DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 16, 20-22, 25, 26, 28-30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (EP 3173717 A1) in view of Hurley (US 4120441).
Regarding claims 16, 20, 22, 25, 28-30, and 34 Garcia discloses a transport fixing device, comprising:
at least one transport securing element 11 (fixing unit) configured in one piece (claim 25) being inserted (at least partially received) in a usable space of a refrigerator 3 (household appliance) having a usable space and a door 2 with a side facing the usable space, said at least one transport fixing unit having a planar face 23 with a first edge (toward the inside of the fridge) and a second edge (toward the door of the appliance) opposite said first edge said planar face being parallel to sidewalls of the appliance and
said first and second edges being aligned in a front to back direction of the appliance, said at least one transport fixing unit having at least one fixing region being a first recess 18 formed in said first edge said at least one transport fixing unit, for receiving and at least partially fixing a first support element (edge of shelf 12, cl 20) disposed in a usable space of the appliance said at least one transport fixing unit having at least one second fixing region being a second recess between projections 26 formed in said second edge of said at least one transport fixing unit for receiving and at least partially fixing a door support element 15 (door tray, fig. 1 and 5, claim 22) mounted to the door of the appliance,
said at least one transport fixing unit being configured for bearing at least partially flat against the side of the door facing the usable space, fig. 5 of Garcia shows the door has protruding ribs on the left and right and the edge of the fixing unit toward the door lies flat against the side of the door rib facing the usable space.
Garcia discloses, fig. 1 and 5, said at least one transport fixing unit is disposed in the usable space so as to extend at least substantially over an entire free height of the usable space.
Garcia discloses that the transport securing element 11 is made from expanded polystyrene [0030].
Garcia does not teach at least one transport fixing unit further having at least one molded fiber part.
Hurley is analogous art in regard to a protective packaging material inserts. Hurley teaches a packaging insert for protection made from molded fiber formed from repulped cellulose material derived from waste paper, col. 1: 35-45 and col. 4: 5-20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of Garcia to be made from recycled molded fiber in order to allow the unit to be more environmentally friendly.
Regarding claim 21, Garcia discloses a first recess, below 16, fig. 2 and 3, and seen in fig. 1 is configured for receiving at least one edge region of a drawer 14 of the appliance.
Regarding claim 26, Garcia discloses, fig. 5, that said at least one transport fixing unit is disposed in a region of the usable space facing an opening of the usable space over extend at least substantially over an entire free height of the usable space.
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia and Hurley as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kono (JP 2002145376 A).
Regarding claim 35, Garcia in view of Hurley teaches all of claim 16, as applied above. Garcia does not teach that the fixing unit is sized to extend to a ceiling of the usable space.
Kono is analogous art in regard to transport fixing units for refrigerators. Kono discloses that the length (height) of the packing member in the vertical direction is set to a length between the bottom surface and the top surface, the length allows the packaging member to be sandwiched (utilizes elasticity), fig. 1, [0008] of the translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the fixing unit of Garcia to extend from the bottom to the top of the open space of the refrigerator such that when the refrigerator door is opened the securing element will still be held in place frictionally between the upper and lower surface of the open space.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Garcia does not teach that the transport fixing unit extends overs at least substantially an entire free height of the useable space, “substantially” is relative and has no particular meaning. The unit of Garcia extends over more than half the height of the free space and is considered to meet the limitation in question. With this in mind, applicant’s argument against the height of Garcia is not found persuasive.
The argument that Garcia teaches away from the claimed height is not persuasive. While Garcia does cite a shorter length as an advantage of a smaller transport securing element ([0023] of Garcia) the suggestion of an advantage does not expressly teach away from a transport securing element that reaches the ceiling or floor. In other words, there is no teaching or suggesting that the securing element extending from the ceiling to the floor of the container would cause a problem or not allow the support to function properly. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123 Section II. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In order for a reference to "teach away," it must explicitly criticize, discredit, or discourage the specific combined feature (See also MPEP 2145.(X)(D)(1)). In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799