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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 & 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilke (20080163628) in view of Cushman (3392497).
Regarding claim 1, Lilke teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a modular refrigeration unit (Fig. 2) comprising: a plurality of panels (12, 14, 16, 18) adapted to form a main cabinet (12, 14, 16, 18) of the modular refrigeration unit, wherein each of the plurality of panels (Fig. 1) is formed as a separate component; and at least one camlock assembly (86, 88) adapted to couple the plurality of panels with each other to form the main cabinet (par. 66). Lilke fail(s) to teach a hook. However, Cushman teaches a camlock assembly (81, 92, 100) comprising: a first sub-assembly (92) disposed on a first panel (11), from among a plurality of panels (11-12); a second sub-assembly (81) disposed on a second panel (12), from among the plurality of panels, and adapted to be aligned with the first sub-assembly (Figs. 4-5); and a hook (100) disposed in one of the first sub-assembly and the second sub-assembly, and adapted to rotate when the first sub-assembly is aligned with the second sub-assembly (Figs. 4-5 & col. 7, lines 19-21), to engage the first sub-assembly with the second sub-assembly, for coupling the first panel with the second panel (Figs. 4-5 & col. 7, lines 19-21), wherein the hook (100) is rotatably actuated (col. 7, lines 19-21) to project (Figs. 4-5) from the second sub-assembly (81) into the first sub-assembly (92), and is configured to engage (Figs. 4-5) with a corresponding slot (A in Fig. 3 Annotated) formed therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a camlock assembly, as taught by Cushman, for each of the camlock assemblies of Lilke, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to selectively interlock adjacent panels to each other (as suggested by col. 7, lines 19-21 of Cushman), and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known locking means for another.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lilke teaches a cooling chamber (30) adapted to be disposed at the bottom of the main cabinet (12, 14, 16, 18).
Regarding claim 6, Lilke teaches panels (12, 14, 16, 18) that are each insulated panels filled with unspecified insulation material (par. 32); but fail(s) to teach polyurethane foam. However, Cushman further teaches the use of Polyurethane Foam (43) (col. 2, lines 61-64, col. 5, line 44-46, & col. 9, lines 14-15) in an insulated panel (11-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute polyurethane foam, as taught by Cushman, for the unspecified insulation material of Lilke, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce heat transfer between the inner & outer surfaces of the refrigerator, and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known insulation means for another.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilke (20080163628) & Cushman (3392497) in view of Jeong (KR20170001469). Lilke as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first & second panels (12, 14, 16, 18); but fail(s) to teach a guiding pin assembly. However, Jeong teaches a guiding pin assembly (12, 22) adapted to align a first panel (10) with the second panel (20) for coupling, the at least one guiding pin assembly comprising: at least one pin (12) disposed on the first panel (10); and at least one pin receiving component (22) disposed on the second panel (20) and adapted to accommodate the at least one pin (Fig. 1) for aligning (Fig. 1 & par. 8 & 19) the first panel with the second panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add guiding pin assemblies, as taught by Jeong, between the first & second panels of Lilke as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate assembly of panels to each other (as suggested by Fig. 1 of Jeong).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilke (20080163628) & Cushman (3392497) in view of Diaz (4045927). Lilke as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including panels (12, 14, 16, 18 of Lilke); but fail(s) to teach holes or protection caps. However, Diaz teaches a hole (6) on an inside surface (2) of each panel (1), said hole (6) being adapted to provide an access to a rotatable member (9) for rotation; and protection cap (12) adapted to cover the hole (Figs. 2 & 5-7 and col. 6, lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add holes & protection caps, as taught by Diaz, to the panels of Lilke as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate rotation of the hooks (as suggested by col. 7, lines 19-21 of Cushman & Figs. 4-5 of Diaz) while concealing the holes (as suggested by col. 6, lines 1-3 of Diaz), thereby improving the aesthetics of the refrigerator by providing a cleaner, more finished appearance.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilke (20080163628) & Cushman (3392497) in view of Godbode (20140345316). Lilke as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a door (20 of Lilke) adapted to be coupled to the main cabinet (12, 14, 16, 18 of Lilke), such that the door forms an entrance of the main cabinet (par. 54 of Lilke). Lilke as modified fail(s) to teach a door having a glass panel. However, Godbode teaches the inclusion of a glass panel (par. 48) in a door (112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a glass panel, as taught by Godbode, to the door of Lilke as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce energy usage by allowing users of the cabinet to view its contents without having to open the door.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilke (20080163628) in view of Jeong (KR20170001469), Cushman (3392497), & Godbode (20140345316). Lilke teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a plurality of panels (12, 14, 16, 18) adapted to form a main cabinet (12, 14, 16, 18) of a modular refrigeration unit (Fig. 2), wherein each of the plurality of panels is formed as a separate component (Fig. 1); a camlock assembly (86, 88) disposed in parts (Fig. 1) on first & second panels (12, 14, 16, 18); and a cooling chamber (30) adapted to be disposed at the bottom of the main cabinet (12, 14, 16, 18). Lilke fail(s) to teach a guiding pin assembly; a camlock assembly; or a glass panel. However, Jeong teaches a guiding pin assembly (12, 22) disposed in parts on a first panel (10) and a second panel (20), from among the plurality of panels (10, 20), and adapted to align the first panel with the second panel for coupling (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add guiding pin assemblies, as taught by Jeong, between the first & second panels of Lilke as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate assembly of panels to each other (as suggested by Fig. 1 of Jeong). Additionally, Cushman teaches a camlock assembly (81, 92, 100) comprising a hook (100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a camlock assembly, as taught by Cushman, for each of the camlock assemblies of Lilke, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to selectively interlock adjacent panels to each other (as suggested by col. 7, lines 19-21 of Cushman), and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known locking means for another. Additionally, Godbode teaches the inclusion of a glass panel (par. 48) in a door (112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a glass panel, as taught by Godbode, to the door of Lilke, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce energy usage by allowing users of the cabinet to view its contents without having to open the door.
Claims 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilke (20080163628) in view of Jeong (KR20170001469) & Cushman (3392497). Lilke teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a method of forming a main cabinet (12, 14, 16, 18) of a modular refrigeration unit (Fig. 2), the method comprising: forming a plurality of panels (12, 14, 16, 18) as separate components (implied by Fig. 1); and coupling the plurality of panels with each other to form the main cabinet (par. 66), wherein the plurality of panels is coupled with each other by at least one camlock assembly (86, 88). Lilke fail(s) to teach foaming with polyurethane foam; guiding pin assemblies; or a camlock assembly. However, Cushman teaches foaming each of a plurality of panels (11-12) with Polyurethane Foam (PUF) insulation (col. 2, lines 61-64, col. 5, line 44-46, & col. 9, lines 14-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to foam each of the panels of Lilke with polyurethane foam, as taught by Cushman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce heat transfer between the inner & outer surfaces of the refrigerator, and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known insulation means for another. Additionally, Jeong aligning a plurality of panels (10, 20) with each other for coupling (Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of panels is aligned with each other by at least one guiding pin assembly (12, 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a guiding pin assembly, as taught by Jeong, to align each of the panels of Lilke, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate assembly of panels to each other (as suggested by Fig. 1 of Jeong). Additionally, Cushman further teaches a camlock assembly (81, 92, 100); and rotating, by a tool, a hook (100) of the camlock assembly (Figs. 4-5 & col. 7, lines 19-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a camlock assembly, as taught by Cushman, for each of the camlock assemblies of Lilke, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to selectively interlock adjacent panels to each other (as suggested by col. 7, lines 19-21 of Cushman), and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known locking means for another; and to rotate each of the hooks of the camlock assemblies of Lilke as modified, as taught by Cushman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to selectively interlock adjacent panels to each other (as suggested by col. 7, lines 19-21 of Cushman).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that McLaughlin (and presumably Cushman) is nonanalogous art (Remarks at 4), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. In this case, Cushman teaches a camlock assembly (81, 92, 100) for joining insulated panels (11-12) of coolers or freezers (i.e., refrigerators - see col. 1, lines 37 & 42-43). Hence, Cushman is both in the field of the inventor’s endeavor (i.e., refrigerators) and reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (i.e., joining a refrigerator’s component panels to each other). Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
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 MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637