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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species identified, all relate to exemplary embodiments of a refrigerator appliance, therefore, no search or examination burden is placed on the examiner since the search for all the Species will necessarily involve the same or overlapping classes. This is not found persuasive because according to MPEP 808.02, in order to demonstrate a serious search burden, the examiner must show one of the following:
A) Separate Classification thereof
B) A separate status in the art when they are classified together
C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together
Regarding traversal grounds, Species 1 requires a bypass outlet upstream from the freezer evaporator, thus, a hot vapor refrigerant from compressor 182 may selectively flow to a first branch path 222 and a freezer evaporator 188A, before bypassing fresh food evaporator 188B and flowing back to compressor 182. Species 2 requires a bypass outlet downstream from the freezer evaporator, thus, a hot vapor refrigerant from compressor 182 may selectively flow to first branch path 222 and bypass both freezer evaporator 188A and fresh food evaporator 188B before flowing back to compressor 182. Species 3 requires a bypass outlet downstream from the freezer evaporator, bypassing the fresh food evaporator and upstream from a junction between a first branch path and a second branch path, thus, hot vapor refrigerant from compressor 182 may selectively flow to first branch path 222 and freezer evaporator 188A, before flowing to fresh food evaporator 188B and back to compressor 182. Species 4 requires a bypass outlet downstream from the freezer evaporator and upstream from fresh food evaporator, and first branch path 222 intersects second branch path 224, thus, hot vapor refrigerant from compressor 182 may selectively flow to first branch path 222 and fresh food evaporator 188B, thereby bypassing freezer evaporator 188A before flowing back to compressor 182. Species 5 requires a bypass outlet disposed along the second branch path 224, downstream from the fresh food evaporator, thus, the hot vapor refrigerant from compressor 182 may selectively flow to second branch path 224 and bypass both freezer evaporator 188A and fresh food evaporator 188B before flowing back to compressor 182. Species 6 requires a bypass outlet disposed along a second branch path 224, thus, the hot vapor refrigerant from compressor 182 may selectively flow to second branch path 224 and freezer evaporator 188A, thereby bypassing fresh food evaporator before flowing back to compressor. Species 7 requires an electric heating element disposed on the freezer evaporator configured to selectively generate heat, thereby heating refrigerant. Because of the divergent subject matter recognized above, the species have acquired a separate status in the art, and therefore, requiring a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); search queries for one species would not necessarily be required for a search for the claims of another species, and prior art applicable to one species would not necessarily be applicable to the other. Therefore, the divergent subject matter would result in a serious search burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2024 was filed on the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
electric heating element - any suitable electrically driven heater, such as a resistive heating element, halogen heating element, etc., 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.
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.
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, 10-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bortoletto (US 2012/0324918).
Regarding claim 1, Bortoletto discloses a refrigerator appliance comprising:
a cabinet (4) comprising an internal liner (6) defining a freezer chamber (13) and a fresh food chamber (8);
a fresh food door (10) attached to the cabinet to selectively restrict access to the fresh food chamber;
a freezer door (12) attached to the cabinet to selectively restrict access to the freezer chamber;
a sealed refrigerant system comprising a refrigerant loop,
a compressor (65) disposed along the refrigerant loop,
a condenser (75) disposed along the refrigerant loop downstream from the compressor,
a freezer evaporator (96) mounted at the freezer chamber in fluid communication between the condenser and the compressor, and
a fresh food evaporator (130) mounted at the fresh food chamber in fluid communication between the condenser and the compressor; and
a controller (55) 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 fig. 4, wherein refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator is halted by means of valve 90),
directing a supplemental heat to the refrigerant loop between the condenser and the compressor (refer to figs. 4-5, wherein refrigerant is directed towards portion 115 located between the condenser and the compressor by means of conduit 150), and
directing refrigerant through the fresh food evaporator for a fresh food cooling cycle while directing supplemental heat (refer to fig 4, wherein refrigerant is directed towards the fresh food evaporator 130 while directing supplemental heat towards portion 115).
Regarding claim 2, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Bortoletto discloses wherein the operation routine further comprising directing, prior to halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator (96), refrigerant through the freezer evaporator for a freezer cooling cycle (refer to fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Bortoletto discloses wherein the operation routine further comprises directing a freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator following the freezer cooling cycle (by means of fan 100 as can be seen from fig. 3) and halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator (by means of valve 90 followed from fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Bortoletto discloses wherein directing the freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator (as can be seen from fig. 3) is prior to directing the supplemental heat (refer to figs. 3 and 4, wherein supplemental heat is further directed to portion 115 as can be seen from fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Bortoletto discloses wherein directing the supplemental heat comprises directing a volume of refrigerant through a bypass line (150) of the sealed refrigerant system to bypass the condenser (refer to fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 6. Further, Bortoletto discloses wherein the bypass line (150) comprises a bypass inlet mounted upstream of the condenser (by means of valve 74 located upstream of condenser 75) and a bypass outlet mounted upstream of the fresh food evaporator (by means of valve 118 located upstream of the fresh food evaporator 130).
Regarding claim 10, Bortoletto discloses a method of operating a refrigerator appliance comprising a sealed refrigerant system comprising a compressor (65), a condenser (75), a freezer evaporator (96) mounted at a freezer chamber (13), and a fresh food evaporator (130) mounted at a fresh food chamber (8), the method comprising:
halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator (by means of valve 90 as can be seen from fig. 4);
directing a supplemental heat to a refrigerant loop between the condenser and the compressor (refer to figs. 4-5, wherein refrigerant is directed towards portion 115 located between the condenser and the compressor by means of conduit 150); and
directing refrigerant through the fresh food evaporator for a fresh food cooling cycle while directing supplemental heat (refer to fig 4, wherein refrigerant is directed towards the fresh food evaporator 130 while directing supplemental heat towards portion 115).
Regarding claim 11, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 10. Further, Bortoletto discloses directing, prior to halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator (96), refrigerant through the freezer evaporator for a freezer cooling cycle (refer to fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 11. Further, Bortoletto discloses directing a freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator following the freezer cooling cycle (by means of fan 100 as can be seen from fig. 3) and halting refrigerant flow through the freezer evaporator (by means of valve 90 followed from fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 12. Further, Bortoletto discloses wherein directing the freezer-chamber airflow across the freezer evaporator (as can be seen from fig. 3) is prior to directing the supplemental heat (refer to figs. 3 and 4, wherein supplemental heat is further directed to portion 115 as can be seen from fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 10. Further, Bortoletto discloses wherein directing the supplemental heat comprises directing a volume of refrigerant through a bypass line (150) of the sealed refrigerant system to bypass the condenser (refer to fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 15. Further, Bortoletto discloses wherein the bypass line (150) comprises a bypass inlet mounted upstream of the condenser (by means of valve 74 located upstream of condenser 75) and a bypass outlet mounted upstream of the fresh food evaporator (by means of valve 118 located upstream of the fresh food evaporator 130).
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 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto (US 2012/0324918) in view of Jeong (KR 19990001784 A, refer to attached translation).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claims 3 and 12. Further, Bortoletto discloses the operation routine, but 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 Bortoletto 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 a freezer compartment.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortoletto (US 2012/0324918) in view of Cho (US 2014/0053581).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Bortoletto meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claims 1 and 18. Further, Bortoletto discloses directing the supplemental heat, but fails to explicitly disclose activating an electric heating element mounted at the freezer evaporator to heat the same, the freezer evaporator being upstream of an outlet of the fresh food evaporator.
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 and par. 73, wherein electric heating element 250), the freezer evaporator (242) being upstream of an outlet of a fresh food evaporator (outlet of fresh food evaporator 241 as in fig. 2), in order to remove frost from the evaporator, therefore, overall power consumption of the cooling apparatus may increase (refer to par. 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bortoletto by providing activating an electric heating element mounted at the freezer evaporator to heat the same, the freezer evaporator being upstream of an outlet of the fresh food evaporator in view of the teachings by Cho, in order to increase overall power consumption of the refrigerator appliance.
Conclusion
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