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 IDS have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s submission of the missing document. The replacement IDS has been considered.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s replacement drawing does not appear to locate the missing feature appropriately. For example, in replacement Figure 10, the feature in question appears to point to a bracket. Examiner notes that Applicant’s replacement specification now identifies fixator and capillary with the same reference character. Accordingly, the amendment to the specification is objected to and the drawing objection is maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the claim objection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the claim objection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that where Applicant’s amendment has obviated the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejections are withdrawn. However, where Applicant’s amendment has not obviated the rejection(s) or has introduced new deficiencies, these are maintained or raised below, as necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Examiner’s assertion that the limitation regarding the welding is a design choice, Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s disclosure refers to the welding as an optional feature, thus it cannot be considered to be critical to Applicant’s invention. Further, regarding the product-by-process interpretation, Examiner refers Applicant to the attached definition for weld, which does not require metallurgical joining. Regarding the fixators, Examiner notes that Applicant does not argue regarding why the rejection with the fixators is improper, and further notes that limitations regarding the fixators remain indefinite. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained, below, modified as necessitated by Amendment.
Specification
The amendment filed 9 March 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: both the capillary and bracket cannot be #400.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the capillary tube must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-4, and 7-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the length of the second pipeline’s inlet end”, “the length of the second pipeline’s outlet end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is believed Applicant intended “wherein the second pipeline includes an inlet end and an outlet end, each having a length” to precede the limitations above. Claims 2-4 and 7-12 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 or incorporate claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein a length of the first pipeline […]”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the length of claim 2, upon which claim 3 depends. It is believed that claim 3 was intended to further limit the length of claim 2.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the first pipeline is connected upstream to a capillary tube”. This limitation is not understood as presented in view of the “sequence” set forth in claim 1. Does Applicant mean that the first pipeline is connected upstream of a capillary tube? Or that the first pipeline is connected on an upstream end to a capillary tube? Clarification is requested. To expedite prosecution, Examiner has applied prior art to the claim as best it could be understood as presented, i.e. using one of the two equivalent interpretations above. Additionally, claim 4 recites the limitation “an inner diameter”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the inner diameter of claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends. It is believed that claim 4 was intended to further limit the inner diameter of claim 1.
Claims 7-12 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “having the refrigerant inlet and outlet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the refrigerant outlet”. It is believed that the refrigerant outlet should first be defined prior to use of “the refrigerant outlet”. Claims 8-12 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on or incorporate claim 7 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 8-10 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a refrigerant outlet”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the refrigerant outlet introduced in claim 7. It is believed to be the same. Claim 8 also recites the limitation “the inter-pipe fixators” are connected to “at least two of […] through the at least two fixing slots”. This limitation is unclear and cannot be understood as presented. As written, the claim appears to require that at least two of the components from the list each be connected through the two fixing slots, which does not appear to be Applicant’s intent. Does Applicant mean that the fixators collectively connect to at least two of the components from the list? Does Applicant mean that each fixator connects to at least two of the components from the list, which each passing through a separate slot? Examiner has applied prior art to the claim as best it could be understood as presented, but notes that amendment may necessitate new grounds of rejection. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 8 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the refrigerator’s return air pipe”. Regarding “the refrigerator’s return air pipe”, Examiner notes that “return air pipe” is not idiomatic, and appears to be directed at the return pipe (i.e. to the compressor) of the vapor-compression system in a refrigerator, but clarification is requested.
Claims 11 and 12 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a refrigerator equipped with the evaporator as described in claim 7”. As set forth, it appears that claim 12 could be objected to as a substantial duplicate of claim 7 since there is no additional refrigerator structure required beyond that of claim 7. Claim 12 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 11 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “the upper end”, “the lower end”, “the front side”, “the pipelines of the evaporator”. These limitations lack antecedent basis in the claims. Applicant should first indicate that the components in question have an upper end, lower end, front side, and pipelines.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al. (CN 111735236: cited by Applicant; English translation previously provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Xiang et al. discloses a connecting pipeline for an evaporator (see at least Figure 1, #2/#12/#4), wherein the connecting pipeline is configured to connect with the refrigerant inlet of the evaporator (see at least evaporator #5) and comprises a first pipeline (see at least #2), a second pipeline (see at least #12), and an inlet pipeline connected in sequence (see at least #4), wherein the inlet pipeline is connected to the refrigerant inlet (see at least #4 into #5), and an inner diameter of the first pipeline is larger than an inner diameter of the second pipeline (see at least “In the above refrigerant denoising device, the inner diameter of the damping tube 2 is greater than the inner diameter of the capillary tube 1.”: Examiner notes that capillary tube #1 includes both #11 and #12).
Xiang et al. is silent regarding wherein the second pipeline is welded to the first pipeline and the inlet pipeline.
However, wherein the second pipeline is welded to the first pipeline and the inlet pipeline is considered a product by process limitation.
Thus, Xiang et al. can be considered to anticipate wherein the second pipeline is welded to the first pipeline and the inlet pipeline since all the structural limitations claimed are disclosed (see "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product.). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("Biogen is certainly correct that the scope of composition and method of treatment claims is generally subject to distinctly different analyses. But where, as here, the novelty of the method of administration rests wholly on the novelty of the composition administered, which in turn rests on the novelty of the source limitation, the Amgen analysis will necessarily result in the same conclusion on anticipation for both forms of claims."); United Therapeutics Corp. v Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360, 1373, 2023 USPQ2d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the court held that product-by-process claims were properly rejected as "anticipated by a disclosure of the same product irrespective of the processes by which they are made."); and Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, 811 F.3d 1345, 117 USPQ2d 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, in the context of an infringement analysis, a product-by-process claim is only infringed by a product made by the process recited in the claim. Id. at 1370 ("a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim, but an accused product made by a different process cannot infringe a product-by-process claim").).
Alternatively, there is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the second pipeline is welded to the first pipeline and the inlet pipeline would result in a difference in function of the Xiang et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Xiang et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed processes. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed processes solve any stated problem, indicating that “Optionally, the first pipeline is welded or integrally drawn with the second pipeline; the second pipeline is welded or integrally drawn with the inlet pipeline.” (see paragraph [0010]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the processes as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
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 device of Xiang et al. with the second pipeline is welded to the first pipeline and the inlet pipeline as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Xiang et al. does not disclose wherein the length of the second pipeline's inlet end inserted into the first pipeline is 10-30mm; the length of the second pipeline's outlet end inserted into the inlet pipeline is 10-30mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the length of the second pipeline's inlet end inserted into the first pipeline is 10-30mm; the length of the second pipeline's outlet end inserted into the inlet pipeline is 10-30mm would result in a difference in function of the Xiang et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Xiang et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed dimensions solve any stated problem, indicating that “Optionally, the second pipeline is welded to the first pipeline and/or the inlet pipeline, wherein the length of the second pipeline's inlet end inserted into the first pipeline is 10-30mm; the length of the second pipeline's outlet end inserted into the inlet pipeline is 10-30mm.” (see paragraph [0011]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the dimensions as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
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 device of Xiang et al. with the length of the second pipeline's inlet end inserted into the first pipeline is 10-30mm; the length of the second pipeline's outlet end inserted into the inlet pipeline is 10-30mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art; see also In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 2, Xiang et al. further discloses wherein a length of the first pipeline ranges from 0.02m to 1.25m (see at least “wherein the damping pipe 2 is a hose; the damping magnet assembly 3 through magnetic clamping capillary 1. for the length of the hose, setting according to the actual need. It can be understood that the longer the hose, the better the damping effect. Therefore, the length of the soft tube is preferably not less than 200mm. However, considering the space limitation, the length of the soft pipe is 200mm. Of course, it can also select the length of the soft pipe is other numerical value, the embodiment is not limited.”).
Regarding claim 3, Xiang et al. further discloses wherein a length of the first pipeline ranges from 0.02m to 0.9m (see at least “wherein the damping pipe 2 is a hose; the damping magnet assembly 3 through magnetic clamping capillary 1. for the length of the hose, setting according to the actual need. It can be understood that the longer the hose, the better the damping effect. Therefore, the length of the soft tube is preferably not less than 200mm. However, considering the space limitation, the length of the soft pipe is 200mm. Of course, it can also select the length of the soft pipe is other numerical value, the embodiment is not limited.”).
Regarding claim 4, Xiang et al. further discloses wherein the first pipeline is connected upstream to a capillary tube (see at least Figure 1, #2 is connected to capillary #11).
Xiang et al. does not disclose an inner diameter of the first pipeline is 0.5-10m, a wall thickness of the first pipeline is 0.2-3mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing an inner diameter of the first pipeline is 0.5-10m, a wall thickness of the first pipeline is 0.2-3mm would result in a difference in function of the Xiang et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Xiang et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed dimensions solve any stated problem, indicating that “Optionally, the first pipeline is connected upstream to a capillary tube; the inner diameter of the first pipeline is 0.5-10mm, the wall thickness of the first pipeline is 0.2-3mm.” (see paragraph [0009]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the dimensions as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
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 device of Xiang et al. with an inner diameter of the first pipeline is 0.5-10m, a wall thickness of the first pipeline is 0.2-3mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art; see also In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al. (CN 111735236: cited by Applicant; English translation previously provided by Examiner) in view of Kang et al. (US 2020/0080763).
Regarding claim 7, Xiang et al. discloses an evaporator (see at least evaporator #5) equipped with the connecting pipeline as described in claim 1 (see at least rejection of claim 1, above).
Xiang et al. is silent regarding wherein the evaporator comprises an evaporator body comprising multiple fins and a coiled pipeline bent and threaded through the fins, the coiled pipeline having the refrigerant inlet and outlet, though Examiner notes it is likely it includes such provision.
It is, however, old and well-known in the art to provide an evaporator with an evaporator body comprising multiple fins and a coiled pipeline bent and threaded through the fins, the coiled pipeline having the refrigerant inlet and outlet, as evidenced by Kang et al. (see at least inlet/outlet of cooling pipe #231 which is threaded through fins #232).
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 of Xiang et al. with herein the evaporator comprises an evaporator body comprising multiple fins and a coiled pipeline bent and threaded through the fins, the coiled pipeline having the refrigerant inlet and outlet, since, as evidenced by Kang et al., such provision is old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of facilitating heat transfer.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al., as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of No Name (JP 63120068: cited by Applicant; English translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 8, Xiang et al. further discloses wherein a refrigerant outlet of the evaporator is connected to an outlet pipeline (inherent to evaporator #5);
Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. does not disclose the evaporator further includes inter-pipe fixators made of flexible material, each inter-pipe fixator has at least two fixing slots, the inter-pipe fixators are connected to at least two of the first pipeline, second pipeline, inlet pipeline, and outlet pipeline through the at least two fixing slots, effectively reducing noise caused by pipeline resonance during the operation of the evaporator.
No Name teaches another evaporator/refrigerator wherein the evaporator (see at least #7, best seen in Figure 6) further includes inter-pipe fixators made of flexible material (see at least Figures 6-8, #13), each inter-pipe fixator has at least two fixing slots (see at least Figures 7 and 8, top slot for refrigerator body and bottom clamp for pipe), the inter-pipe fixators are connected to at least two of the first pipeline, second pipeline, inlet pipeline, and outlet pipeline through the at least two fixing slots, effectively reducing noise caused by pipeline resonance during the operation of the evaporator (see at least Figure 6, given that refrigerators are closed loop systems and that there are two clamps present, the clamps must be connected to at least two of the above through the fixing slot(s)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. with the evaporator further includes inter-pipe fixators made of flexible material, each inter-pipe fixator has at least two fixing slots, the inter-pipe fixators are connected to at least two of the first pipeline, second pipeline, inlet pipeline, and outlet pipeline through the at least two fixing slots, effectively reducing noise caused by pipeline resonance during the operation of the evaporator, as taught by No Name, to improve the device of Xiang et al. by ensuring that the pipeline(s) do not vibrate or move excessively, thus preventing both noise and system damage.
Regarding claim 9, Xiang et al. as modified by Kang et al. and No Name is silent regarding wherein the outlet pipeline is welded to the refrigerator's return air pipe, and the outlet pipeline is threaded through one of the fixing slots of the inter-pipe fixators, though it is likely that the combination would meet this limitation since refrigerant components are commonly welded together and No Name shows the fixators adjacent the evaporator #7.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the outlet pipeline is welded to the refrigerator's return air pipe, and the outlet pipeline is threaded through one of the fixing slots of the inter-pipe fixators would result in a difference in function of the Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. and No Name device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. and No Name, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed arrangement. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed arrangement solves any stated problem, indicating that “Optionally, the outlet pipeline is welded to the refrigerator's return air pipe, and the outlet pipeline is threaded through one of the fixing slots of the inter-pipe fixators.” (see paragraph [0014]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the arrangement as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
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 device of Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. and No Name with the outlet pipeline is welded to the refrigerator's return air pipe, and the outlet pipeline is threaded through one of the fixing slots of the inter-pipe fixators as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 10, Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. and No Name does not disclose wherein the inter-pipe fixators are positioned in an area of 45-55mm before and after a diameter change point between the first pipeline and the second pipeline; and/or the inter-pipe fixators are positioned in an area of 45-55mm before and after a diameter change point between the second pipeline and the inlet pipeline.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the inter-pipe fixators are positioned in an area of 45-55mm before and after a diameter change point between the first pipeline and the second pipeline; and/or the inter-pipe fixators are positioned in an area of 45-55mm before and after a diameter change point between the second pipeline and the inlet pipeline would result in a difference in function of the Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. and No Name device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. and No Name, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed arrangement. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed arrangement solves any stated problem, indicating that “Optionally, the inter-pipe fixators are positioned in an area of 45-55mm before and after the diameter change point between the first pipeline and the second pipeline; and/or the inter-pipe fixators are positioned in an area of 45-55mm before and after the diameter change point between the second pipeline and the inlet pipeline.” (see paragraph [0015]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the arrangement as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
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 device of Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. and No Name with the inter-pipe fixators are positioned in an area of 45-55mm before and after a diameter change point between the first pipeline and the second pipeline; and/or the inter-pipe fixators are positioned in an area of 45-55mm before and after a diameter change point between the second pipeline and the inlet pipeline as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al. (CN 111735236: cited by Applicant; English translation previously provided by Examiner) in view of Kang et al. (US 2020/0080763).
Regarding claim 11, Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. discloses a refrigerator (see at least Xiang et al. “For the specific type of the device with refrigeration function, according to the actual need to select, for example, the device with refrigeration function is refrigerator, the embodiment is not limited.” equipped with the evaporator as described in claim 7 (see at least rejection of claim 7, above).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of No Name (JP 63120068: cited by Applicant; English translation provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 12, Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. does not disclose further comprising:
an inner liner defining a storage compartment; and
fixing clamps, comprising a body part and a clamping part, the inner liner is equipped with an installation port into which the body part is inserted, positioning the clamping part inside the inner liner; the clamping part includes an upper clamping section and a lower clamping section formed by bending forward from the upper end and the lower end of the front side of the body part separately, the upper clamping section bends upwards, and the lower clamping section bends downwards, there is a gap between the front ends of the upper clamping section and the lower clamping section, thus the gap can define a space between the front ends to accommodate the pipelines of the evaporator, and the inner side of the upper clamping section and/or the lower clamping section is equipped with a flexible component.
No Name teaches a refrigerator comprising an inner liner defining a storage compartment (see at least Figure 7, insulation layer defining refrigerator storage compartment); and
fixing clamps (see at least Figures 6-8, #13), comprising a body part (see at least Figure 8, #14) and a clamping part (see at least Figure 8, #16), the inner liner is equipped with an installation port into which the body part is inserted, positioning the clamping part inside the inner liner (see at least Figure 7, #14 will be received in the port in the liner); the clamping part includes an upper clamping section and a lower clamping section ( see at least Figure 8, #16 has upper and lower clamping sections), the upper clamping section bends upwards, and the lower clamping section bends downwards (see at least Figure 8, the upper clamping section of #16 bends upward from a center point and the lower clamping section of #16 bends downward from the center point), there is a gap between the front ends of the upper clamping section and the lower clamping section (see at least Figure 8, gap between upper/lower front ends), thus the gap can define a space between the front ends to accommodate the pipelines of the evaporator (see Figure 6), and the inner side of the upper clamping section and/or the lower clamping section is equipped with a flexible component (required for clamping shown in Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. with further comprising: an inner liner defining a storage compartment; and fixing clamps, comprising a body part and a clamping part, the inner liner is equipped with an installation port into which the body part is inserted, positioning the clamping part inside the inner liner; the clamping part includes an upper clamping section and a lower clamping section, the upper clamping section bends upwards, and the lower clamping section bends downwards, there is a gap between the front ends of the upper clamping section and the lower clamping section, thus the gap can define a space between the front ends to accommodate the pipelines of the evaporator, and the inner side of the upper clamping section and/or the lower clamping section is equipped with a flexible component, as taught by No Name, to improve the device of Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. by ensuring that the pipeline(s) do not vibrate or move excessively, thus preventing both noise and system damage.
Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. No Name is silent regarding formed by bending forward from the upper end and the lower end of the front side of the body part separately.
However, formed by bending forward from the upper end and the lower end of the front side of the body part separately is considered a product by process limitation.
Thus, Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. and No Name can be considered to meet formed by bending forward from the upper end and the lower end of the front side of the body part separately since all the structural limitations claimed are disclosed (see "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product.). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("Biogen is certainly correct that the scope of composition and method of treatment claims is generally subject to distinctly different analyses. But where, as here, the novelty of the method of administration rests wholly on the novelty of the composition administered, which in turn rests on the novelty of the source limitation, the Amgen analysis will necessarily result in the same conclusion on anticipation for both forms of claims."); United Therapeutics Corp. v Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360, 1373, 2023 USPQ2d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the court held that product-by-process claims were properly rejected as "anticipated by a disclosure of the same product irrespective of the processes by which they are made."); and Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, 811 F.3d 1345, 117 USPQ2d 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, in the context of an infringement analysis, a product-by-process claim is only infringed by a product made by the process recited in the claim. Id. at 1370 ("a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim, but an accused product made by a different process cannot infringe a product-by-process claim").).
Alternatively, there is no evidence of record that establishes that providing formed by bending forward from the upper end and the lower end of the front side of the body part separately would result in a difference in function of the Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. and No Name device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. and No Name, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed process. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed process solves any stated problem, indicating that “formed by bending forward from the upper end and the lower end of the front side of the body part separately” is optional (see paragraph [0017]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the process as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
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 device of Xiang et al. in view of Kang et al. and No Name with formed by bending forward from the upper end and the lower end of the front side of the body part separately as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
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 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
Prosecution Insights