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 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. The claims no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been overcome. Examiner notes that per the 6 October 2025 Interview Summary, the Examiner did not indicate that the 103 rejections would be overcome by the amendment, but did indicate that further search/consideration would be required.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to be arguing that Jung’s use of adhesive to attach the L-shaped member, air duct cover, and front cover fails to meet “an L-shaped member configured to detachably attach the aid duct cover to the front panel. Examiner notes that the adhesive used in Jung, namely hot melt, is frequently used to form an non-permanent attachment. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is found non-persuasive, and the rejection is maintained, modified as necessitated by Amendment. In view that Leconte is not relied upon to teach the limitation in question, Applicant’s argument concerning Leconte is found moot. It is recommended that Applicant consider adding additional limitation(s) to claim 17 to overcome the art of record. Applicant is encouraged to schedule an interview to discuss such additional limitation(s).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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) 1-2, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US-20180187945-A1) in view of Leconte (US-20110062845-A1): both previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses a refrigerator comprising:
a main body (10); a storage compartment provided in the main body (10a and 10b); and
an air duct provided in the storage compartment and configured to discharge air into the storage compartment (cool air duct 20), wherein the air duct comprises:
a front panel (cover panel 24 and inclination supporter 25),
an air flow path part provided at a rear surface of the front panel (cover 29 provided at rear surface of panel 24, air flows between 24 and 29, par 0080);
an air duct cover (cover plate 21) comprising an upper portion (top half of 22) and a lower portion (bottom half of 22) attached to the front panel (bottom half of 22 attached via 26 to 24); and
an L-shaped member (fixing members 26 at lower end of air duct, which have an L-shaped cross-section; see Annotated Figure A, below) configured to detachably attach the air duct cover to the front panel (see Fig 2 and 4).
Jung does not disclose having an assembly groove formed at an upper portion of a front surface of the front panel and the air duct cover comprising an upper portion inserted into the assembly groove.
Leconte teaches a front panel (frame 103) having an assembly groove formed at an upper portion (groove 137 on upper part of 103) of a front surface of the front panel (see Fig 9 and 10) and a cover (panel 102) comprising an upper portion inserted into the assembly groove (upper portion of 102 is inserted into 137, see Fig 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Jung with an assembly groove formed at an upper portion of a front surface of the front panel and the air duct cover comprising an upper portion inserted into the assembly groove: that is using the known technique of assembling panels together, as taught by Leconte, to provide the system of Jung with an assembly groove formed at an upper portion of a front surface of the front panel and the air duct cover comprising an upper portion inserted into the assembly groove would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) and would provide the benefit of increasing the rigidity of the panel assembly (Leconte par 0089).
Regarding claim 2, Jung further teaches a plurality of screws (Jung, fastening member 27, see Fig 5), wherein the L-shaped member (Jung, 26) has a plurality of first assembly holes (Jung, fastening hole 26a), wherein the front panel has a plurality of second assembly holes (Jung, hole in 24 that accommodates 27) corresponding to the plurality of first assembly holes (Jung, hole in 24 can be considered to correspond to 26a since the fastening member 27 is placed through both holes), and wherein the L-shaped member is detachably attached to the front panel by the plurality of screws inserted through the plurality of first assembly holes and the plurality of second assembly holes (Jung, see assembly depicted in Fig 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 16, Jung discloses wherein the L-shaped member is configured to detachably attach the air duct cover to the front panel (see rejection of claim 1, above).
Jung does not disclose by positioning the lower portion of the air duct cover between the front panel and the L-shaped member.
However, by positioning the lower portion of the air duct cover between the front panel and the L-shaped member is considered a product by process limitation.
Thus, Jung in view of Leconte can be considered to meet by positioning the lower portion of the air duct cover between the front panel and the L-shaped member 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").).
Claim(s) 3-5, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US-20180187945-A1) in view of Leconte (US-20110062845-A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bae (US-20180172336-A1): all previously cited.
Regarding claim 3, Jung further discloses wherein the front panel comprises: an air discharge part (Jung, panel 24) having a plurality of air discharge holes through which air is discharged into the storage compartment (Jung, air outlets 24a, par 0077).
Jung does not disclose a fan, and a fan mounting part provided below the air discharge part and on which the fan is mounted.
Bae teaches a fan (Bae Fig 2 blower fan 6), and a fan mounting part provided below the air discharge part and on which the fan is mounted (Bae, blower fan case 8 provided below rear duct 60, see Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Modified Jung with a fan, and a fan mounting part provided below the air discharge part and on which the fan is mounted, as taught by Bae, as doing so would benefit the system of Jung by sucking the air to enhance its cooling over the evaporator as air is guided through it (see Bae par 0056).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Jung further discloses wherein the L-shaped member (annotated Fig A, fixing member 26) comprises a first surface corresponding to a lower end of the air discharge part (annotated Fig A, fixing members 26 at lower end of panel 24 and therefore the first surface is considered to correspond to lower end of panel 24) and a second surface corresponding to an upper surface of the fan mounting part (annotated Fig A, second surface faces a surface of the fan mounting part as modified by Bae and therefore considered to correspond to a surface of the fan mounting part (Bae) that is nearest panel 24 of Jung.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Modified Jung further discloses wherein the plurality of second assembly holes is provided at the lower end of the air discharge part (Jung, holes in 24 that accommodate 27 at lower end of air duct, i.e. lower end of panel 24), and the plurality of first assembly holes is provided on the first surface of the L-shaped member corresponding to the lower end of the air discharge part on which the plurality of second assembly holes is formed (Jung, fastening hole 26a provided at first surface and are located at lower end of panel 24 on which holes in 24 are formed).
Regarding claim 17, Jung further discloses wherein the first surface and the second surface span at least a width of the front panel (both the first and second surfaces span at least the width of the embossed portions of the front panel #24, which is “a” width of the front panel).
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