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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2013/0037240) in view of Mochizuki (JP2022-51099).
Per claim 1, Jeon teaches refrigerator, comprising: an inner case (11,13) having a storage compartment therein and including a plurality of plates (side walls of inner case); an outer case (15,60) coupled to the outside of the inner case to form the exterior thereof; and a hot pipe (50) seated on a front flange of the inner case (portion of 11 housing 50 as shown in figure 3) to prevents dew from forming on the outer case (“a heat pipe 50 installed at the front of the intermediate partition wall 40 to prevent dew from being formed”, para. 0039); wherein the inner case comprises: a seating groove (41) provided on the front flange to seat the hot pipe, and a plurality of ribs (43) provided within the seating groove so that the hot pipe is in contact with the outer case; wherein:
the plurality of plates include an upper plate (see annotated figure below), a lower plate (see annotated figure below), a left plate (see annotated figure below), and a right plate (see annotated figure below); the front flange comprises an upper plate front flange (see annotated figure below), a lower plate front flange (see annotated figure below), a left plate front flange (see annotated figure below), and a right plate front flange (see annotated figure below); and the plurality of ribs (43) is provided in portions of the seating groove (41) disposed on right plate front flange, wherein the plurality of ribs (43) provided in the portions of the seating groove disposed on the right plate front flange includes a plurality of first ribs formed on a bottom surface inside the seating groove,
but fails to explicitly teach the plurality of ribs formed integrally with the inner case,
the plurality of ribs disposed on the upper plate front flange, lower plate front flange, left plate front flange, a plurality of second ribs formed on a side inside the seating groove,
wherein the seating groove includes a plurality of protrusions integrally formed with the inner case and protruding from the bottom surface inside the seating groove, and wherein each of the plurality of first ribs is formed integrally with each of the plurality of protrusions.
Regarding the integrality between the ribs and the inner case, per MPEP 2144.02, section V, paragraph B, “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide have the ribs formed integrally with the inner case in order to advantageously reduce the number of parts in the assembly, thereby reducing assembly time and assembly cost.
Regarding the plurality of ribs being disposed on the upper, lower, and left plate front flange, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). Further, there is no change in the respective function of the claimed ribs. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide ribs, of the plurality of ribs, on upper plate front flange, lower plate front flange, and the left plate front flange in order to advantageously inhibit dew from forming around all the edges of the refrigerator opening.
Regarding the plurality of second ribs, per MPEP 2144.04, section VI, paragraph C, shifting a position (i.e. a rearrangement of parts) that would not have modified the operation of the device would be an obvious matter of design choice. Placing a sub-set of a second plurality of ribs of the plurality of ribs on the side of the seating groove would have provided greater side to side stability for the hot pipe. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a plurality of second ribs formed on the side of the seating groove in order to advantageously add greater side to side stability for the hot pipe.
Regarding the plurality of protrusions, Mochizuki teaches a domestic refrigerator wherein a seating groove (groove accommodating 18) includes a plurality of protrusions (25) integrally formed with an inner case (13) and protruding from a bottom surface inside the seating groove (see figure 4), wherein each of a plurality of first ribs (22) is formed integrally with each of the plurality of protrusions (25) for preventing dew (pg. 2 of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a seating groove including a plurality of protrusions integrally formed with an inner case and protruding from a bottom surface inside the seating groove, wherein each of a plurality of first ribs is formed integrally with each of the plurality of protrusions, as taught by, as taught by Mochizuki in the invention of Jeon, as modified, in order to advantageously prevent the formation of dew (pg. 2 of translation).
Regarding the integrality between the ribs and protrusion of the seating groove, per MPEP 2144.02, section V, paragraph B, “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have each of the plurality of first ribs be formed integrally with each of the plurality of protrusions, in order to advantageously reduce the number of parts in the assembly, thereby reducing assembly time and assembly cost.
In regards the forming by injection molding; the examiner is interpreting the limitations as a product by process and per MPEP 2113, "[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”. Since the product in the product by process claim is the same as the prior art of Jeon the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
PNG
media_image1.png
797
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 6, Jeon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Jeon, as modified, teaches the seating groove but fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of first ribs is formed in a straight shape elongated in a left-right direction at a central portion of each of the plurality of protrusions (claim 6).
However, Mochizuki teaches a domestic refrigerator wherein each of a plurality of ribs (22) is formed in a straight shape elongated in a left-right direction at a central portion of each of a plurality of protrusions (see figure 3) (claim 6) for preventing dew (pg. 2 of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide each of the plurality of first ribs is formed in a straight shape elongated in a left-right direction at a central portion of each of the plurality of protrusions (claim 6), as taught by Mochizuki in the invention of Jeon, as modified, in order to advantageously prevent the formation of dew (pg. 2 of translation).
Further, per MPEP 2144.02, section V, paragraph B, “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have each of the plurality of first ribs be formed integrally with each of the plurality of protrusions, in order to advantageously reduce the number of parts in the assembly, thereby reducing assembly time and assembly cost.
Per claim 7, Jeon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 6. Further, Jeon, as modified, teaches wherein the plurality of first ribs is configured to allow the hot pipe to come into contact with the outer case positioned in front of the inner case (see figures 5 and 6 showing the ribs pushing the hot pipe toward the outer case 60).
Per claim 8, Jeon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 7. Further, Jeon, as modified, teaches wherein the hot pipe is in contact with the outer case by the plurality of first ribs, so that a temperature difference between the inside and the outside of the outer case is reduced by high-temperature heat generated by a high-temperature refrigerant flowing in the hot pipe, thereby preventing dew from forming on an outer surface of the outer case (para. 0053 and 0056-0057).
Per claim 9, Jeon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Jeon, as modified, taches the plurality of the second ribs formed on the side of the seating groove (see rejection of claim 3) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of second ribs is formed on a side closer to the storage compartment among both sides inside the seating groove.
However, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the plurality of second ribs is formed on a side closer to the storage compartment among both sides inside the seating groove in order to advantageously position the hot pipe in an optimal location for preventing the formation of dew.
Per claim 10, Jeon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further, Jeon, as modified, teaches the plurality of the second ribs, the hot pipe, the outer case and the inner case but fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of second ribs is configured to allow the hot pipe to come into contact with the outer case positioned on the side of the inner case. However, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the plurality of second ribs be configured to allow the hot pipe to come into contact with the outer case positioned on the side of the inner case in order to advantageously position the hot pipe in an optimal location for preventing the formation of dew.
Per claim 11, Jeon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Jeon, as modified, teaches the hot pipe, the plurality of second ribs, the outer case, and a temperature difference between the inside and the outside of the outer case is reduced by high-temperature heat generated by a high-temperature refrigerant flowing in the hot pipe, thereby preventing dew from forming on an outer surface of the outer case but fails to explicitly teach wherein the hot pipe is in contact with the outer case by the plurality of second ribs, so that a temperature difference between the inside and the outside of the outer case is reduced by high-temperature heat generated by a high-temperature refrigerant flowing in the hot pipe, thereby preventing dew from forming on an outer surface of the outer case. However, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the hot pipe be in contact with the outer case by the plurality of second ribs, so that a temperature difference between the inside and the outside of the outer case is reduced by high-temperature heat generated by a high-temperature refrigerant flowing in the hot pipe, thereby preventing dew from forming on an outer surface of the outer case in order to advantageously position the hot pipe in an optimal location for preventing the formation of dew.
Per claim 12, Jeon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further, Jeon, as modified, teaches the plurality of the second ribs, the hot pipe and the inside of the storage compartment but fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of second ribs is configured to allow the hot pipe to be located away from the inside of the storage compartment.
However, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the plurality of second ribs be configured to allow the hot pipe to be located away from the inside of the storage compartment in order to advantageously position the hot pipe in an optimal location for preventing the formation of dew.
Per claim 13, Jeon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 12. Further, Jeon, as modified, teaches wherein the hot pipe and the plurality of second ribs but fails to explicitly teach wherein the hot pipe is disposed at a position away from the inside of the storage compartment by the plurality of second ribs, so that transfer of high-temperature heat from a high-temperature refrigerant flowing in the hot pipe to the inside of the storage compartment is reduced.
However, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the hot pipe be disposed at a position away from the inside of the storage compartment by the plurality of second ribs, so that transfer of high-temperature heat from a high-temperature refrigerant flowing in the hot pipe to the inside of the storage compartment is reduced in order to advantageously position the hot pipe in an optimal location for preventing the formation of dew.
Per claim 14, Jeon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Jeon, as modified, teaches the plurality of ribs provided in the portion of the seating groove disposed on the lower plate front flange but fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of ribs provided in the seating groove disposed on the lower plate front flange among the seating grooves is formed on a bottom surface inside the seating groove.
However, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the plurality of ribs provided in the seating groove disposed on the lower plate front flange is formed on a bottom surface inside the seating groove in order to advantageously position the hot pipe in an optimal location for preventing the formation of dew.
Per claim 15, Jeon, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Jeon, as modified, teaches the plurality of the second ribs, the hot pipe, the outer case and the inner case but fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of second ribs is configured to allow the hot pipe to come into contact with the outer case positioned on the side of the inner case. However, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the plurality of ribs be configured to allow the hot pipe to come into contact with the outer case positioned in front of the inner case in order to advantageously position the hot pipe in an optimal location for preventing the formation of dew.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the Applicant’s argument on page 8, last paragraph, that the rejection does not disclose the first and second ribs; the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above, per MPEP 2144.04, section VI, paragraph C, shifting a position (i.e. a rearrangement of parts) that would not have modified the operation of the device would be an obvious matter of design choice. Placing a second plurality of ribs of the plurality of ribs on the side of the seating groove would have provided greater side to side stability for the hot pipe. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a plurality of second ribs formed on the side of the seating groove in order to advantageously add greater side to side stability for the hot pipe. Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection remains.
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 DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights