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 05/21/2026. Claims 1 and 3-15 remain pending for consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein a first vertical height of the inlet and a second height of the cold air outlet are substantially same” includes a grammatical error and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein a first vertical height of the inlet and a second height of the cold air outlet are substantially the same --
Claims 3-15 are also objected to due to dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 and 3-15 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 1, the term “substantially” 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. This term renders claim 1 indefinite because it is unclear what “wherein a first vertical height of the inlet and a second height of the cold air outlet are substantially the same” is. Thus, as used to qualify the vertical height of the inlet and a second height of the cold air outlet, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claims 3-15 are also rejected due to dependency.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US20120204581A1, herein after referred to as Kang), in view of Sakurasawa et al. (JP2012067936A, herein after referred to as Sakurasawa), and in further view of Kim et al. (KR20180129215A, herein after referred to as Kim’15).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a refrigerator (Fig. 1) comprising: an inner case (inner case 13 Fig. 1) defining a storage compartment (refrigerating chamber 23 Fig. 1); a cold air outlet (upper most cold air discharge hole 51 Figs. 1-2) provided on one side of the storage compartment (rear wall 13a Fig. 2) and configured to discharge cold air (paragraph [0045]); and a purifier assembly (sterilizer 100 Fig. 2) provided at an upper surface of the storage compartment (upper surface 13b Fig. 2) and configured to purify a portion of the cold air (air discharged by upper cold air discharge hole 51 Fig. 6) discharged from the cold air outlet (paragraph [0047]); and a duct (duct 50 Fig. 1) comprising a circulation flow path (air passage formed by duct 50 Figs. 1 and 6) configured to circulate the cold air in the storage compartment (paragraph [0043]), wherein the purifier assembly comprises: an air purifier (ion generation unit 140 and deodorizing filter 190 Fig. 4) configured to deodorize or sterilize the cold air (paragraph [0047]); a housing (housing 110 Fig. 3) accommodating the air purifier (Fig. 4) and an inlet (air inflow hole 114 Fig. 6); wherein the purifier assembly penetrates the inner case (Fig. 2) and the air purifier of the purifier assembly is configured to receive, through the inlet, the cold air discharged from the cold air outlet (Fig. 6), wherein a portion of the housing (lower cover 111 Fig. 6) is provided in an upper end portion (Fig. 6) inside the storage compartment (Fig. 6) and a remaining portion of the housing (upper cover 115 Fig. 6) is provided outside the storage compartment (Fig. 6).
Kang teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the purifier assembly comprises: the inlet facing the cold air outlet, wherein the cold air outlet is provided at a terminal end of one surface of the duct forming a rear surface of the storage compartment, and wherein a first vertical height of the inlet and a second height of the cold air outlet are the same”.
However, Sakurasawa teaches wherein a purifier assembly (ion delivery unit 20 Fig. 4 corresponds to the purifier assembly of Kang) comprises: an inlet (air intake port 30a Fig. 4 corresponds to the inlet of Kang) facing a cold air outlet (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0040] where the outlet of circulation path 13 corresponds to the cold air outlet of Kang), wherein the cold air outlet is provided at a terminal end of one surface of a duct (terminal end of the upper surface of circulation path 13 Figs. 1-2 where circulation path 13 corresponds to the duct of Kang) forming a rear surface of a storage compartment (Figs. 1-2 where refrigerator compartment 2 corresponds to the storage compartment of Kang), and wherein a first vertical height of the inlet (corresponds to the height at which air intake port 30a is located Fig. 1) and a second height of the cold air outlet (corresponds to the height at which the outlet of circulation path 13 is located Fig. 1) are the same (Fig. 1) to provide a refrigerator that can reduce discomfort (paragraph [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Kang to include “wherein the purifier assembly comprises: the inlet facing the cold air outlet, wherein the cold air outlet is provided at a terminal end of one surface of the duct forming a rear surface of the storage compartment, and wherein a first vertical height of the inlet and a second height of the cold air outlet are the same” in view of the teachings of Sakurasawa to provide a refrigerator that can reduce discomfort.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the purifier assembly comprises: a first flow path and a second flow path in which the cold air received by the inlet flows and which are partitioned from each other, wherein the air purifier is provided on the first flow path, wherein a part of the cold air discharged from the cold air outlet is circulated into the storage compartment through the second flow path, and a remaining part of the cold air discharged from the cold air outlet is directly passed to the first flow path and is deodorized or sterilized by the air purifier, wherein the first flow path and the second flow path are arranged in a horizontal direction inside the housing”.
However, Kim’15 teaches wherein a purifier assembly (air purification apparatus 600 Figs. 20-22 corresponds to the purifier assembly of Kang) comprises: a first flow path (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15) and a second flow path (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15) in which cold air (the arrow illustrated in Fig. 20 entering air inlet 10 corresponds to the cold air of Kang) received by an inlet (air inlet 10 Fig. 20 corresponds to the inlet of Kang) flows and which are partitioned from each other (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15), wherein an air purifier (photocatalytic filter 650 and light source unit 660 Fig. 21 correspond to the air purifier of Kang) is provided on the first flow path (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15), wherein a part of the cold air discharged from a cold air outlet (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15) is circulated into a storage compartment (paragraph [0048] where the cabin of the vehicle corresponds to the storage compartment of Kang) through the second flow path (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15), and a remaining part of the cold air discharged from the cold air outlet (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15) is directly passed to the first flow path (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15) and is deodorized or sterilized by the air purifier (paragraph [0048]), wherein the first flow path and the second flow path are arranged in a horizontal direction (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15) inside a housing (upper housing 611 and lower housing 612 Figs. 20 corresponds to the housing of Kang) to provide an air purifier assembly that does not shield the flow path (paragraph [0134]).
PNG
media_image1.png
673
1260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the purifier assembly comprises: a first flow path and a second flow path in which the cold air received by the inlet flows and which are partitioned from each other, wherein the air purifier is provided on the first flow path, wherein a part of the cold air discharged from the cold air outlet is circulated into the storage compartment through the second flow path, and a remaining part of the cold air discharged from the cold air outlet is directly passed to the first flow path and is deodorized or sterilized by the air purifier, wherein the first flow path and the second flow path are arranged in a horizontal direction inside the housing” in view of the teachings of Kim’15 to provide an air purifier assembly that does not shield the flow path.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the inner case comprises an insertion hole (the recess that accommodates installation part 80 Fig. 2 of Kang), and wherein the housing penetrates the insertion hole (Figs. 2-3 of Kang).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach further comprising a fixing cover (installation part 80 Fig. 2 of Kang) provided outside the inner case and to which the housing penetrating the insertion hole is fixed (Figs. 2-3 and paragraph [0059] of Kang).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the housing further comprises a coupling hook (insertion ribs 120 Fig. 4 of Kang) provided on an upper surface of the housing (Fig. 4 of Kang) and configured to be coupled to the fixing cover (paragraph [0060] of Kang).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein the inlet is configured to receive the cold air discharged from the fan (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0045] of Kang).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the inlet is provided inside the storage compartment (Fig. 6 of Kang).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the inlet is adjacent to the cold air outlet (Fig. 1 of Sakurasawa).
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, in view of Sakurasawa, in view of Kim’15, and in further view of Kim et al. (US20230003403A1, herein after referred to as Kim).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach (ii) an ion sterilization device (ion generation unit 140 Fig. 4 of Kang) comprising a discharge electrode (electrode unit 141 Fig. 4 of Kang) and a printed circuit board (drive circuit board 170 Fig. 4 of Kang) configured to control the discharge electrode (paragraph [0089] of Kang).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the air purifier further comprises at least one of (i) a photocatalytic device comprising an ultraviolet (UV) light source and a photocatalytic filter configured to react with light from the UV light source”.
However, Kim teaches wherein the air purifier (air cleaning module 10 Fig. 1B corresponds to the air purifier of Kang) further comprises (i) a photocatalytic device (light source unit 200 and filter 300 Fig. 1B) comprising an ultraviolet (UV) light source (light source unit 200 Fig. 1B and paragraph [0101]) and a photocatalytic filter (filter 300 Fig. 1B and paragraph [0110]) configured to react with light from the UV light source (paragraph [0118]) to cause a chemical reaction and decomposes various contaminants and germs in the air in contact with the photocatalyst through an oxidation-reduction reaction (paragraph [0118]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the air purifier further comprises at least one of (i) a photocatalytic device comprising an ultraviolet (UV) light source and a photocatalytic filter configured to react with light from the UV light source” in view of the teachings of Kim to cause a chemical reaction and decomposes various contaminants and germs in the air in contact with the photocatalyst through an oxidation-reduction reaction.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the air purifier comprises the photocatalytic device (Fig. 1B of Kim), wherein the purifier assembly further comprises a supporter (light source fixing part 161 Fig. 1B of Kim) provided on the first flow path (Fig. 1B of Kim where the flow path formed by guide 150 corresponds to the first flow path of Kim’15) and configured to support the UV light source (paragraph [0100] of Kim) to be disposed above the photocatalytic filter (Fig. 1C of Kim), and wherein the supporter comprises a protrusion (Fig. 1B of Kim) that includes a groove (Fig. 1B of Kim).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the housing further comprises a mounting portion (understood the hooks located on the back of light transmitting member 185 Fig. 4 of Kang) on which the discharge electrode is mounted (Figs. 4-5 of Kang), and wherein the purifier assembly further comprises an outlet (ion discharge hole 113 Fig. 4 of Kang) provided on a bottom surface of the mounting portion (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0074] of Kang) and through which the cold air in the first flow path is discharged to the storage compartment (Fig. 6 of Kang where the illustrated flow path inside sterilizer 100 corresponds to the first flow path of Kim’15).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, in view of Sakurasawa, in view of Kim’15, in view of Kim, and in further view of Yun (US20210063050A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein the purifier assembly further comprises an electronic component room (see below annotated Fig. 6 of Kang), wherein the air purifier comprises the ion sterilization device (Fig. 4 of Kang), wherein the discharge electrode is provided on the first flow path (see below annotated Fig. 6 of Kang), and wherein the printed circuit board is provided in the electronic component room (see below annotated Fig. 6 of Kang).
PNG
media_image2.png
406
1212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the electronic component room partitioned from the first flow path and the second flow path”.
However, Yun teaches the electronic component room (mounting unit 518 Fig. 3 corresponds to the electronic component room of Kang) partitioned from the first flow path (see below annotated Fig. 5 of Yun) and the second flow path (see below annotated Fig. 5 of Yun) to protect the electronic components of the purifier assembly.
PNG
media_image3.png
311
1143
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the electronic component room partitioned from the first flow path and the second flow path” in view of the teachings of Yun to protect the electronic components of the purifier assembly.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, in view of Sakurasawa, in view of Kim’15, and in further view of Jang et al. (KR20140124659A, herein after referred to as Jang).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein a flow rate of the cold air discharged from the second flow path to the storage compartment is greater than a flow rate of the cold air discharged from the first flow path to the storage compartment”.
However, Jang teaches wherein a flow rate of the cold air (understood to be the amount of cold air flowing out of discharge opening 114a Fig. 4) discharged from the second flow path (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Jang) to the storage compartment (refrigerating chamber 22 Fig. 1 corresponds to the storage compartment of Kang) is greater than a flow rate of the cold air (understood to be the amount of cold air flowing out of discharge opening 114b Fig. 4 which a person skilled in the art would recognize as being smaller than the amount of cold air flowing out of discharge opening 114a since discharge opening 114b is smaller in size than discharge opening 114a) discharged from the first flow path to the storage compartment (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Jang) to provide different amounts of treated air to different sections of the storage compartment.
PNG
media_image4.png
386
823
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein a flow rate of the cold air discharged from the second flow path to the storage compartment is greater than a flow rate of the cold air discharged from the first flow path to the storage compartment” in view of the teachings of Yun to provide different amounts of treated air to different sections of the storage compartment.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein a direction in which the cold air is discharged from the first flow path to the storage compartment is different from a direction in which the cold air is discharged from the second flow path to the storage compartment”.
However, Jang teaches wherein a direction (understood to be the direction of cold air flowing out of discharge opening 114b Fig. 4) in which the cold air is discharged from the first flow path (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Jang) to the storage compartment (refrigerating chamber 22 Fig. 1 corresponds to the storage compartment of Kang) is different from a direction (understood to be the direction of cold air flowing out of discharge opening 114a Fig. 4) in which the cold air is discharged from the second flow path (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Jang) to the storage compartment to evenly spread the treated air in the storage compartment (paragraph [0051]).
PNG
media_image4.png
386
823
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein a direction in which the cold air is discharged from the first flow path to the storage compartment is different from a direction in which the cold air is discharged from the second flow path to the storage compartment” in view of the teachings of Yun to evenly spread the treated air in the storage compartment.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, in view of Sakurasawa, in view of Kim’15, and in further view of Kim et al. (US20180274839A1, herein after referred to as Kim’39).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising a deodorization filter provided on a rear surface of the storage compartment”.
However, Kim’39 teaches further comprising a deodorization filter (filter 132 Fig. 3) provided on a rear surface of the storage compartment (Fig. 1 where refrigerating chamber 12 corresponds to the storage compartment of Kang) to further improve the deodorizing capabilities of the refrigerator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising a deodorization filter provided on a rear surface of the storage compartment” in view of the teachings of Kim’39 to further improve the deodorizing capabilities of the refrigerator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pages 7-9, that the provided prior art does not teach or suggest “a part of the cold air discharged from the cold air outlet is circulated into the storage compartment through the second flow path, and a remaining part of the cold air discharged from the cold air outlet is directly passed to the first flow path and is deodorized or sterilized by the air purifier” as recited by amended claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, the above rejection of amended claim 1 is repeated below:
Kim’15 teaches a part of the cold air discharged from a cold air outlet (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15) is circulated into a storage compartment (paragraph [0048] where the cabin of the vehicle corresponds to the storage compartment) through the second flow path (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15), and a remaining part of the cold air discharged from the cold air outlet (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15) is directly passed to the first flow path (see below annotated Fig. 21 of Kim’15) and is deodorized or sterilized by the air purifier (paragraph [0048]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 9, that the provided prior art does not teach or suggest “the cold air outlet is provided at a terminal end of one surface of the duct forming a rear surface of the storage compartment” as recited by amended claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, the above rejection of amended claim 1 is repeated below:
Sakurasawa teaches a cold air outlet (the outlet of circulation path 13 Figs. 1-2 corresponds to the cold air outlet) is provided at a terminal end of one surface of a duct (terminal end of the upper surface of circulation path 13 Figs. 1-2 where circulation path 13 corresponds to the duct) forming a rear surface of a storage compartment (Figs. 1-2 where refrigerator compartment 2 corresponds to the storage compartment).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10, that the provided prior art does not teach or suggest “wherein a first vertical height of the inlet and a second height of the cold air outlet are substantially same” as recited by amended claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, the above rejection of amended claim 1 is repeated below:
Sakurasawa teaches wherein a first vertical height of the inlet (corresponds to the height at which air intake port 30a is located Fig. 1) and a second height of the cold air outlet (corresponds to the height at which the outlet of circulation path 13 is located Fig. 1) are substantially same (Fig. 1).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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