr0 and constant temperature delta T, see paragraphs 16-19; Also see compressor stopped after reaching the minimum temperature, paragraph 20); wherein
when the tray is unloaded, the cooling unit is started (compressor 23 operated when controller determines that no new hot food has been placed on the tray, see paragraph 17), and when the compartment temperature reaches the stopping point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor when the tray is unloaded (this is an alternate limitation, see MPEP 2173.05) or the tray temperature reaches the stopping point temperature of the tray temperature sensor when the tray is unloaded, the cooling unit is started and stopped at a period of a starting time t1 and a stopping time t2 (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Tadano discloses starting a compressor at a first time and then stopping the compressor after sufficient tray temperature is reached at a later time, see paragraph 20), and when both the compartment temperature and the tray temperature are reduced to the stopping point temperatures, the cooling unit is stopped (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Tadano discloses stopping compressor 23 by controller 24 after both compartment temperature Tr and tray temperature T have dropped below the minimum set temperature, see paragraph 20); or,
when the tray is loaded, the cooling unit is started (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Tadano discloses starting compressor 23 and air circulation fan 21 by controller 24 after new hot food is placed on the tray, see paragraphs 18-19), and when the compartment temperature reaches the stopping point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor when the tray is loaded (this is an alternate limitation, see MPEP 2173.05) or the tray temperature reaches the stopping point temperature of the tray temperature sensor when the tray is loaded, the cooling unit is started and stopped at a period of a starting time t1 and a stopping time t2, and when both the compartment temperature and the tray temperature are reduced to the stopping point temperatures when the tray is loaded, the cooling unit is stopped (this is an alternate limitation, see MPEP 2173.05); or,
when some trays in the refrigerator are loaded and other trays are unloaded, the cooling unit is started; when the compartment temperature reaches a preset temperature T0, the cooling unit is started and stopped at a period of a starting time t1 and a stopping time t2 (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Tadano discloses starting compressor 23 and air circulation fan 21 by controller 24 after new hot food is placed on the tray, see paragraphs 18-19), the cooling unit is stopped when the temperature of the unloaded tray reaches the stopping point temperature of the tray temperature sensor for detecting the tray when some trays are loaded and other trays are unloaded; the preset temperature TO is lower than the stopping point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor under the condition that some trays are loaded and other trays are unloaded (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04); when the compartment temperature reaches the stopping point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor when some trays are loaded and other trays are unloaded, the cooling unit is started and stopped at the period of a starting time tl and a stopping time t2; when the compartment temperature reaches the stopping point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor when some trays are loaded and other trays are unloaded, and the temperature of the unloaded tray reaches the stopping point temperature of the tray temperature sensor for detecting the tray when some trays are loaded and other trays are unloaded, the cooling unit is stopped (this is an alternate limitation, see MPEP 2173.05); or,
when a first tray and a second tray located on a side of the first tray away from a door of the refrigerator are unloaded, a starting point temperature of a second tray temperature sensor for detecting the second tray is less than the starting point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor less than a starting point temperature of a first tray temperature sensor for detecting the first tray (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Tadano further discloses that when hot food is placed on the first tray 11, see paragraph 18, the temperature of the surface of the second tray, see fig. 1 would be lower than the first tray and the compartment temperature, which maintains the temperature of all the trays at a set point, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 18-20), and the stopping point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor is less than a stopping point temperature of the second tray temperature sensor for detecting the second tray less than a stopping point temperature of the first tray temperature sensor for detecting the first tray (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04); or,
when a first tray and the second tray located on the side of the first tray away from the door of the refrigerator are both loaded, the starting point temperature of the second tray temperature sensor for detecting the second tray is less than the starting point temperature of the first tray temperature sensor for detecting the first tray less than the starting point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor, and the stopping point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor is less than the stopping point temperature of the second tray temperature sensor for detecting the second tray less than the stopping point temperature of the first tray temperature sensor for detecting the first tray (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04).
In regards to claim 14, Tadano teaches the limitations of claim 11 and further discloses that when the first tray is loaded, and the second tray located on the side of the first tray away from the door of the refrigerator is unloaded, the starting point temperature of the second tray temperature sensor for detecting the second tray is less than the starting point temperature of the first tray temperature sensor for detecting the first tray less than the starting point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Tadano further discloses that when hot food is placed on the first tray 11, see paragraph 18, the temperature of the surface of the second tray, see fig. 1 would be lower than the first tray and the compartment temperature, which maintains the temperature of all the trays at a set point, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 18-20), and the stopping point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor is less than the stopping point temperature of the second tray temperature sensor for detecting the second tray less than the stopping point temperature of the first tray temperature sensor for detecting the first tray (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04); or,
when the first tray is unloaded and the second tray located on the side of the first tray away from the door of the refrigerator is loaded, the starting point temperature of the second tray temperature sensor for detecting the second tray is less than the starting point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor less than the starting point temperature of the first tray temperature sensor for detecting the first tray, and the stopping point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor is less than the stopping point temperature of the second tray temperature sensor for detecting the second tray less than the stopping point temperature of the first tray temperature sensor for detecting the first tray (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04).
In regards to claim 15, Tadano teaches the limitations of claim 11 and further discloses that after the cooling unit is stopped (compressor 23 and fan 21 stopped, see paragraph 16), the compartment temperature in the constant temperature compartment is acquired (using internal temperature sensor to obtain temperature Tr, see paragraph 17), and the tray temperature is acquired (using tray temperature sensor 20, see paragraph 18);
when the compartment temperature reaches the starting point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor under the current load condition and the tray temperature reaches the starting point temperature of the tray temperature sensor under the current load condition, the cooling unit is started (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Tadano discloses starting compressor 23 and air circulation fan 21 by controller 24 when temperature of the tray rises and difference between temperature of the compartment and the tray is greater than delta T, see paragraph 18); and
when the compartment temperature reaches the stopping point temperature of the compartment temperature sensor under the current load condition and the tray temperature reaches the stopping point temperature of the tray temperature sensor under the current load condition, the cooling unit is stopped (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument, "Tadano does not disclose multiple trays or priority order for controlling cooling unit for each tray;" examiner maintains the rejection of claims and points out that, original claim 10 presented claimed limitation “multiple trays (i.e. some trays or first and second trays)” as an alternative to single tray (see original claim 10, dated 9/24/2025), therefore cooling operational details for multiple trays in the following claims (particularly claims 12-13), cannot refer to the single tray alternative in the preceding claim (i.e. claim 10). All the references to the multiple trays (first and second trays) should be directed towards the alternative limitations of “some trays” in the independent claim 10. Therefore, applicant disagrees with the restructuring of claim 10, where applicant has placed the limitations regarding multiple trays deliberately just before the word “or” to exclude these limitations from being an alternative to the single tray limitations of claim 10. Tadano teaches one of the alternatives for the cooling operation of the tray (as required by the claim) based on the temperature of the tray and the temperature of the interior (see paragraph 20, Tadano).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MERAJ A SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3027. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 9:00-1:00 pm.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MERAJ A SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763