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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2/10/26 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/30/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The newly amended claim requires a new reference to teach the orientation of the compartments.
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.
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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of U.S. PGPUB 20180180346 to Shin (Shin).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida teaches a cabinet having a storage compartment (1, Figure 1); at least one partition member configured to divide said storage compartment into at least two of a first space, a second space and a third space (partitions between 7, 8, 9, and/or 10 as well as the partition for the ice-maker which is not shown per Paragraphs 0040 and 0041); at least one inner guide (walls of the device or any structure that holds the ducts in place or is a sidewall to a duct will be considered at least one inner guide) having an air flow path containing a first air supply duct (20a, Figures 7 and 8) configured to introduce air into said first space (10, Figure 7) and a second air supply duct (25, Figure 7) configured to introduce the air into said second space (8, Figure 7 per Paragraph 0040); at least one fan configured to generate an air flow in the air flow path (14, Figures 7 and 8); a first air flow control device disposed on said first air supply duct to adjust an amount of the air supplied to said first space (15c, Figures 7 and 8); a second air flow control device disposed on said second air supply duct to adjust an amount of the air supplied to said second space (15b, Figures 7 and 8); a third air supply duct (19a, Figures 7 and 8) configured to introduce the air into said third space (7, Figure 7); a third air flow control device disposed on said third air supply duct to adjust an amount of the air supplied to said third space (15a, Figures 7 and 8); and at least two of said first air flow control device, said second air flow control device and said third air flow control device are disposed to be controlled independently of each other (Paragraph 0042 discloses the capability to open one of the dampers which indicates independence), a fourth air supply duct (26, Figure 8) configured to introduce the air into said first space (Paragraph 0040 discloses a pathway to the freezer, 10) being disposed on said at least one inner guide (walls of the device or any structure that holds the ducts in place or is a sidewall to a duct will be considered at least one inner guide) such that said fourth air supply duct is spaced apart from said first air supply duct (shown in Figure 8), a fourth air flow control device disposed on said fourth air supply duct to adjust an amount of the air supplied to said first space (15e, Figure 8), wherein said first air flow control device and said fourth air flow control device are disposed to be controlled independently of each other (Paragraph 0042 discloses the capability to open one of the dampers which indicates independence).
Yoshida is silent on wherein said first space is provided over or vertically above said at least one partition member.
Shin teaches wherein said first space is provided over or vertically above said at least one partition member (freezer 102 is above the refrigerator compartment in Figure 1 which would result in the orientation claimed when applied to Yoshida). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yoshida with the teachings of Shin to provide wherein said first space is provided over or vertically above said at least one partition member. Doing so would be a simple rearrangement of parts and would allow one to access the freezer and refrigerator compartments at heights they desire.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida teaches wherein said at least one inner guide having a center axis passing over said at least one fan (any of the backwalls shown in Figures 1 and 2), said center axis dividing said at least one inner guide into a first half side and a second half side, said first air supply duct formed only on said first half side and said fourth air supply duct formed only on said second half side (horizontal axis meets these requirements).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida teaches said first air supply duct has a first air outlet which opens to said first space (shown in Figure 7 at 18); said fourth air supply duct has a fourth air outlet which opens to the first space (disclosed in Paragraph 0040); and said first air outlet opens into a right-side of said first space and said fourth air outlet opens into a left-side of said first space, said first air outlet and said fourth air outlet are spaced apart from each other,and said right-side and said left-side of said first space being defined by a center axis of said cabinet (they are separate ducts and go to separate parts of the freezer therefore the outlets are separate and the left side and right sides are dependent on how the device is oriented. It is further noted that positioning of these ducts is simply design choice and a simple rearrangement of parts. It is further noted that applicant has not identified a particular benefit to this orientation).
Claim(s) 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Shin and WO2019047564 to Teng et al. (Teng).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida is silent on wherein at least two of said first, second, third and fourth air flow control devices are embodied as a single unit being a double damper.
Teng teaches double dampers as a suitable alternative to independent dampers (“The temperature zone 1 and the temperature zone 2 share one evaporator and the fan provides the cooling capacity; and two independent dampers (or double dampers) are provided”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide at least two of said first, second, third and fourth air flow control devices are embodied as a single unit being a double damper, since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida is silent on wherein said first air flow control device and said second air flow control device are embodied as a first double damper.
Teng teaches double dampers as a suitable alternative to independent dampers (“The temperature zone 1 and the temperature zone 2 share one evaporator and the fan provides the cooling capacity; and two independent dampers (or double dampers) are provided”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein said first air flow control device and said second air flow control device are embodied as a first double damper, since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida is silent on wherein said third air flow control device and said fourth air flow control device are embodied as a second double damper.
Teng teaches double dampers as a suitable alternative to independent dampers (“The temperature zone 1 and the temperature zone 2 share one evaporator and the fan provides the cooling capacity; and two independent dampers (or double dampers) are provided”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein said third air flow control device and said fourth air flow control device are embodied as a second double damper, since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Yoshida teaches wherein at least a portion of said fan is positioned between said first double damper and said second double damper (Yoshida teaches dampers on either side of a fan and Teng teaches double dampers as alternatives to independent dampers).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Yoshida teaches wherein said first double damper and said second double damper are positioned in said at least one inner guide in an angled manner with respect to each other (all dampers are provided at some angle to each other which includes 0, 90, and/or 180 degrees, and the double dampers are provided by Teng).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Yoshida teaches wherein said first double damper has a first controller configured to control said first air flow control device and said second air flow control device (Paragraph 0042 of Yoshida discloses a control scheme as does Figure 10 which indicates a controller and Teng discloses the double damper which can apply to any of the dampers).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Yoshida teaches wherein said second double damper is provided with a second controller configured to control said third air flow control device and said fourth air flow control device (Paragraph 0042 of Yoshida discloses a control scheme as does Figure 10 which indicates a controller and Teng discloses the double damper which can apply to any of the dampers).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The prior art does not provide a reasonable combination to teach “wherein said first space is configured as a fresh food compartment; and said second space is configured as a freezer compartment” in combination with the intervening claims although compartments are shown in these orientations the fresh food compartment and freezer compartment are reversed and have different ducts and numbers of ducts flowing to them.
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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762