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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11243023 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to a method of forming an insulating structure for an appliance, including shaping and mullion wall (60), attaching a first and/or second vacuum to the perimeter of the wall; and filling the mullion cavity with insulating material.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over in view of US Patent No.: 9441779 (“Alshourbagy et al.”) in view of US Pub No.:20100264782 (“Betto et al.”) in view of US Pub No.: 20140015394 (“CHA et al.”)
Regarding Claim 1, Alshourbagy et al. discloses a method of forming an insulating structure for an appliance, the method comprising steps of:
shaping a rigid perimeter wall to define a mullion wall (60) , an upper (62) and a lower (64) that define a mullion cavity therein,
attaching a first vacuum insulated structure (20) to the upper (62) of the rigid perimeter wall to define a first refrigerating compartment;
attaching a second vacuum insulated structure (40) to the lower (64) of the rigid perimeter wall to define a second refrigerating compartment, wherein the rigid perimeter wall separates the first vacuum insulated structure (20) from the second vacuum insulated structure (40);
disposing a mechanical fixture (68) within the mullion cavity; and filling the mullion cavity with an insulating material, wherein the mechanical fixture (68) is at least partially contained within the insulating material, and wherein the insulating material is fully contained between a first edge proximate the upper (62) and a second edge proximate the lower (64).
Alshourbagy et al. does not disclose the mullion wall having an upper and lower wall but does not disclose attaching the first vacuum to the upper flange and the second vacuum to the lower flange, and the hinge support is defined within a front portion of the rigid perimeter wall.
Betto et al. discloses a similar modular appliance having a mullion wall (41, see Figs. 1-5 and 17) with an upper flange and lower secured to a first vacuum structure and a lower structure, respectively. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mullion wall configured with an upper and lower flange, similar to the mullion taught by Betto et al, to provide a modular refrigerator that can be easily assembled and dissembled, while maintaining structural integrity and sealing for thermal insulation ([0027-0037]
CHA et al. demonstrates it is known in the art to provide a mullion (110) of refrigeration with the hinge support defined within a front portion of the rigid perimeter wall (as seen in Fig.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hinge supports mounted on the mullion of the refrigerator to provide a simple means for supporting the double doors, as is well known in the art to one having skill in the art.
The combination disclose the structure of the claimed invention but does not expressly teach the method steps as set forth in claim 1.It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that to form and assemble the insulated structure as set forth in claim 1 above, since the combination discloses the claimed invention of claim 1 such method steps would occur during the ordinary course of forming and assembling an insulated structure for an appliance. see MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding Claims 3-7 , the combination discloses (Alshourbagy et al.) Claim 3- comprising the step of: disposing an aesthetic covering (18) around the first and second vacuum insulated structures (20, 40) and the rigid perimeter wall to define an appliance cabinet Claim 4-the aesthetic covering is a metallic outer wrapper (18); Alshourbagy et al does not expressly discloses the outer wrapper is metallic, but it is well known in the art to sue aesthetically appealing outer wrapper, like stainless steel, to forma an attractive insulated appliance; Claim 5- wherein the mechanical fixture (68) is at least one of an ice maker and a water filtration mechanism; Claim 6- wherein the step of filling the mullion cavity occurs after the first vacuum insulated structure (20) is attached to the upper flange (62) of the rigid perimeter wall; Claim 7- wherein the step of filling the mullion cavity occurs after the first vacuum insulated structure (20) is attached to the upper flange (62) and after the second vacuum insulated structure (40) is attached to the lower flange (64) of the rigid perimeter wall.
Regarding Claim 8, Alshourbagy et al. discloses A method of forming an appliance, the method comprising steps of:
shaping a rigid perimeter wall to define a mullion wall (60), an upper (62), and a lower (64) that define a mullion cavity;
attaching a first vacuum insulated structure (20) to the upper (62) of the rigid perimeter wall to define a first refrigerated compartment, wherein the mullion wall (60) and a portion of the first vacuum insulated structure (20) are co-planar;
filling the mullion cavity with an insulating material (as seen in Figs. 2-8); and
attaching a door (as seen in Fig. 1) to the at least one hinge support, wherein structural support for the door is supplied by the rigid perimeter wall and wherein the door and the first vacuum insulated structure (20) are each supported by the rigid perimeter wall.
Alshourbagy et al. does not disclose the mullion wall having an upper and lower wall but does not disclose attaching the first vacuum to the upper flange and the second vacuum to the lower flange, and the hinge support is defined within a front portion of the rigid perimeter wall.
Betto et al. discloses a similar modular appliance having a mullion wall (41, see Figs. 1-5 and 17) with an upper flange and lower secured to a first vacuum structure and a lower structure, respectively. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mullion wall configured with an upper and lower flange, similar to the mullion taught by Betto et al, to provide a modular refrigerator that can be easily assembled and dissembled, while maintaining structural integrity and sealing for thermal insulation ([0027-0037]
CHA et al. demonstrates it is known in the art to provide a mullion (110) of refrigeration with the hinge support defined within a front portion of the rigid perimeter wall (as seen in Fig.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hinge supports mounted on the mullion of the refrigerator to provide a simple means for supporting the double doors, as is well known in the art to one having skill in the art.
The combination disclose the structure of the claimed invention but does not expressly teach the method steps as set forth in claim 1.It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that to form and assemble the insulated structure as set forth in claim 1 above, since the combination discloses the claimed invention of claim 1 such method steps would occur during the ordinary course of forming and assembling an insulated structure for an appliance. see MPEP 2112.02.
Regarding Claims 9-14, the combination discloses (Alshourbagy et al.) CLAIM 9- further comprising the steps of: attaching a second vacuum insulated structure (40) to the lower flange (64) of the rigid perimeter wall to define a second refrigerated compartment, and wherein the rigid perimeter wall divides the first and second refrigerated compartments; CLAIM 10- wherein the mullion wall (60) and a portion of the second vacuum insulated structure (40) are co-planar; Claim 11- further comprising the step of: disposing an aesthetic covering (18) around the first and second vacuum insulated structures (40) and the rigid perimeter wall to define an appliance cabinet; Claim 12-the aesthetic covering is a metallic outer wrapper (18); Alshourbagy et al does not expressly discloses the outer wrapper is metallic, but it is well known in the art to sue aesthetically appealing outer wrapper, like stainless steel, to forma an attractive insulated appliance; Claim 13-further comprising the step of: disposing at least one mechanical fixture (68) within the mullion cavity before filling the mullion cavity with the insulating material, wherein the at least one mechanical fixture (68) is at least partially contained within the insulating material; Claim 14- wherein the mullion wall (60) is co-planar with an outer surface of the first vacuum insulated structure (20) and an outer surface of the second vacuum insulated structure (40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed over the prior at al., when Double Patenting rejection is overcome.
Claims 2 and 15 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; when Double Patenting rejection is overcome.
As to claims 2, 15, and 16-20 the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As demonstrated above, the closest art demonstrates method of forming an appliance, the method comprising steps of: shaping a rigid perimeter wall to define a mullion wall, an upper flange that extends from a top edge of the mullion wall and a lower flange that extends from a lower edge of the mullion wall, wherein the mullion wall, the upper flange, and the lower flange define a mullion cavity; forming at least one hinge support within a front portion of the mullion wall; attaching a first vacuum insulated structure to the upper flange to define a first refrigerating compartment, wherein the top edge of the mullion wall aligns with a lower edge of the first vacuum insulated structure; filling the mullion cavity with an insulating material.
The closest art, alone or in combination does not expressly disclose insulating material is injected through an insulation port defined within the rigid perimeter wall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLEY S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3328. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:30-5:30.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached on 5712703742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIMBERLEY S WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637