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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “associated to” appears to be in error for “associated with”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprises” appears to be in error for “comprise”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “different position” appears to be in error for “different positions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: centering system [i.e. system (generic placeholder) for centering (functional language)] in claims 1-4 and 10-18.; centering device [i.e. device (generic placeholder) for centering (functional language)] in claims 5 and 8; removably fixing device [i.e. device (generic placeholder) for removably fixing (functional language)] in claim 10; mounting device [i.e. device (generic placeholder) for mounting (functional language) in claim 12; and supporting element [i.e. element (generic placeholder) for supporting (functional language) in claims 16-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In the case of centering system, the corresponding structure is found on pages 13-15. In the case of centering device, the corresponding structure is found on pages 13-15. In the case of removably fixing device, the corresponding structure is found on page 15. In the case of mounting device, the corresponding structure is found on page 16. In the case of supporting element, item #44 is found to be the corresponding structure.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner notes that “means for the connection to” in claim 15 is NOT being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in view that the corresponding structure is included in the claim.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, the term “apt to” is not commonly used in U.S. practice. The term “apt to” has been interpreted as “configured to”.
Claims 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein it comprises”. It is unclear to what “it” refers back to. It is believed that “it” was intended to refer back to the refrigeration appliance. Claim 1 also recites “the relative position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is believed both recitations should read “a relative positron”. Claims 2-18 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the horizontal direction” and “the vertical direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. They have been interpreted as “a horizontal direction” and “a vertical direction”.
Claims 6-7, and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “flexible” in claim 6-7 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flexible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To expedite prosecution, any degree of flexibility is considered to meet “flexible”.
Claims 12-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein it comprises”. It is unclear to what “it” refers back to. It is believed that “it” was intended to refer back to the refrigeration appliance. Claim 13 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 12 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claims 14-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein it comprises”. It is unclear to what “it” refers back to. It is believed that “it” was intended to refer back to the refrigeration appliance. Claim 15 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 14 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein said first lateral base support (30) and/or said second lateral base support (32) comprises means for the connection to said cross bar (24)” followed by “wherein said means comprise a protrusion (40, 42) extending from said first lateral base support (30) and/or said second lateral base support (32) apt to be connected to an extremity of said cross bar (24)”. This combination creates a clarity issue. For example, if only the first lateral base support includes the “means”, how would this work with “a protrusion extending from said second lateral base support”? It is believed that Applicant intended for the first and/or second lateral base support to each include a protrusion, and that the claim should be condensed to reflect this.
Claims 16-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein it comprises”. It is unclear to what “it” refers back to. It is believed that “it” was intended to refer back to the refrigeration appliance. Additionally, limitation “the lower part” lacks appropriate antecedent basis in the claim. It has been interpreted as “a lower part”. Claim 17 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 16 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “wherein said first lateral base support (30) comprises two or more slits (46) arranged one above the other and said second lateral base support (32) comprises two or more slits (48) arranged one above the other”. It is unclear if these slits are a further limitation of or different from the “at least one slit” of the preceding claim. It is believed the slits are intended as a further limitation.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the back side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It has been interpreted as “a back side”.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raab (US 2009/0056362) in view of Greenwald (US 1,951,655).
Regarding claim 1, Raab discloses a refrigeration appliance (1) [see at least paragraph [0035]] comprising:
- an outer cabinet (2) defining at least one compartment (10, 12) for the storage of products to be cooled [see at least housing #2 with storage compartment above niche #3];
- a working chamber (20) apt to receive at least one component (102) for the functioning of said appliance (1) [see at least mounting chamber #8 within niche #3; see also, for example, compressor #4];
- a first lateral base support (30) and a second lateral base support (32) facing said first lateral base support (30), said base supports (30, 32) at least partially laterally delimiting said working chamber (20) [see at least side walls #62];
- a water collecting tray (50) at least partially delimiting said working chamber (20) from above [see at least trough #6 situated beneath opening #38 and thus at least partially delimiting the top of the chamber #8], said water collecting tray (50) comprising a first end (52) apt to be connected to said first lateral base support (30) [see at least, i.e. left end] and a second end (54) apt to be connected to said second lateral base support (32) [see at least, i.e. right end];
wherein it comprises a centering system (60) acting to compensate the relative position between said water collecting tray (50) and said first lateral base support (30) and/or to compensate the relative position between said water collecting tray (50) and said second lateral base support (32) along both a first direction (D1) and a second direction (D2) [see at least rib(s) #10, grooves #70/#72/#74; rails #16/openings #20; locking clips #18: all compensating/stabilizing the trough #6 in the in/out and up/down direction].
Raab is silent regarding and an inner liner (6), internal to said outer cabinet (2), though Examiner notes that it is likely Raab includes such, as such is common in household refrigerators.
However, such provision was old and well-known in the art, as evidenced by Greenwald [see at least Figures 1 and 2, which include shading indicative of insulative layer encapsulated by inner/outer cabinet/liner].
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Raab with an inner liner (6), internal to said outer cabinet (2), since, as evidenced by Greenwald, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for an insulated cabinet with a moisture barrier to improve the efficiency of the appliance.
Regarding claim 2, Raab further discloses wherein said first direction (D1) is perpendicular to said second direction (D2) [see at least the in/out direction is perpendicular to the up/down direction].
Regarding claim 3, Raab further discloses wherein said first direction (D1) is the horizonal direction and said second direction (D2) is the vertical direction when the appliance (1) is in its standing working position [see at least the in/out direction is horizontal and the up/down direction is vertical].
Regarding claim 4, Raab further discloses wherein said water collecting tray (50) is removably connected to said first lateral base support (30) and said second lateral base support (32) [see at least via spring clips #18; paragraphs [0040]; [0045]].
Regarding claim 5, Raab further discloses wherein said centering system (60) comprises:
- a first centering device (70) arranged between said first end (52) of said water collecting tray (50) and said first lateral base support (30), said first centering device (70) acting to compensate the relative position between said water collecting tray (50) and said first lateral base support (30) and/or to compensate the relative position between said water collecting tray (50) and said second lateral base support (32) along both said first direction (D1) and said second direction (D2) [see at least, for example, left #18/#20]; and/or
- a second centering device (80) arranged between said second end (54) of said water collecting tray (50) and said second lateral base support (32), said second centering device (80) acting to compensate the relative position between said water collecting tray (50) and said second lateral base support (32) and/or to compensate the relative position between said water collecting tray (50) and said first lateral base support (30) along both said first direction (D1) and said second direction (D2) [see at least, for example, right #18/#20].
Regarding claim 6, Raab further discloses wherein said first centering device (70) comprises:
- at least one first flexible element (72) realized in said first end (52) of said water collecting tray (50) apt to abut against a respective first retaining surface (74) of said first lateral base support (30) to exert a compensating force along said first direction (D1) or at least one first flexible element realized in said first lateral base support (30) apt to abut against a respective first retaining surface of said first end (52) of said water collecting tray (50) to exert a compensating force along said first direction (D1) [see at least left #18 abutting against a surface of left opening #20]; and
- at least one second flexible element (76) realized in said first end (52) of said water collecting tray (50) apt to abut against a respective second retaining surface (78) of said first lateral base support (30) to exert a compensating force along said second direction (D2) or at least one second flexible element realized in said first lateral base support (30) apt to abut against a respective second retaining surface of said first end (52) of said water collecting tray (50) to exert a compensating force along said second direction (D2) [see at least bottom surface of left #66 abutting against top surface of bottom part of left rail #16].
Regarding claim 7, Raab further discloses wherein said second centering device (80) comprises:
- at least one first flexible element realized in said second end (54) of said water collecting tray (50) apt to abut against a respective first retaining surface of said second lateral base support (32) to exert a compensating force along said first direction (D1) or at least one first flexible element realized in said second lateral base support (32) apt to abut against a respective first retaining surface of said second end (54) of said water collecting tray (50) to exert a compensating force along said first direction (D1) [see at least right #18 abutting against a surface of right opening #20]; and
- at least one second flexible element realized in said second end (54) of said water collecting tray(50) apt to abut against a respective second retaining surface of said second lateral base support (32) to exert a compensating force along said second direction (D2) or at least one second flexible element realized in said second lateral base support (32) apt to abut against a respective second retaining surface of said second end (54) of said water collecting tray (50) to exert a compensating force along said second direction (D2) [see at least bottom surface of right #66 abutting against top surface of bottom part of right rail #16].
Regarding claim 8, Raab further discloses wherein said centering system (60) comprises:
- a first centering device (70) arranged between said first end (52) of said water collecting tray (50) and said first lateral base support (30), said first centering device (70) acting to compensate the relative position between said water collecting tray (50) and said first lateral base support (30) and/or to compensate the relative position between said water collecting tray (50) and said second lateral base support (32) along a first direction (D1) [see at least, for example, left #18/#20]; and
- a second centering device (80) arranged between said second end (54) of said water collecting tray (50) and said second lateral base support (32), second centering device (80) acting to compensate the relative position between said water collecting tray (50) and said second lateral base support (32) and/or to compensate the relative position between said water collecting tray (50) and said first lateral base support (30) along said second direction (D2) [see at least, for example, right #18/#20].
Regarding claim 9, Raab further discloses wherein said first centering device (70) comprises:
- at least one first flexible element (72) realized in said first end (52) of said water collecting tray (50) apt to abut against a respective first retaining surface (74) of said first lateral base support (30) to exert a compensating force along said first direction (D1) or at least one first flexible element (72) realized in said first lateral base support (30) apt to abut against a respective first retaining surface (74) of said first end (52) of said water collecting tray (50) to exert a compensating force along said first direction (D1) [see at least left spring clip #18 resting in a surface of left opening #20]; and
wherein said second centering device (80) comprises:- at least one second flexible element realized in said second end (54) of said water collecting tray (50) apt to abut against a respective second retaining surface of said second lateral base support (32) to exert a compensating force along said second direction (D2) or at least one second flexible element realized in said second lateral base support (32) apt to abut against a respective second retaining surface of said second end (54) of said water collecting tray (50) to exert a compensating force along said second direction (D2) ) [see at least right spring clip #18 resting in a surface of right opening #20].
Regarding claim 10, Raab further discloses wherein it further comprises a first removably fixing device (90) for removably fixing said first end (52) of said water collecting tray (50) to said first lateral base support (30) and/or a second removably fixing device (92) for removably fixing said second end (54) of said water collecting tray (50) to said second lateral base support (32) [see at least locking clips #18/openings #20; paragraphs [0040]; [0045]].
Regarding claim 11, Raab further discloses wherein said water collecting tray (50) comprises a water collecting area (51), opening upwards, defined between first end (52) and said second end (54) apt to collect condensed water generated during functioning of the appliance (1) [see at least paragraph [0037]: trough #6 includes a plurality of reservoirs].
Regarding claim 14, Raab further discloses wherein it comprises a cross bar (24) connecting said first lateral base support (30) to said second lateral base support (32) [see at least support beams #30; paragraph [0035]].
Regarding claim 15, Raab further discloses wherein said first lateral base support (30) and/or said second lateral base support (32) comprises means for the connection to said cross bar (24), wherein said means comprise a protrusion (40, 42) extending from said first lateral base support (30) and/or said second lateral base support (32) apt to be connected to an extremity of said cross bar (24) [see at least Annotated Figure, below: note that left/right symmetry is assumed and thus first and second lateral base supports include the protrusion].
PNG
media_image1.png
662
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Raab further discloses wherein it comprises a supporting element (44) for said at least one component (102), comprising a compressor (102), arranged in the lower part of said working chamber (20) [see at least fixing plate #34 for compressor #4].
Raab does not disclose wherein said first lateral base support (30) and said second lateral base support (32) comprises at least one slit (46, 48) apt to slidingly receive said supporting element (44).
Greenwald teaches a refrigerator wherein a first lateral base support and a second lateral base support comprises at least one slit apt to slidingly receive said supporting element [see at least page 1, lines 62-84].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Raab with wherein said first lateral base support (30) and said second lateral base support (32) comprises at least one slit (46, 48) apt to slidingly receive said supporting element (44), as taught by Greenwald, to improve the refrigerator of Raab by allowing for the compressor unit to be compressor to be more easily accessed/removed for service.
Regarding claim 17, Raab in view of Greenwald does not disclose wherein said first lateral base support (30) comprises two or more slits (46) arranged one above the other and said second lateral base support (32) comprises two or more slits (48) arranged one above the other so that said supporting element (44) may be slidingly received at different position.
Raab, however, teaches said first lateral base support (30) comprises two or more slits (46) arranged one above the other and said second lateral base support (32) comprises two or more slits (48) arranged one above the other so that the evaporation trough may be received at different positions [see at least paragraph [0042]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the refrigerator of Raab in view of Greenwald to include wherein said first lateral base support (30) comprises two or more slits (46) arranged one above the other and said second lateral base support (32) comprises two or more slits (48) arranged one above the other, as taught by Raab, in order to provide the refrigerator of Raab in view of Greenwald with wherein said first lateral base support (30) comprises two or more slits (46) arranged one above the other and said second lateral base support (32) comprises two or more slits (48) arranged one above the other so that said supporting element (44) may be slidingly received at different position: that is, using the known technique of said first lateral base support (30) comprises two or more slits (46) arranged one above the other and said second lateral base support (32) comprises two or more slits (48) arranged one above the other, taught by Raab to provide the compressor mount of Raab in view of Greenwald with so that said supporting element (44) may be slidingly received at different position would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for a different height compressor to be accommodated in the mounting niche.
Regarding claim 18, Raab further discloses wherein said working chamber (20) is arranged on the back side of said appliance (1) [see at least paragraph [0035]: mounting chamber #8/niche #3 are open to a rear side of the appliance].
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raab in view of Greenwald as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Malkoff et al. (US 2,093,882).
Regarding claim 12, Raab further discloses wherein it comprises an evaporator device (120) associated to said water collecting area (51) [see at least paragraph [0002]]: inherent to refrigerator as disclosed.
Raab in view of Greenwald does not disclose said evaporator device (120) comprising a heater tube (112) for water evaporation and at least one mounting device (130) to maintain said heater tube (112) inside said water collecting area (51).
Malkoff et al. teaches another refrigerator with an evaporator device (120) comprising a heater tube (112) for water evaporation and at least one mounting device (130) to maintain said heater tube (112) inside said water collecting area (51) [see at least column 3, lines 5-40].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Raab in view of Greenwald with said evaporator device (120) comprising a heater tube (112) for water evaporation and at least one mounting device (130) to maintain said heater tube (112) inside said water collecting area (51), as taught by Malkoff et al., to improve the refrigerator of Raab in view of Greenwald by allowing for simultaneous defrosting of both the evaporator and the water trough.
Regarding claim 13, Raab in view of Greenwald and Malkoff et al. further discloses wherein said mounting device (130) comprises a receiving seat (132) realized in said water collecting area (51) and a clip (134) apt to surround said heater tube (112) and apt to be inserted into said receiving seat (132) [see at least Malkoff et al. column 3, lines 5-40].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763