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 .
The claims received 12/2/2025 are entered. Claim 5 is cancelled.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 10,663,207), in view of Choi (US 9,175,896), and in view of Scalf et al (US 10,712,074).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Jeong discloses a refrigerator appliance defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, comprising:
a cabinet (10) defining a chilled chamber (21);
a door (30) being rotatably mounted to the cabinet to provide selective access to the chilled chamber, the door at least partially defining an icebox (40) and comprising an outer door panel (33) and an inner door panel (34) spaced apart along the transverse direction to define a door gap that is filled with insulation (35), wherein a nominal door gap thickness is defined away from an icebox and an icebox door gap thickness is defined adjacent the icebox (identified in annotated figure below), the icebox door gap thickness being less than the nominal door gap thickness (the nominal door gap thickness corresponds to a total door thickness while the icebox door gap thickness is the total door thickness less the thickness of the ice making chamber itself and door 36); and
a fan (63) positioned in fluid communication with the icebox for circulating a flow of air through the icebox.
PNG
media_image1.png
790
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jeong lacks an insulated cover mounted to the door to at least partially define and thermally isolate the icebox from the chilled chamber.
Choi discloses a similar door mounted ice maker having an insulated cover (130) mounted to the door to at least partially define and thermally isolate the icebox from the chilled chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Jeong with the cover of Choi in order to provide access to the ice making chamber from an inside of the door. Such access allows for access to the ice reservoir as well as to the icemaker itself for repair/maintenance.
Jeong lacks the fan being located within the ice box. Scalf discloses a similar arrangement where a fan can move air from a heat exchanger to an ice box as shown in figure 3 and where the fan is located within the icebox compartment as shown in figures 5-7. It has been held that the particular position of an element does not render a claim non-obvious when rearranging said element would not have modified the operation of the device. Further the particular location can be regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Moreover location of a fan within the ice box may promote air circulation therein.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Jeong discloses the icebox door gap thickness is less than the nominal door gap thickness. It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance the total of the sum of the door 36, ice box 40 thickness, and icebox door gap thickness is equal to the nominal door gap thickness. Reducing the ice box door gap thickness provides additional ice box thickness. Therefor because reducing door gap thickness is recognized as effecting the result of increasing space for the ice box; the values of 50% or 80% are not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and are obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Jeong discloses the icebox is sealed from the chilled chamber on a top side, a front side, a back side, and lateral sides of the icebox (7:22-33).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong, as modified, discloses the refrigerator appliance of claim 5, where the fan is positioned to intake air from a dedicated cooling chamber (as shown in figures 2-7) but lacks the fan is positioned to intake air from the chilled chamber. Scalf discloses an ice maker, where a dedicated ice maker cooler (82) is supplemented by intaking cold air from a chilled chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Jeong with air from the chilled chamber in order to supplement the dedicated cooler.
Regarding claim 14, Jeong and Choi disclose the insulated cover comprises a hard outer shell (131 of Choi) filled with an insulating material (162 of Choi).
Regarding claim 15, Jeong discloses a craft icemaker (41) positioned within the icebox.
Regarding claim 16, Jeong discloses an ice storage bin (42) positioned below the icebox for storing ice.
Regarding claim 17, Jeong discloses the chilled chamber (21) but lacks that it is a freezer compartment. The examiner takes official notice that freezer compartments and convertible compartments are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the chamber 21 is a convertible compartment in order to increase freezer space.
Regarding claim 18, Jeong, as modified discloses the refrigerator appliance of claim 1, but lacks the refrigerator appliance is a side-by-side refrigerator appliance. A side-by-side refrigerator is defined as the refrigerator and freezer chambers are side-by-side occupying a full height of the refrigerator. The examiner takes official notice that side-by-side refrigerators are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Jeong with a side-by-side arrangement in order to put freezer storage at eye level.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 10,663,207), in view of Choi (US 9,175,896), in view of Scalf et al (US 10,712,074).and in further view of either Zhao et al (US 2024/0377118) or Pao (US 4,736,594), in the alternative.
Regarding claim 7, Jeong, as modified, discloses the refrigerator appliance of claim 5, but is silent concerning a defrost controller.
Pao discloses a defrost controller configured to determine that a defrost cycle is needed (4:25-27); and operate a fan for a predetermined amount of time (period “A” of figure 3; 4:40-43).
Zhao discloses a defrost controller configured to determine that a defrost cycle is needed (figures 3 and 4); and operate a fan for a predetermined amount of time (“refrigerate the ice making compartment” of figures 4-7 includes the ice maker fan of [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Jeong with a defrost controller and to have operated the fan after determining the need for defrosting in order to a) remove frost, ensuring proper operation, b) evaporate residual refrigerant prior to defrost, c) ensure that the ice maker is pre-cooled or has sufficiently completed an ice making cycle as taught by Pao and/or Zhao. Moreover the operation of the fan purges air within the icebox as a natural consequence.
Regarding claim 8, Jeong, as modified by Pao or Zhao, further discloses the determination that the defrost cycle is needed is based on an elapsed time since a prior defrost cycle (Zhao [0029]-[0032]), an indication of frost buildup (Pao 4:25-27, or a number of icemaking cycles performed since the prior defrost cycle (Zhao [0029]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 9, Jeong, as modified, discloses the refrigerator appliance of claim 7, but lacks using freezer/freezer evaporator temperature as defrost determination. The examiner takes official notice that freezer temperature or freezer evaporator temperature are old and well known to indicate defrost need. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Jeong with freezer/freezer evaporator temperature as a defrost indicator as temperature sensors are widely available at low cost.
Regarding claim 12, Jeong in view of Zhao further disclose a temperature sensor for detecting an icebox temperature of the icebox ([0023]).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 10,663,207), in view of Choi (US 9,175,896), in view of Scalf et al (US 10,712,074) and in further view of Kim et al (US 11,598,570) and Cronin et al (US 10,126,034).
Regarding claim 10, Jeong, as modified, discloses the refrigerator appliance of claim 1, but lacks a heating assembly. Kim discloses a heating assembly (100, 110, and 120) in thermal communication with the icebox for selectively heating the icebox, wherein the heating assembly has at least one heater (102 of 100) positioned between the icebox and the outer door panel. Cronin discloses a heating assembly (114) in thermal communication with the icebox for selectively heating the icebox. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Jeong with a heating assembly as taught by Kim or Cronin in order to provide a relatively warm icebox which enhances ice clarity as well as prevent dew/frost formation at the icebox.
Regarding claim 11, Jeong, as modified, further discloses the heating assembly comprises: a plurality of resistive heaters positioned within the insulated cover and in or on the door (100, 110, and 120 of Kim as provided to Jeong).
Regarding claim 12, Jeong in view of Cronin further disclose a temperature sensor for detecting an icebox temperature of the icebox (112 of Cronin; inclusive of the modification at claim 10).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 10,663,207), in view of Choi (US 9,175,896), in view of Scalf et al (US 10,712,074), and in further view of Cronin et al (US 10,126,034).
Regarding claim 13, Jeong, as modified, discloses the refrigerator appliance of claim 1, but is silent concerning the icebox temperature. It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance Cronin discloses that warming the icebox temperature increases ice clarity. Therefor because icebox temperature being warmer than a freezer temperature is recognized as effecting the result of ice clarity; the value of 15-20F above freezer temperature is not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and is obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Jeong discloses an ice maker (41) positioned in the icebox. The term craft icemaker may refer to relatively large ice of high clarity. To that end Cronin discloses a craft ice maker. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Jeong with a craft icemaker in order to provide a user with craft ice which is desirable for beverages.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection. Regarding the location of the fan within the icebox, Scalf is now provided. It is also noted that Kyriacou and Junge (both previously made of record) teach similar. Applicant asserts that Kim fails to teach the heater location; see heater 102 of Kim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kyriacou et al (US 2019/0063817) air flow arrangement in icebox
Lee (US 7,434,417) insulation arrangement about door mounted ice maker.
Junge et al (US 9,175,893) heater mounting arrangement.
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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights