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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 4-20 in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of Group I has similar features as Group II, and they are just defining additional configurations due to the difference in categories. This is not found persuasive because the additional configurations due to the difference in categories are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. To elaborate,
Group I requires the provision of two door (one for each compartment), a cooling source for generating cold air that is supplied to each storage compartments, wherein a controller is configured to selectively performs at least one of (i) a normal storage operation, (ii) a load operation, and (iii) an emergency operation while controlling the cooling power to the two storage compartments.
On the contrary, Group II requires that the controller performs all the operations above as part of it process; not selectively. Group II further require additional operations such as an emergency operation confirmation step; a temperature checking step; and an operation step of performing the emergency operation while controlling with the determined cooling power. These additional operations are not contemplated by Group I.
Accordingly, the two groups are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. Restriction for examination purposes is required because all the inventions listed are independent and distinct for the reasons given above. There would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
• the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
• the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
• the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 4-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 calls for the limitation “an operation step of performing the emergency operation while controlling with the determined cooling power” (see last paragraph) which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what is being controlled with the determined cooling power. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 calls for the limitation “wherein in the cooling power determination step, the cooling power is determined to be set higher corresponding to the compartment temperature of the first storage compartment or the second storage compartment being checked higher” which limitation is indefinite for being incomprehensible or unintelligible. The scope of the limitation cannot be ascertained. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 calls for the limitation “the cooling power is operated with a higher cooling power in response to…”; which limitation is indefinite because it is unclear as to what the applicant refers to by “the cooling power is operated with a higher cooling power”. Power is a measurement of capacity; not a mechanism that operate another mechanism. Thus, it is unclear as to how the cooling power is operated with a higher cooling power. Appropriate correction is required.
A similar issue is found in claims 12-13 with the recitation “the cooling power is operated with a lower cooling power”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 calls for the limitation “the cooling power is controlled to be set a lower level corresponding to the decrease …”; which limitation is indefinite for being incomprehensible or unintelligible.
Applicant is encouraged to recite “the cooling power is controlled to be set at a lower level corresponding to the decrease …”.
Claim 18 calls for the limitation “in response to the compartment temperature of at least one of the first storage compartment and the second storage compartment increasing and the compartment temperature of the other storage compartment reaches an upper limit notch temperature …”; which limitation is indefinite for being incomprehensible or unintelligible.
Applicant is encouraged to recite “in response to the compartment temperature of at least one of the first storage compartment and the second storage compartment increasing and the compartment temperature of the other storage compartment reaching an upper limit notch temperature …”.
Claim(s) 5-20 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The combination of element as set forth in claim 4, when read in light of the specification in accordance with para [0124-0125], [0128], and [0130] to grasp the scope of the respective claimed operations is not disclosed or made obvious by the prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record is as follow:
Yanagida (US 20120047932 A1) teaches a control method for a refrigerator wherein during alternate cooling, if the freezer (F-compartment) gets too cold, the system initiates "R-individual overcool preventing control." The compressor slows down, the three-way valve switches to cool only the refrigerator (R-compartment), and the compressor further reduces speed every 30 seconds. Once the refrigerator hits its lower limit, the system switches to individual freezer cooling, eventually stopping the compressor when the freezer temperature limits are met.
Ahn (US 20200088462 A1) teaches a control method for a refrigerator by optimizing performance by switching between compartment cooling cycles based on stop conditions while adjusting compressor power according to real-time, sampled temperatures. The system operates the compressor and corresponding fan for each zone, with power determined by current temperature data.
Ahn (US 20210302092 A1) teaches a control method for a refrigerator wherein the control method manages a two-cycle system (first and second storage chambers) by operating a compressor and cold air supply sequentially based on run times. It optimizes efficiency by determining the run times for each cycle using reference times derived from the temperatures recorded during the previous combined, single-run cycle.
Seong (US 11226145 B2) teaches a control method for a refrigerator wherein the method operates a compressor based on two temperature thresholds: switching off at a lower reference and on at a higher reference. Upon restarting, the compressor's cooling power is adjusted using the temperature change slopes from previous active and inactive cycles.
There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to depart from the teachings of prior art above to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763