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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (CN 113863807) (hereinafter Jin).
Regarding claim 1, Jin discloses a refrigerator comprising: a main body (11) having a storage compartment; a door (12) rotatably coupled to the main body to open or close the storage compartment; a slider (21) provided on the main body, configured to be movable in a front-rear direction to open or close the door, the slider comprising a contact part (23) ; and a magnetic force part (24) installed to a rear surface of the door, configured to be magnetically attachable to or detachable to the contact part by a movement of the slider, wherein the door is configured to be opened or closed by the slider while the magnetic force part is magnetically attached to the contact part, and wherein at least one of the contact part and a part of the magnetic force part is configured to be rotatable so that an attachment of the magnetic force part and the contact part is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) s 2 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Lee et al. (US patent application publication 2019/0330909) (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 2, Jin discloses a refrigerator wherein the slider further comprises: a housing (231) provided at a front end of the slider, and having an opening (Fig. 5).
Jin does not disclose a rack gear to allow the slider to be movable in the front-rear direction. Lee teaches a rack gear (29) to allow a slider to movable in a front-rear direction. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jin to include a slider in view of Lee’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known component with another known component yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claim 15, Jin discloses the refrigerator as claimed. Jin does not disclose a refrigerator wherein the door comprises: a first door and a second door provided on a left side and a right side of the main body, respectively, and the slider and the magnetic force part are provided as a pair to each of the first door and the second door. Lee teaches a refrigerator wherein the door comprises: a first door and a second door provided on a left side and a right side of the main body (Fig. 1), respectively, and the slider and the magnetic force part are provided as a pair to each of the first door and the second door. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jin wherein the door comprises: a first door and a second door provided on a left side and a right side of the main body, respectively, and the slider and the magnetic force part are provided as a pair to each of the first door and the second door in view of Lee’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known arrangement with another known arrangement yielding a predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-7624. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Dan Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637