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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuda (JP 6695022 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuda discloses a refrigerator comprising:
an outer casing (refer to figs. 1-2); and
a cool air supply duct assembly located within the outer casing (refer to fig. 13), the cool air supply duct assembly comprising:
a first cool air supply duct (24, figs. 10 and 13); and
a second cool air supply duct (35) located rearwardly of the first cool air supply duct (refer to figs. 10 and 13), the second cool air supply duct (35) at least partially overlapping the first cool air supply duct in a front-rear direction (refer to fig. 13).
Regarding claim 2, Fukuda meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Fukuda discloses wherein a vertical length of the first cool air supply duct (refer to the dark arrows through 24, fig. 3) is smaller than a vertical length of the second cool air supply duct (refer to the white arrows through 35, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Fukuda meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Fukuda discloses wherein the first cool air supply duct (24) defines a first cool air flow path, and wherein the second cool air supply duct (35) defines a second cool air flow path, the second cool air flow path being independent of the first cool air flow path (refer to fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Fukuda meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Fukuda discloses wherein a lower end of the first cool air supply duct and a lower end of the second cool air supply duct (refer to fig. 3, wherein a lower end of both cool air supply ducts is adjacent heat exchanger 15) are fastened to each other (through partition plate 19 as in figs. 10 and 13).
Regarding claim 6, Fukuda discloses a refrigerator comprising:
an inner casing having:
an upper storage chamber (8); and
a lower storage chamber, the lower storage chamber being divided into a
first lower storage chamber (12, fig. 3) and a second lower storage chamber (11, fig. 3);
a first cool air supply duct (24) located at an outer rear surface of the inner
casing, the first cool air supply duct (24) connecting the second lower storage chamber (11) to the first lower storage chamber (refer to fig. 3); and
a second cool air supply duct (35) located rearwardly of the first cool air supply duct (refer to figs. 10 and 13), the second cool air supply duct connecting the second lower storage chamber to the upper storage chamber (refer to the white arrows flowing through 35 as in fig. 3), the second cool air supply duct at least partially overlapping the first cool air supply duct in a front-rear direction (refer to fig. 13).
Regarding claim 7, Fukuda meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 6. Further, Fukuda discloses a barrier (19) located in an inner space of the inner casing (refer to fig. 2), the barrier dividing the lower storage chamber into the first lower storage chamber (12) and the second lower storage chamber (11).
Regarding claim 17, Fukuda meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 6. Further, Fukuda discloses wherein the upper storage chamber (8) is a first refrigerating chamber, wherein the second lower storage chamber (11) is a first freezing chamber (refer to par. 45), and wherein the first lower storage chamber (12) is a convertible chamber (fluctuating temperatures as in par. 45) that is configured to be converted (and capable of being converted) between a second refrigerating chamber and a second freezing chamber.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (JP 6695022 B2).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Fukuda meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claims 1 and 6 respectively. Further, Fukuda discloses a spacing between the first cool air supply duct and the second cool air supply duct in the front-rear direction (refer to figs. 10 and 13), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the spacing increases as each of the first cool air supply duct and the second cool air supply duct extend upwardly.
However, it appears that the spacing between the first cool air supply duct and the second cool air supply duct in the front-rear direction of Fukuda would operate equally well with said spacing increasing as each of the first cool air supply duct and the second cool air supply duct extend upwardly. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that said space increasing solves any stated problem, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to cause the spacing of Fukuda to increase as each of the first cool air supply duct and the second cool air supply duct extend upwardly because this feature appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Fukuda.
Claim(s) 8, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (JP 6695022 B2) in view of Gu (US 2012/0011879).
Regarding claim 8, Fukuda meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 7. Further, Fukuda discloses the barrier (19), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the barrier is detachably coupled to the inner casing.
However, Gu teaches a refrigerator, comprising a barrier (80) detachably coupled (through coupling structure 16, fig. 1 and par 50) to an inner casing (12) of the refrigerator.
One having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration would have recognized that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain easy access to the lower storage chambers, it would be obvious to make the barrier removable for that purpose (refer to MPEP 2144.04 V C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fukuda such that the barrier is detachably coupled to the inner casing, in order to obtain easy access to the lower storage chambers in view of the teachings by Gu along with the knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration.
Regarding claim 18, Fukuda discloses a refrigerator comprising:
an inner casing having an outer rear surface;
a first cool air supply duct (24) located adjacent the outer rear surface; and
a second cool air supply duct (35) located adjacent the outer rear surface of the inner casing and rearwardly of the first cool air supply duct (refer to figs. 10 and 13), the second cool air supply duct at least partially overlapping the first cool air supply duct in a front-rear direction.
While Fukuda discloses the outer rear surface of the inner casing, Fukuda fails to explicitly disclose a first cool air recovery duct located adjacent the outer rear surface of the inner casing, and a second cool air recovery duct located adjacent the outer rear surface of the inner casing, wherein the first cool air recovery duct and the second cool air recovery duct are arranged side by side in a left-right direction.
However, Gu teaches a refrigerator (refer to fig. 2), comprising a first cool air recovery duct (35) located adjacent an outer rear surface of an inner casing, and a second cool air recovery duct (37) located adjacent the outer rear surface of the inner casing, wherein the first cool air recovery duct (35) and the second cool air recovery duct (37) are arranged side by side in a left-right direction (refer to fig. 2).
One having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration would recognize that by providing a first cool air recovery duct and a second cool air recovery duct both located adjacent the outer rear surface of the inner casing and arranged side by side in a left-right direction, it will provide adequate return of cold air throughout the inner casing, and optimize space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fukuda by providing a first cool air recovery duct located adjacent the outer rear surface of the inner casing, and a second cool air recovery duct located adjacent the outer rear surface of the inner casing, wherein the first cool air recovery duct and the second cool air recovery duct are arranged side by side in a left-right direction, in order to provide adequate return of cold air throughout the inner casing, and optimize space in view of the teachings by Gu along with the knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration.
Regarding claim 20, Fukuda meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 18. Further, Fukuda discloses wherein a lower end of the first cool air supply duct and a lower end of the second cool air supply duct are fastened to each other in the front-rear direction (through 19 as can be seen from fig. 10), and wherein the first cool air recovery duct and the second cool air recovery duct are fastened to each other in the left-right direction (refer to fig. 7 as taught by Gu).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 and 19 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in pages 7-10 of the remarks that Fukuda teaches away from the claimed features by arranging a cool air supply duct 24 and a cool air return duct 35 in an overlapping configuration; Fukuda fails to teach two separate cool air supply ducts since Fukuda’s structure places a cool air supply duct next to a cool air return duct and the temperature difference between both airs would be relatively large. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…a first cool air supply duct; and a second cool air supply duct located rearwardly…” Absent a special definition, the words of the claims have been afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation in keeping with the standards set forth in the MPEP. Specifically, there is no requirement regarding temperatures or where is the air from each supply duct being directed to, or originating from, in order to consider the difference in temperature problematic as stated. In the instant case, the claim requires supply ducts that can deliver cool air and are placed in an overlapping manner. According to Fukuda’s par. 37, the cold air after cooling food in the refrigerating compartment 8 is circulated back to the cooling compartment 14 through the refrigerating compartment cold air return duct 35, therefore, cool air return duct 35 can be considered as a second cool air supply duct since it circulates back cool air, and it’s positioned rearwardly from the cold air supply duct 24. For at least the reasons disclosed above, claims 1-8, 16-18 and 20 remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ANA M VAZQUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights