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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, regarding Suzuki, though Examiner notes that Applicant’s claimed chambers are broadly recited, Suzuki is not relied upon to teach the specific location of the evaporator, but only the hanging and other feature(s) not related to the specific location of the evaporator. In regards to Applicant’s arguments concerning the reflective film, Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s disclosure calls for the reflective film to be a foil: “Preferably, the reflective film 9 is aluminum foil.”; thus, since the reference is made of the same material called for by Applicant, it can be presumed to have the same function. Applicant is also reminded that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." (see MPEP 2114).
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: defrosting device (i.e. device [generic placeholder] for defrosting [functional language] in claim 10.
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. In the case of defrosting device, the corresponding structure is found in paragraph [0043].
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. (CN 110375474: cited with English translation) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0257886: previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Nie et al. discloses a refrigerator (see at least refrigerator #10), comprising:
a storage compartment (see at least chamber(s) #131/#121/#132) and a cooling chamber located below the storage compartment (see at least chamber #133);
a top cover for the cooling chamber, where at least a part of a top wall of the cooling chamber is formed on the top cover (see at least Figures 7 and 8, housing wall #102);
an evaporator, which is located inside the cooling chamber (see at least Figures 7 and 8, evaporator #101); and
an insulation component provided between the top cover of the cooling chamber and the evaporator (see at least Figures 7 and 8, cross-hatched area above evaporator #101), where the insulation component is fixedly connected to both the top cover and the evaporator (see at least Figures 7 and 8, insulation is fixed in place via being sandwiched between #102 and #139), and a top surface of the insulation component abuts the top cover (see at least Figures 7 and 8, top of insulation abuts #102), and a bottom surface of the insulation component abuts the evaporator (see at least Figures 7 and 8, bottom of insulation abuts #101 via #139) and wherein the insulation component and the evaporator together enclose a frost retention space (see at least Figures 7 and 8, gap beneath #139a), with one end of the frost retention space facing an airflow having an opening (see at least Figures 7 and 8, gap beneath #139a has an opening at one end).
Nie et al. does not disclose the evaporator fixedly connected to the top cover of the cooling chamber in a hanging manner.
However, it is noted that there are only a finite number of options available to one having ordinary skill in the art for mounting an evaporator. In this regard, it is noted that Suzuki et al. teaches an evaporator fixedly connected to the top cover of a chamber in a hanging manner (see at least paragraph [0029]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the evaporator in the refrigerator of Nie et al. with the evaporator fixedly connected to the top cover of the cooling chamber in a hanging manner, since as evidenced by Suzuki et al., such provision is a suitable and known provision for mounting an evaporator (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such provision would provide the predictable benefit of vibrationally isolating the evaporator from the body of the refrigerator to reduce noise.
Regarding claim 9, Nie et al. further discloses wherein the top cover of the cooling chamber comprises a horizontal part corresponding to the evaporator (see at least Figure 8, #102) and an inclined part located at a rear side of the evaporator (see at least Figure 8, part of #102 accommodating the fan #103); the refrigerator further comprises an insulation layer attached to a bottom side of the inclined part (see at least Figure 8, insulation is also provided at the part accommodating the fan #103).
Nie et al. does not disclose the inclined part gradually inclines upwards in the direction away from the horizontal part.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that the inclined part gradually inclines upwards in the direction away from the horizontal part would result in a difference in function of Nie et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Nie et al., would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the inclined part gradually inclines upwards in the direction away from the horizontal part solves any stated problem, stating that such feature is “optionally” provided (see at least paragraph [0017]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the inclined part gradually inclines upwards in the direction away from the horizontal part such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the refrigerator of Nie et al. to have the inclined part gradually inclines upwards in the direction away from the horizontal part as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 10, Nie et al. does not disclose wherein the refrigerator further comprises an evaporator bottom plate fixed to a bottom side of the evaporator, and the evaporator bottom plate is provided with a drainage grille; and/or the refrigerator further comprises a defrosting device provided on the evaporator.
Suzuki et al. further teaches the refrigerator further comprises an evaporator bottom plate fixed to a bottom side of the evaporator, and the evaporator bottom plate is provided with a drainage grille; and/or the refrigerator further comprises a defrosting device provided on the evaporator (see at least paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Nie et al. with wherein the refrigerator further comprises an evaporator bottom plate fixed to a bottom side of the evaporator, and the evaporator bottom plate is provided with a drainage grille; and/or the refrigerator further comprises a defrosting device provided on the evaporator, as taught by Suzuki et al., to improve the refrigerator of Nie et al. by allowing for periodic frost removal from the evaporator (see at least Suzuki et al. paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 11, Nie et al. further discloses wherein a side of the insulation component facing the evaporator forms a recessed groove with an opening (see at least Figure 8 least #139a); and wherein a top wall of the recessed groove, a side wall of the recessed groove and a top surface of the evaporator together enclose the frost retention space, while the opening of the recessed groove forms the opening of the frost retention space (see at least “a front section 139a through the bent section 139c connected with the rear section 139b and front section 139a with the upper interval on the surface of the evaporator 101 is provided, so as to form the interval space between the upper surface of the evaporator 101 at the front section 139a, through return air 102a and return air duct 190 supplied to a part of the cooling return air flow in the chamber 133 into the front plate section 139a with 101 of interval space with the evaporator between the upper surface of the evaporator 101 to exchange heat. thereby increasing the return airflow and heat exchange area of the evaporator 101, and when the front end of the evaporator 101 from frosting, which return air flow can enter the front plate section 139a with 101 of interval space with the evaporator between the upper surface of the evaporator 101 to exchange heat, cooling to form a cold air flow, ensures the continuous supply of cooling gas flow.”).
Regarding claim 12, Nie et al. further discloses wherein a height of the frost retention space is greater than a maximum height of a frost on the evaporator (see at least “and when the front end of the evaporator 101 from frosting, which return air flow can enter the front plate section 139a with 101 of interval space with the evaporator between the upper surface of the evaporator 101 to exchange heat, cooling to form a cold air flow, ensures the continuous supply of cooling gas flow.”).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blomberg (US 3,866,431: previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. does not disclose wherein the bottom side of the top cover of the cooling chamber is provided with hook catches, the hook catches hook onto a circumferential edge of the insulation component to fix the insulation component to a bottom side of the top cover of the cooling chamber.
Blomberg teaches another refrigerator wherein the bottom side of the top cover of the cooling chamber is provided with hook catches, the hook catches hook onto the circumferential edge of the insulation component to fix the insulation component to the bottom side of the top cover of the cooling chamber (see at least Figures 6 and 8, hooks #75’/#475’ beneath plate #271/#471 which removably fix insulation #74/#474 to the bottom side of plate #271/#471.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. with wherein the bottom side of the top cover of the cooling chamber is provided with hook catches, the hook catches hook onto a circumferential edge of the insulation component to fix the insulation component to a bottom side of the top cover of the cooling chamber, as taught by Blomberg, to improve the refrigerator of Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. by allowing for the insulation component to be removably attached to the top cover/evaporator, thus allowing for replacement in the case of damage or fouling.
Regarding claim 4, Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. and Blomberg does not disclose wherein the bottom side of the top cover of the cooling chamber is also provided with positioning ribs, and the insulation component is provided with positioning grooves, the positioning ribs are embedded in the positioning grooves to prevent the insulation component from moving in a horizontal direction.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that wherein the bottom side of the top cover of the cooling chamber is also provided with positioning ribs, and the insulation component is provided with positioning grooves, the positioning ribs are embedded in the positioning grooves to prevent the insulation component from moving in a horizontal direction would result in a difference in function of Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. and Blomberg device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. and Blomberg, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that wherein the bottom side of the top cover of the cooling chamber is also provided with positioning ribs, and the insulation component is provided with positioning grooves, the positioning ribs are embedded in the positioning grooves to prevent the insulation component from moving in the horizontal direction, stating that such feature is “optionally” provided (see at least paragraph [0012]) and suggesting its omission (see at least paragraph [0054]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on wherein the bottom side of the top cover of the cooling chamber is also provided with positioning ribs, and the insulation component is provided with positioning grooves, the positioning ribs are embedded in the positioning grooves to prevent the insulation component from moving in a horizontal direction such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the refrigerator of Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. and Blomberg to have wherein the bottom side of the top cover of the cooling chamber is also provided with positioning ribs, and the insulation component is provided with positioning grooves, the positioning ribs are embedded in the positioning grooves to prevent the insulation component from moving in the horizontal direction as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. and Blomberg further discloses wherein the evaporator has a fixed part, the fixed part is fixed to the insulation component by screws, bolts, or snap-fitting (see at least Blomberg column 8, lines 3-13; column 8, lines 47-55: the hooks will result in a snap-fit).
Regarding claim 6, Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. and Blomberg further discloses wherein a distance between the fixed part and the hook catches in a horizontal direction is less than a preset distance (the limitation is inherent to the combination of Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. and Blomberg since the horizontal distance between the hooks and the fixed portion of the evaporator is 0).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of No Name (JP-S6059066: previously cited with English translation).
Regarding claim 8, Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. does not disclose wherein the refrigerator further comprises a reflective film provided between the top cover of the cooling chamber and the insulation component.
No Name teaches another refrigerator comprising a reflective film provided between the evaporator and the insulation component (see at least aluminum film #20 between evaporator #7 and insulation #19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. with a reflective film, as taught by No Name, to improve the refrigerator of Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. by reflecting the cooling back toward the evaporator.
Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. and No Name does not disclose that the reflective film is provided between the top cover of the cooling chamber and the insulation component.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that the reflective film is provided between the top cover of the cooling chamber and the insulation component would result in a difference in function of the Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. and No Name device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. and No Name, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the reflective film is provided between the top cover of the cooling chamber and the insulation component solves any stated problem, stating that such feature is “optionally” provided (see at least paragraph [0016] and suggesting other areas for the film (see at least paragraph [0062])), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the reflective film is provided between the top cover of the cooling chamber and the insulation component such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the refrigerator of Nie et al. in view of Suzuki et al. and No Name to have the reflective film is provided between the top cover of the cooling chamber and the insulation component as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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 at 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 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763