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 § 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 13-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, Claim13 recites “a lever “, claim 1 also recites “a lever”; this recitation is redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14-20 are rejected based on their respective dependencies
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2022203266 (“Lee et al. ‘266”). As to Lee et al., Examiner is relying on US 20240167754 A1for the English translation.
Regarding Claims 1-3, Lee et al. ‘266 discloses Claim 1- a refrigerator (see generic Figs. 1-2 and 18-24) comprising:
a cabinet (10) having a storage space ([0062]);
a door (20) configured to open and close the cabinet (10);
a hinge bracket (60) configured to connect the door (20) to the cabinet to rotatably support the door (20); an auto-closing device (40) configured to provide a closing force to the door to assist in rotating the door (20) towards a closed position, the auto-closing device being in contact with the hinge bracket (60) during a portion of a rotation of the door, the auto-closing device (40) comprising a lever (420) configured to be rotatable about a position that is spaced apart from a rotation center of the door; and a damping mechanism (623b; [0272-0274]) configured to provide damping force; Claim 2 -wherein the auto-closing device (40) comprises an elastic member (450) connected to the lever (420), or wherein the damping mechanism is located on the door; Claim 3-, wherein the damping mechanism comprises a damper (623b) configured to be in contact with the lever (420; [0272-0274]).
Claims 1-4, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub US 20100109497 (“FEI et al.”).
Regarding Claims 1-4, 8 and 11 FEI et al. discloses Claim 1- a refrigerator ([0053, see Claim 9]) comprising:
a cabinet ([0053) having a storage space ;
a door configured to open and close the cabinet;
a hinge bracket (12) configured to connect the door (via 1) to the cabinet to rotatably support the door; an auto-closing device (2) configured to provide a closing force to the door to assist in rotating the door towards a closed position, the auto-closing device (2) being in contact with the hinge bracket (12) during a portion of a rotation of the door, the auto-closing device comprising a lever (25) configured to be rotatable about a position that is spaced apart from a rotation center of the door; and
a damping mechanism (24) configured to provide damping force to the door lever (25) while the auto-closing device provides the closing force to the door; CLAIM 2-wherein the auto-closing device comprises an elastic member connected to the lever, or wherein the damping mechanism (24) is located on the door; Claim 3-wherein the damping mechanism (24) comprises a damper (21) configured to be in contact with the lever(Via 221)); Claim 4-wherein the damping mechanism (24) further comprises a fixing bracket (221) to couple the damping mechanism to the door (via 2) at one side of the auto-closing device (25), Claim 8-wherein the damper (24) is located on the auto- closing device or on the door (([0053]) at a position adjacent to the auto-closing device (25); Claim 11, wherein the damper (24) comprises: a fixed member(241); a movable member (242) configured to move relative to the fixed member (241), and a spring (21) configured to provide elastic force to the movable member (242).
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub US 20100109497 (“Blersch et al.”).
Regarding Claims 1-10 and 12, Blersch et al. discloses CLAIM 1-a refrigerator comprising:
a cabinet (20) having a storage space (appliance interior, Col. 5:lins 17-22);
a door (10) configured to open and close the cabinet (20);
a hinge bracket (110 and the bracket mounted on the cabinet) configured to connect the door to the cabinet to rotatably support the door; an auto-closing device (155, 120, 140) configured to provide a closing force to the door to assist in rotating the door towards a closed position, the auto-closing device (155, 120, 140) being in contact with the hinge bracket during a portion of a rotation of the door (as seen in Fig. 1B), the auto-closing device comprising a lever (155, 120, 140) configured to be rotatable about a position that is spaced apart from a rotation center of the door; and a damping mechanism (200) configured to provide damping force to the lever (155) while the auto-closing device provides the closing force to the door (10); Claim 2-wherein the auto-closing device (155, 120, 140) comprises an elastic member (140) connected to the lever (via 120), or wherein the damping mechanism (200) is located on the door (10); Claim 3-wherein the damping mechanism (200) comprises a damper (best seen in Fig.4) configured to be in contact with the lever(155); Claim 4-wherein the damping mechanism (200) further comprises a fixing bracket (300) to couple the damping mechanism to the door (10) at one side of the auto-closing device (155) ; Claim 5 -the damper (200) comprise: a fixed member (202) ; and a movable member (204) configured to move relative to the fixed member (202), the movable member being connected to the lever (155, via support shown in Fig. 4) or in contact with one surface of the lever (155); Claim 6-wherein a portion of the lever (155) is disposed between the damper and a rotation center of the lever (155); Claim 7- wherein the movable member (204) comprises a connection portion (fastener), and wherein the lever (155) comprises a slot (hole, best seen in Fig. 4) configured to receive the connection portion (fastener) therein; Claim 8-wherein the damper (200) is located on the auto- closing device or on the door (10) at a position adjacent to the auto-closing device (via 155); Claim 9-wherein the auto-closing device (155, 120, 140) comprises a case (141) configured to accommodate the elastic member (140) therein, and wherein the damping mechanism (200) includes an outer body (300)configured to accommodate the damper therein, the outer body being located on the case of the auto-closing device or on the door (10) at the position adjacent to the auto-closing device (via 155); Claim 10-: a fixed member (202) ; and a movable member (204)configured to move relative to the fixed member, the movable member being in contact with the lever (155) between the rotation center of the door and a rotation center of the lever; Claim 12- wherein, when the lever (155) moves in a first direction while the door (10) is being closed, the movable member of the damper (204) moves from a first position to a second position, and wherein, when the lever (155) moves in a second direction opposite the first direction while the door (10) continues to be moved to the closed position, the movable member (204) of the damper is configured to provide the damping force to the door (10) while moving from the second position to the first position.
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 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 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.
Alternatively, Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 2022030835 (“Lee et al.”) in view of 20100109497 (“Blersch et al.”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee et al. discloses a refrigerator comprising:
a cabinet (10) having a storage space;
a door (20) configured to open and close the cabinet (10);
a hinge bracket configured to connect the door (20) to the cabinet (10) to rotatably support the door (20);
an auto-closing device (40) configured to provide a closing force to the door (20) to assist in rotating the door (20) towards a closed position, the auto-closing device (40) being in contact with the hinge bracket during a portion of a rotation of the door (20); the auto-closing device comprising a lever (420) configured to be rotatable about a position that is spaced apart from a rotation center of the door, and the auto-closing device provides a closing force to the door.
Lee et al. discloses the surfaces 324 and 325 provide a restrictive force to the lever but not expressly disclose a damping mechanism that provides a damping force to the lever.
Blersch et al. discloses a similar invention mounted on a refrigerator door (10), the auto closing device (155, 120, 140) is configured to provide a closing force to the door and damping mechanism (200) configured to provide damping force to the lever (155) while the auto-closing device provides the closing force to the door (10).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that that auto closing device could be improved with a damping device similar to the one taught by Blersch et al. to provide a damping force on the lever to slow the door closing, as is well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination discloses (Lee et al.) wherein the auto-closing device (40) comprises an elastic member (450) connected to the lever (420) or wherein the damping mechanism is located on the door.
Regaring Claims 3-5, the combination discloses (Blersch et al.) Claim 3- wherein the damping mechanism (200) comprises a damper (best seen in Fig.4) configured to be in contact with the lever(155); Claim 4-wherein the damping mechanism (200) further comprises a fixing bracket (300) to couple the damping mechanism to the door (10) at one side of the auto-closing device (155) ; Claim 5 -the damper (200) comprise: a fixed member (202) ; and a movable member (204) configured to move relative to the fixed member (202), the movable member being connected to the lever (155, via support shown in Fig. 4) or in contact with one surface of the lever (155).
Regarding Claim 12, The combination discloses (Lee et al.) wherein, when the lever (420) moves in a first direction while the door (20) is being closed, the movable member of the damper moves from a first position to a second position, and wherein, when the lever (420) moves in a second direction opposite the first direction while the door (20) continues to be moved to the closed position, the movable member of the damper is configured to provide the damping force to the door (20) while moving from the second position to the first position, as modified by Blersch et al.
Claims 13-18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al. and Blersch et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019/172592 ("Kim et al.").
The combination discloses Claim 13- Lee et al. wherein the auto-closing device (40) comprises: a lever (420) configured to be rotatable about a position that is spaced apart from a rotation center of the door; an elastic member (450)connected to the lever ; and a case (410) configured to accommodate the elastic member therein, the claimed invention but does not disclose the damper mechanism in the case with the elastic member.
Regarding Claim 13, Kim et al. demonstrates it is known in the art to provide and elastic member(33) in a case (10) with a damping mechanism (31, 32, 14, 40).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that that the case taught by Lee et al. could be modified to house both the spring and damping mechanism, in a manner similar to the elastic and damper mechanism taught Kim et al. so that the door opens and closes slowly.
Claim 14, the combination discloses (Kim et al.) wherein the damping mechanism (31, 32) comprises: a first member (32) connected to the lever ; and a second member (31) configured to be movable with respect to the first member (32) such that, when the first member rotates (32), the second member (31) moves linearly, (in the same manner as the original case taught by Lee et al).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination discloses (Kim et al.) wherein a rotation center of the first member (32) is the same as a rotation center of the lever .
Regarding Claim 16, the combination discloses (Kim et al.) wherein the damping mechanism further comprises an elastic member (33) configured to elastically support the second member (31).
Regarding Claim 17, The combination discloses (Kim et al.) wherein the first member comprises a first space configured to accommodate oil (14) therein, wherein the second member comprises a second space configured to accommodate oil therein, and wherein the damping mechanism includes a buffer space configured to accommodate oil therein, the buffer space being located between the case and the second member (as seen in Figs. 3-7).
Regarding Claim 18, The combination discloses (Kim et al.) wherein the first (32) member comprises a first uneven portion, and wherein the second member (31) comprises a second uneven portion that is engaged with the first uneven portion according to a rotational position of the first member (as seen in Figs. 3-7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references as applied in the current rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLEY S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3328. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:30-5:30.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached on 5712703742. 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.
/KIMBERLEY S WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights