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, 7, 10-13, 19-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rafalovich (US 8,250,875).
Regarding claim 1, Rafalovich discloses a refrigerator appliance comprising:
a cabinet (100) comprising an internal liner defining a freezer chamber (108) and a fresh food chamber (106);
a fresh food door (refer to fig. 1) attached to the cabinet to selectively restrict access to the fresh food chamber (106);
a freezer door (refer to fig. 1) attached to the cabinet to selectively restrict access to the freezer chamber (108);
a sealed refrigerant system (refer to fig. 3) comprising
a refrigerant loop (300),
a compressor (302) disposed along the refrigerant loop,
a condenser (304) disposed along the refrigerant loop downstream from the compressor (302),
a freezer evaporator (310) mounted at the freezer chamber and disposed along a first branch path (including output 328) in fluid communication between the condenser (304) and the compressor (302),
a fresh food evaporator (308) mounted at the fresh food chamber (106) and disposed along a second branch path (including inlet 330) in fluid communication between the condenser and the compressor,
a bypass valve (312) disposed along the refrigerant loop in fluid communication between the compressor and the condenser, and
a bypass line (318) extending from a bypass inlet at the bypass valve (312) to a bypass outlet disposed on the first branch (including output 328) and downstream from the condenser (304) such that the bypass line is in fluid communication with the bypass valve; and
a controller (252) in operable communication with the sealed refrigerant system, the controller being configured to direct an operation routine comprising
halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator (refer to col. 4, lines 60-65),
directing a supplemental heat to the refrigerant loop between the condenser and the compressor (refer to col. 5, lines 1-4), and
directing refrigerant through the fresh food evaporator for a fresh food cooling cycle while directing supplemental heat (refer to col. 5, lines 9-15),
wherein directing the supplemental heat comprises directing a volume of refrigerant through the bypass line (318) of the sealed refrigerant system to bypass the condenser.
Regarding claim 2, Rafalovich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Rafalovich discloses wherein the operation routine further comprising directing, prior to halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator, refrigerant through the freezer evaporator for a freezer cooling cycle (refer to col. 4, lines 60-65, wherein after the condensation stage in condenser 304, valve 316 directs liquid refrigerant either to the freezer evaporator or the fresh food evaporator 310, or both, depending on the cooling needs of the respective refrigeration/freezer compartments as determined by the controller to provide the required cooling effects and temperature control, therefore, the system being capable of directing, prior to halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator, refrigerant through the freezer evaporator for a freezer cooling cycle).
Regarding claim 3, Rafalovich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Rafalovich discloses wherein the operation routine further comprises directing a freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator (through fan 230) following the freezer cooling cycle and halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator. Note: the recitation “directing a freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator following the freezer cooling cycle and halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Rafalovich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Rafalovich discloses wherein directing the freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator (through fan 230) is prior to directing the supplemental heat. Note: the recitation “directing the freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator is prior to directing the supplemental heat” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Rafalovich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Rafalovich discloses wherein the bypass inlet is mounted upstream of the condenser (304) and the bypass outlet is mounted upstream of the fresh food evaporator (through lines 328, 326, 324, and 330).
Regarding claim 10, Rafalovich discloses a method of operating a refrigerator appliance comprising a sealed refrigerant system (refer to fig. 3) comprising a compressor (302), a condenser (304), a freezer evaporator (310) mounted at a freezer chamber (108), and a fresh food evaporator (308) mounted at a fresh food chamber (106), the method comprising:
halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator (refer to col. 4, lines 60-65, by means of line 323);
directing a supplemental heat to a refrigerant loop between the condenser and the compressor (through bypass line 318); and
directing refrigerant through the fresh food evaporator for a fresh food cooling cycle while directing supplemental heat (refer to col. 5, lines 9-15),
wherein directing the supplemental heat comprises directing a volume of refrigerant through a bypass line (318) of the sealed refrigerant system to the fresh food evaporator (through lines 324 and 330), the bypass line comprising a bypass inlet mounted upstream of the condenser (304) and a bypass outlet mounted upstream of the fresh food evaporator (308) to direct refrigerant thereto.
Regarding claim 11, Rafalovich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 10. Further, Rafalovich discloses directing, prior to halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator (through line 323), refrigerant through the freezer evaporator for a freezer cooling cycle (normal operating cycle).
Regarding claim 12, Rafalovich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 11. Further, Rafalovich discloses directing a freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator (by means of fan 230) following the freezer cooling cycle and halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator (by closing line 323).
Regarding claim 13, Rafalovich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 12. Further, Rafalovich discloses wherein directing the freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator is prior to directing the supplemental heat (when normal operation occurs prior to the directing of supplemental heat through bypass line 318).
Regarding claim 19, Rafalovich discloses a refrigerator appliance comprising:
a cabinet (100) comprising an internal liner defining a freezer chamber (108) and a fresh food chamber (106);
a fresh food door (refer to fig. 1) attached to the cabinet to selectively restrict access to the fresh food chamber (106);
a freezer door (refer to fig. 1) attached to the cabinet to selectively restrict access to the freezer chamber (108);
a sealed refrigerant system (refer to fig. 3) comprising
a refrigerant loop (300),
a compressor (302) disposed along the refrigerant loop,
a condenser (304) disposed along the refrigerant loop downstream from the compressor (302),
a freezer evaporator (310) mounted at the freezer chamber and disposed along a first branch path (including output 328) in fluid communication between the condenser (304) and the compressor (302),
a fresh food evaporator (308) mounted at the fresh food chamber (106) and disposed along a second branch path (including inlet 330) and downstream from the first branch path (through line 324) in fluid communication between the condenser and the compressor,
a bypass valve (312) disposed along the refrigerant loop in fluid communication between the compressor and the condenser, and
a bypass line (318) extending from a bypass inlet at the bypass valve (312) to a bypass outlet disposed on the refrigerant loop downstream from the condenser (304) such that the bypass line is in fluid communication with the bypass valve; and
a controller (252) in operable communication with the sealed refrigerant system, the controller being configured to direct an operation routine comprising
halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator (refer to col. 4, lines 60-65),
directing a supplemental heat to the refrigerant loop between the condenser and the compressor (refer to col. 5, lines 1-4), and
directing refrigerant through the fresh food evaporator for a fresh food cooling cycle while directing supplemental heat (refer to col. 5, lines 9-15),
wherein directing the supplemental heat comprises directing a volume of refrigerant through the bypass line (318) of the sealed refrigerant system to bypass the condenser.
Regarding claim 20, Rafalovich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 19. Further, Rafalovich discloses wherein the operation routine further comprising directing, prior to halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator, refrigerant through the freezer evaporator for a freezer cooling cycle (refer to col. 4, lines 60-65, wherein after the condensation stage in condenser 304, valve 316 directs liquid refrigerant either to the freezer evaporator or the fresh food evaporator 310, or both, depending on the cooling needs of the respective refrigeration/freezer compartments as determined by the controller to provide the required cooling effects and temperature control, therefore, the system being capable of directing, prior to halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator, refrigerant through the freezer evaporator for a freezer cooling cycle).
Regarding claim 21, Rafalovich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 20. Further, Rafalovich discloses wherein the operation routine further comprises directing a freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator (through fan 230) following the freezer cooling cycle and halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator. Note: the recitation “directing a freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator following the freezer cooling cycle and halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 22, Rafalovich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 21. Further, Rafalovich discloses wherein directing the freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator (through fan 230) is prior to directing the supplemental heat. Note: the recitation “directing the freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator is prior to directing the supplemental heat” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 24, Rafalovich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 19. Further, Rafalovich discloses wherein the bypass inlet is mounted upstream of the condenser (304) and the bypass outlet is mounted upstream of the fresh food evaporator (by line 328).
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, 14 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafalovich (US 8,250,875) in view of Jeong (KR 19990001784 A).
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 23, Rafalovich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claims 3, 12 and 21 respectively. Further, Rafalovich discloses sensors (254) providing inputs to the controller for controlling the refrigerator, including for example controlling the temperature of the different compartments to determine the cooling demands of respective refrigerator compartments, and generate control signals for the refrigerator, including for example, compressor motor speed, evaporator and condenser fan operation and other control functions, but Rafalovich fails to explicitly disclose determining a freezer-evaporator temperature matches a freezer-chamber temperature, and halting the freezer-chamber airflow in response to determining the freezer-evaporator temperature matches the freezer-chamber temperature.
However, Jeong teaches an independent cooling type refrigerator, including determining a freezer-evaporator temperature matches a freezer-chamber temperature, and halting a freezer-chamber airflow in response to determining the freezer-evaporator temperature matches the freezer-chamber temperature (refer to the abstract of the invention, wherein the refrigerator includes a freezer compartment evaporator temperature sensor detecting a temperature of the evaporator, and when the temperature of the freezer compartment evaporator detected by the freezer evaporator temperature sensor is below a predetermined freezer compartment lower limit temperature (e.g., matching an already set temperature of the freezer-chamber), a control unit for controlling an operation of a freezer compartment fan is stopped), in order to maintain appropriately control of the temperature in a freezer compartment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rafalovich by determining that a freezer-evaporator temperature matches a freezer-chamber temperature, and halting the freezer-chamber airflow in response to determining the freezer-evaporator temperature matches the freezer-chamber temperature in view of the teachings by Jeong, in order to maintain appropriately control of the temperature in the freezer compartment.
Claim(s) 9, 18 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafalovich (US 8,250,875) in view of Cho (US 2014/0053581).
Regarding claims 9, 18 and 25, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively. Further, Bortoletto discloses directing the supplemental heat, the freezer evaporator (310) being upstream of an outlet of the fresh food evaporator (308), but fails to explicitly disclose activating an electric heating element mounted at the freezer evaporator to heat the same.
However, Cho teaches a cooling apparatus for a storage compartment (refer to fig. 2), comprising activating an electric heating element mounted at a freezer evaporator to heat the same (refer to freezer evaporator 242, electric heating element 250, and par. 73), in order to remove frost from the evaporator, therefore, overall power consumption of the cooling apparatus may increase (refer to par. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rafalovich by providing activating an electric heating element mounted at the freezer evaporator to heat the same in view of the teachings by Cho, in order to increase overall power consumption of the refrigerator appliance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp.8-10, filed on 04/22/2026, with respect to claims 1-5, 7, 9-14 and 18-25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9-14 and 18-25 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly amended claims.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights