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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/17/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Schmitt does not teach the amended claims regarding the rack head detaching from the door are traversed. The base art of Cheng ‘000 teaches this limitation, see Col 7, Lns 5-15.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the “manipulation panel” are traversed. The terms “manipulation panel” and “manipulation member” are exceptionally broad and require no specific structure. The “manipulation panel” is comprised of the front panel of the refrigerator and the “manipulation member” is the front surface of the panel. These elements stop the door upon closing and can therefore meet the limitation “to manually control an operation of the refrigerator”.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the “rack bar is located at a center portion of the housing” are traversed. Fig. 14 shows embodiments with the rack bar located in the center portion of the housing laterally (see lower elements 100). Fig. 3 shows the rack bar located in the center in what would be the vertical direction (after element 12 is installed).
Applicant’s arguments directed toward the symmetry of the first and second fastening parts is traversed. The first and second fastening parts are clearly symmetrical, but not identical. A further annotated drawing is provided below to clarify.
PNG
media_image1.png
307
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 62 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The language of this claim cannot be understood. Examiner believes there are significant grammatical errors.
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.
Claim(s) 31-35, 37-46 and 49-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, U.S. Patent 11,448,000 in view of Schmitt, U.S. Patent 8,366,175.
Regarding Claim 31, Cheng teaches:
a cabinet having a storage compartment (see Abstract, see fig. 14);
a door which opens and closes the storage compartment (see Abstract); and
a door opening device (100) which assists in opening the door,
wherein the door is installed rotatably on a hinge, and the door opening device comprises:
a housing (11, 12) which is installed on the cabinet and constitutes an exterior of the door opening device, and
a rack bar (41) which moves forward and rearward from the housing, the rack bar being configured to move forward such that a front end of the rack bar passes through a front surface of the housing and selectively protrudes toward the door…as the door is further opening by a user, the rack head is configured to detach from the door (see Col 7, Lns 5-15).
Examiner notes that the Cheng disclosure discusses both door type wings and drawer type wings which are commonly associated with refrigerators. Cheng does not explicitly teach:
the door disposed rotatably on a hinge
a rack head rotatably disposed at the front end of the rack bar and configured to contact
with a surface of the door,
wherein, as the rack bar moves forward opening the door, the rack head rotates with the opening of the door such that a contact surface of the rack head maintains contact with the door, and as the door is further opening by a user.
Schmitt teaches:
the door (80) disposed rotatably on a hinge (68, 70)
a rack head (104/110) rotatably disposed at the front end of the rack bar and configured
to contact with a surface of the door (78),
wherein, as the rack bar moves forward opening the door, the rack head rotates with the opening of the door such that a contact surface of the rack head maintains contact with the door (see pin connecting 104 and 106 and note the inherent kinematics of the door and hinge in figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 32, in the instant combination, see element 100, figs. 1-2 of Cheng ’000 which teaches the limitations of this claim.
Regarding Claim 33, in the instant combination, see fig. 14 of Cheng ‘000 which teaches the limitations of this claim.
Regarding Claim 34, in the instant combination, see drawing selection of Cheng ‘000 below which teaches “an avoiding end” which meets the claim limitations as filed.
PNG
media_image2.png
311
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 35, in the instant combination, Chen ‘000 teaches the limitations of this claim as clearly shown in fig. 14.
Regarding Claim 37, in the instant combination, Cheng ’000 teaches:
a rack gear (41, Col 6, Lns 65-67) is formed on one side surface of the rack bar, and
the door opening device comprises one or more power transmission gears (31), at least one of the power transmission gears being engaged with the rack gear so as to transmit driving force of a drive source (2) to the rack bar.
Regarding Claim 38, in the instant combination, Cheng ’000 teaches:
wherein the power transmission gear is located at a side opposite to the one side surface of the rack bar relative to the rack bar (see drawing selection below compared with fig. 13 of the disclosure).
Regarding Claim 39, in the instant combination, Cheng ’000 teaches:
wherein the drive source is located at the same side as a side at which the power transmission gear is located in opposite sides of the housing (see 341, 342, see drawing selection below compared with fig. 13 of the disclosure).
PNG
media_image3.png
337
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 40, in the instant combination, Cheng ‘000 teaches:
wherein the housing comprises:
a lower base (11) in which at least any one of the drive source and the power transmission gear is installed, and
an upper cover (12) which covers an upper surface of the lower base.
Regarding Claim 41, in the instant combination, Cheng ’000 teaches:
wherein a fastening hole (see below) is formed in the lower base (11) so as to install a motor (21) and is configured to be located by avoiding the power transmission gear.
PNG
media_image4.png
316
530
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 42, in the instant combination, Cheng ’000 teaches:
wherein a guide groove (see below) is formed in the upper cover so as to support
forward and rearward movements of the rack bar,
an exposure hole (see below) is formed in any one portion of an inside of the guide groove such that at least a portion of the power transmission gear is exposed to the exposure hole so as to be engaged with the rack gear of the rack bar.
PNG
media_image5.png
365
419
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 43, in the instant combination, Cheng ‘000 teaches:
wherein a rack cover which closes an open upper surface of the guide groove is provided (see below wherein the rack cover is a sub-section of the upper cover).
PNG
media_image6.png
350
542
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 44, in the instant combination, Cheng ‘000 teaches:
wherein a protrusion limiting part (118) is provided on at least any one portion of opposing portions between the rack bar and the housing so as to limit forward and rearward moving distances of the rack bar (112, 118, Col 6, Lns 47-50)
Regarding Claim 45, in the instant combination, Schmitt ‘175 teaches:
a head cover (110) disposed at an outer surface of the rack head, which comes into contact with the door (fig. 5A).
Regarding Claim 46, note that Schmitt ‘175 teaches the rack head being an “H” or “I” cross section which would be more rigid than the plate shaped head cover.
Regarding Claim 49, in the instant combination, Cheng ’000 teaches:
wherein a manipulation panel (see below) is provided on a front surface of the cabinet, and the door opening device is located behind the manipulation panel
PNG
media_image7.png
362
624
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 50, in the instant combination, Schmitt teaches:
a protruding hole (see below) through which the rack bar (102) passes is formed in the
manipulation panel,
a support jaw (105) is formed on a periphery of the protruding hole by being recessed therefrom,
a support rib (see below) seated in the support jaw is formed on a head cover (104) by protruding therefrom.
PNG
media_image8.png
368
640
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 51-53, in the instant combination, Cheng ‘000 teaches the limitations of these claims as set forth in the drawing selection below.
PNG
media_image9.png
450
671
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 54, Cheng-Schmitt does not explicitly teach the first fastening part being removable from the housing
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Cheng-Schmitt with the first fastening part being configured to be removable because that permit the overall size envelope of the housing to be made smaller which would permit the placement of the housing in smaller receiving grooves.
Regarding Claim 55, in the instant combination, Cheng ‘000 teaches:
wherein a receiving groove is formed in a front surface of the cabinet by being recessed therefrom such that the door opening device is received in the receiving groove.
PNG
media_image10.png
374
579
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 56, in the instant combination, Cheng ‘000 teaches the manipulation panel and protruding hole according the limitations as claimed (see drawing selection above).
Regarding Claims 57-58, see rejections of Claims 31 and 55-56 above.
Regarding Claim 59, in the instant combination, Cheng ‘000 teaches the claimed limitations as set forth in the drawing selection below.
PNG
media_image11.png
419
502
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 60, see rejections of Claims 31 and 51 above.
Regarding Claim 61, see Col 7, Lns 5-15 which clearly teach these limitations.
Regarding Claim 62, insofar as the claim is understood, Cheng teaches the rack head being spaced apart from the door (see rejection above) and retracting a distance (which is a maximum distance) into the door opening device.
Regarding Claim 63, see rejection of Claim 1 above, see Cheng, Figs. 1-2 for rack bar passing through a protruding hole and also see Schmitt, Figs. 3-5A which also teaches the rack bar passing through a protruding hole.
Regarding Claim 64, See Cheng, fig. 1, elements A21 which can be interpreted as a support and see Schmitt, Fig. 4 which shows a support.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng-Schmitt in view of Bohle, U.S. Patent 8,840,203.
Cheng-Schmitt does not teach the rear surface of the housing being open and the rear end of the rack bar passing through the open portion.
Bohle teaches a similar device with a housing (16) and a rack bar (3) although the rack bar does not explicitly pass through the open portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Cheng-Schmitt with the open portion on the rear and to permit the rack bar to pass through the open portion because that would prevent impingement of the rack bar against the housing if the rack bar were forced rearward too far by the closing of the door. Furthermore, A rearrangement of parts is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure, In re Japikse
Claim(s) 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng-Schmitt as applied to claims 31 and 45 above, and further in view of Stephens.
Regarding Claim 47, in the instant combination, Schmitt teaches:
wherein the rack head is installed to be rotated left and right by a rotating pin vertically passing through the front end of the rack bar (see fig. 5A).
Schmitt does not teach:
at least a portion of upper and lower surfaces of the head cover is configured to cover the rotating pin.
Stephens does teach:
at least a portion of upper and lower surfaces of the head cover is configured to cover the rotating pin (see 13 which is the head cover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the instant combination with the features of Stephens because that would protect the rotating pin from ingress of fluid or detritus.
Regarding Claim 48, the instant combination of prior arts does not explicitly teach the limitation of this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the rotating pin on the front-to-rear directional center line of the housing because applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed limitation nor provided any unforeseen result stemming from the claimed limitation and a rearrangement of parts is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677