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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed 03/04/2026. Claims 1-18 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
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:
Expansion device in at least claims 1 and 10
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.
A review of the specification show that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
An expansion device appears to be described as a capillary tube, an electronic expansion valve, or other similar expansion device in at least ¶ 0050 of the specification.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20230213267 A1, hereinafter “Gupta”), and further in view of Junge et al. (US 20210018237 A1, hereinafter “Junge”).
Regarding Claim 1, Gupta teaches a refrigerator appliance [Figs. 1-2 and 19] comprising:
a cabinet [12];
a fresh food chamber [14] defined in the cabinet [¶ 0039];
a freezer chamber defined [16] in the cabinet [¶ 0039]; and
a sealed cooling system [18] configured to provide cooled air to the fresh food chamber and the freezer chamber [¶ 0039, 0089; cooling assembly 18 provides cooled air 20 to first and second compartments 14 and 16], the sealed cooling system comprising:
a sealed loop with a working fluid sealed within the sealed loop [¶ 0098; connection line 300 connects relevant components to enable the cooling assembly 18];
a compressor [80];
a condenser [82] downstream of the compressor with respect to the flow direction of the working fluid [¶ 0098-0099; Fig. 19; apparent from inspection];
an evaporator [78] downstream of the condenser with respect to the flow direction of the working fluid [¶ 0098-0099; Fig. 19; apparent from inspection];
While teaching a multi-directional valve [86] between the condenser and evaporator, Gupta does not explicitly teach an expansion device between the condenser and the evaporator; and a modulator having a reservoir and a supply conduit, the reservoir of the modulator positioned around an outlet conduit of the evaporator, a first end portion of the supply conduit coupled to an inlet conduit of the evaporator, a second end portion of the supply conduit coupled to the reservoir of the modulator at a top half of the reservoir, the working fluid flowable into and out of the reservoir of the modulator through the supply conduit of the modulator.
However, Junge teaches a modulator [200] for an ice maker in a refrigerator cabinet [Figs. 1-4], wherein the cooling system comprises a compressor [130], a condenser [40], an expansion device [150] and an evaporator [160] [¶ 0019, 0025]. Junge further teaches the modulator 200 comprising a reservoir [210] and a supply conduit [220] connected to the refrigerant conduit [162] at a point between the expansion device and the inlet of the evaporator [¶ 0025-0026]. Junge further discloses that the reservoir is positioned around an outlet conduit [164] of the evaporator, and wherein refrigerant may flow to and from the modulator via the supply conduit [¶ 0027]. Junge teaches that this configuration provides a manner of control over the system, as the temperature at the outlet of the evaporator will exchange energy with fluid present in the modulator, such that fluid flows through the supply conduit in accordance with the outlet temperature [¶ 0036-0038]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the expansion device and modulator as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the expansion device and modulator would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing the modulator around the outlet of an evaporator provides a means for controlling the system, as the configuration allows for heat transfer between the modulator and the evaporator outlet, thereby altering the flow of fluid towards the evaporator inlet, thus improving they system [¶ 0036-0038].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Gupta to have an expansion device between the condenser and the evaporator; and a modulator having a reservoir and a supply conduit, the reservoir of the modulator positioned around an outlet conduit of the evaporator, a first end portion of the supply conduit coupled to an inlet conduit of the evaporator, a second end portion of the supply conduit coupled to the reservoir of the modulator, the working fluid flowable into and out of the reservoir of the modulator through the supply conduit of the modulator, in view of the teachings of Junge where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing the modulator around the outlet of an evaporator provides a means for controlling the system, as the configuration allows for heat transfer between the modulator and the evaporator outlet, thereby altering the flow of fluid towards the evaporator inlet, thus improving they system.
Lastly, Junge does not explicitly disclose that the second end portion of the supply conduit is coupled to the reservoir of the modulator at a top half of the reservoir.
However, it has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Junge regarding passive flow of refrigerant to and from the modulator. In essence, Junge considers the temperature of refrigerant for flow providing the function of modulation. As per (2), based on the above teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that location of the supply conduit can only be arranged in a finite combination as follows: (A) at the upper half of the modulator (B) at the bottom half of the modulator, or (C) evenly disposed between the halves. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that change in elevation of the supply conduit will not change the principles of operation of the prior art, nor would it render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose, since refrigerant will be distributed in the prior art of Junge and will continue to operate regardless of the location of the supply conduit, or the phase of refrigerant flowing out thereof. In other words, modifying the prior art to achieve any of the aforementioned combinations of (A), (B) and (C) can be done with a reasonable expectation of success. This is supported by the fact that Junge acknowledges that the supply conduit provides and receives refrigerant from the modulator. As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that choosing an elevation of the supply conduit can be done as a matter of routine optimization, in order to achieve a configuration of passively providing charge to a refrigeration system [Junge ¶ 0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Junge and to have modified them by providing the second end portion of the supply conduit coupled to the reservoir of modulator at a top half of the reservoir, as a matter of choosing a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to achieve a passively driven refrigerant charging system, without yielding unpredictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Gupta, as modified, teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 1 above and Gupta teaches wherein the evaporator is a single evaporator and is the only evaporator in the refrigerator appliance [¶ 0098; the assembly may use a single evaporator], the single evaporator in fluid communication with the fresh food chamber to provide a flow of chilled air from the single evaporator to the fresh food chamber and the single evaporator in fluid communication with the freezer chamber to provide a flow of chilled air from the evaporator to the freezer chamber [¶ 0044; Fig. 19; cooling assembly 18 may be in fluid communication with first and second compartments 14, 16].
Regarding Claim 3, Gupta, as modified, teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 1 above and Junge teaches wherein the outlet conduit of the evaporator [164] extends through the reservoir of the modulator [Fig. 4; ¶ 0027-0028; apparent from inspection, outlet 164 is positioned concentrically within interior volume 210].
Regarding Claim 4, Gupta, as modified, teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 3 above and Junge teaches wherein the outlet conduit of the evaporator is positioned concentrically with an interior volume of the reservoir [Fig. 4; ¶ 0027-0028; apparent from inspection, outlet 164 is positioned concentrically within interior volume 210].
Regarding Claim 5, Gupta, as modified, teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 1 above and Junge teaches wherein the modulator forms a dead end branch for the working fluid [Fig. 19; ¶ 0029; apparent from inspection].
Regarding Claim 6, Gupta, as modified, teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 1 above and Gupta further teaches comprising a movable damper assembly [34] configured to move between a first position wherein the evaporator is in fluid communication with the fresh food chamber to provide a flow of chilled air from the evaporator to the fresh food chamber and a second position wherein the evaporator is in fluid communication with the freezer chamber to provide a flow of chilled air from the evaporator to the freezer chamber [¶ 0059; outlet 28 is obstructed in a first position, outlet 30 is obstructed in a second position, thus providing flow to specific compartments].
Regarding Claim 7, Gupta, as modified, teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 1 above and Gupta further teaches comprising a bridge chamber [60] defined in the cabinet, the bridge chamber positioned between the fresh food chamber and the freezer chamber, wherein the evaporator is positioned in the bridge chamber [Fig. 19; ¶ 0098; apparent from inspection, evaporator 78 disposed within chamber 60, between 14 and 16].
Regarding Claim 9, Gupta, as modified, teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 7 above and Gupta further teaches comprising a fan [22] positioned in the bridge chamber and a plenum [at least 72] defined within the bridge chamber between the evaporator and the fan [¶ 0044-0045; channel 72 is formed between compartment liners 52 and 54 to house at least the evaporator and receive and airflow from the fan assembly].
Regarding Claim 10, Gupta teaches a sealed cooling system [18] for a refrigerator appliance [10], the refrigerator appliance comprising a freezer chamber [16] and a fresh food chamber [14] [¶ 0043-0045; Figs. 1-2 and 19], the sealed cooling system comprising:
a sealed loop [300] with a working fluid sealed within the sealed loop [¶ 0098; connection line 300 connects relevant components to enable the cooling assembly 18];
a compressor [80];
a condenser [82] downstream of the compressor with respect to the flow direction of the working fluid [¶ 0098-0099; Fig. 19; apparent from inspection];
an evaporator [78] downstream of the condenser with respect to the flow direction of the working fluid [¶ 0098-0099; Fig. 19; apparent from inspection];
While teaching a multi-directional valve [86] between the condenser and evaporator, Gupta does not explicitly teach an expansion device between the condenser and the evaporator; and a modulator having a reservoir and a supply conduit, the reservoir of the modulator positioned around an outlet conduit of the evaporator, a first end portion of the supply conduit coupled to an inlet conduit of the evaporator, a second end portion of the supply conduit coupled to the reservoir of the modulator at a top half of the reservoir, the working fluid flowable into and out of the reservoir of the modulator through the supply conduit of the modulator.
However, Junge teaches a modulator [200] for an ice maker in a refrigerator cabinet [Figs. 1-4], wherein the cooling system comprises a compressor [130], a condenser [40], an expansion device [150] and an evaporator [160] [¶ 0019, 0025]. Junge further teaches the modulator 200 comprising a reservoir [210] and a supply conduit [220] connected to the refrigerant conduit [162] at a point between the expansion device and the inlet of the evaporator [¶ 0025-0026]. Junge further discloses that the reservoir is positioned around an outlet conduit [164] of the evaporator, and wherein refrigerant may flow to and from the modulator via the supply conduit [¶ 0027]. Junge teaches that this configuration provides a manner of control over the system, as the temperature at the outlet of the evaporator will exchange energy with fluid present in the modulator, such that fluid flows through the supply conduit in accordance with the outlet temperature [¶ 0036-0038]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the expansion device and modulator as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the expansion device and modulator would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing the modulator around the outlet of an evaporator provides a means for controlling the system, as the configuration allows for heat transfer between the modulator and the evaporator outlet, thereby altering the flow of fluid towards the evaporator inlet, thus improving they system [¶ 0036-0038].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Gupta to have an expansion device between the condenser and the evaporator; and a modulator having a reservoir and a supply conduit, the reservoir of the modulator positioned around an outlet conduit of the evaporator, a first end portion of the supply conduit coupled to an inlet conduit of the evaporator, a second end portion of the supply conduit coupled to the reservoir of the modulator, the working fluid flowable into and out of the reservoir of the modulator through the supply conduit of the modulator, in view of the teachings of Junge where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing the modulator around the outlet of an evaporator provides a means for controlling the system, as the configuration allows for heat transfer between the modulator and the evaporator outlet, thereby altering the flow of fluid towards the evaporator inlet, thus improving they system.
Lastly, Junge does not explicitly disclose that the second end portion of the supply conduit is coupled to the reservoir of the modulator at a top half of the reservoir.
However, it has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Junge regarding passive flow of refrigerant to and from the modulator. In essence, Junge considers the temperature of refrigerant for flow providing the function of modulation. As per (2), based on the above teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that location of the supply conduit can only be arranged in a finite combination as follows: (A) at the upper half of the modulator (B) at the bottom half of the modulator, or (C) evenly disposed between the halves. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that change in elevation of the supply conduit will not change the principles of operation of the prior art, nor would it render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose, since refrigerant will be distributed in the prior art of Junge and will continue to operate regardless of the location of the supply conduit, or the phase of refrigerant flowing out thereof. In other words, modifying the prior art to achieve any of the aforementioned combinations of (A), (B) and (C) can be done with a reasonable expectation of success. This is supported by the fact that Junge acknowledges that the supply conduit provides and receives refrigerant from the modulator. As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that choosing an elevation of the supply conduit can be done as a matter of routine optimization, in order to achieve a configuration of passively providing charge to a refrigeration system [Junge ¶ 0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Junge and to have modified them by providing the second end portion of the supply conduit coupled to the reservoir of modulator at a top half of the reservoir, as a matter of choosing a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to achieve a passively driven refrigerant charging system, without yielding unpredictable results.
Regarding Claim 11, Gupta, as modified, teaches the sealed cooling system of claim 10 above and Gupta teaches wherein the evaporator is a single evaporator [¶ 0098; the assembly may use a single evaporator], the single evaporator in fluid communication with the fresh food chamber to provide a flow of chilled air from the single evaporator to the fresh food chamber and the single evaporator in fluid communication with the freezer chamber to provide a flow of chilled air from the evaporator to the freezer chamber [¶ 0044; Fig. 19; cooling assembly 18 may be in fluid communication with first and second compartments 14, 16].
Regarding Claim 12, Gupta, as modified, teaches the sealed cooling system of claim 10 above and Junge wherein the outlet conduit of the evaporator [164] extends through the reservoir of the modulator [Fig. 4; ¶ 0027-0028; apparent from inspection, outlet 164 is positioned concentrically within interior volume 210].
Regarding Claim 13, Gupta, as modified, teaches the sealed cooling system of claim 12 above and Junge teaches wherein the outlet conduit of the evaporator is positioned concentrically with an interior volume of the reservoir [Fig. 4; ¶ 0027-0028; apparent from inspection, outlet 164 is positioned concentrically within interior volume 210].
Regarding Claim 14, Gupta, as modified, teaches the sealed cooling system of claim 10 above and Junge teaches wherein the modulator forms a dead end branch for the working fluid [Fig. 19; ¶ 0029; apparent from inspection].
Regarding Claim 15, Gupta, as modified, teaches the sealed cooling system of claim 10 above and Gupta further teaches comprising a movable damper assembly [34]configured to move between a first position wherein the evaporator is in fluid communication with the fresh food chamber to provide a flow of chilled air from the evaporator to the fresh food chamber and a second position wherein the evaporator is in fluid communication with the freezer chamber to provide a flow of chilled air from the evaporator to the freezer chamber [¶ 0059; outlet 28 is obstructed in a first position, outlet 30 is obstructed in a second position, thus providing flow to specific compartments].
Regarding Claim 16, Gupta, as modified, teaches the sealed cooling system of claim 10 above and Gupta teaches wherein the evaporator is positioned in a bridge chamber [60] defined in the cabinet of the refrigerator appliance, the bridge chamber positioned between the fresh food chamber and the freezer chamber [Fig. 19; ¶ 0098; apparent from inspection, evaporator 78 disposed within chamber 60, between 14 and 16].
Regarding Claim 18, Gupta, as modified, teaches the sealed cooling system of claim 16 above and Gupta further comprising a fan [22] positioned in the bridge chamber and a plenum [at least 72] defined within the bridge chamber between the evaporator and the fan [¶ 0044-0045; channel 72 is formed between compartment liners 52 and 54 to house at least the evaporator and receive and airflow from the fan assembly].
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta and Junge as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Roh et al. (US 20230235941 A1, hereinafter “Roh”).
Regarding Claim 8, Gupta, as modified, teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 7 above and Gupta teaches wherein the bridge chamber comprises a first outlet [74] in fluid communication with the fresh food chamber, a second inlet [62] in fluid communication with the freezer chamber, and a second outlet in fluid communication with the freezer chamber [76] [Figs. 2 and 19; ¶ 0045-0046; air enters channel 72 via 62 and is cooled and directed to 74 and/or 76 to flow towards their respective chambers].
While Gupta generally teaches an inlet, Gupta does not explicitly teach wherein the bridge chamber comprises a first inlet in fluid communication with the fresh food compartment.
However, Roh teaches a refrigerator [1] [Fig. 3] comprising a first and second compartment [11, 12] wherein each compartment may receive cold air from the cold air generating space [111] via ducts [21, 22, 23], wherein the cold air generating space is disposed between the first and second compartments [¶ 0066-0068]. Roh further teaches a (fifth) channel [233] for guiding air from the refrigerator compartment to the cold air generating space, as well as another (fourth) channel [232] for guiding air from the freezer compartment to the cold air generating space [¶ 0070], therefore providing a plurality of inlets to the cold air generating space from respective compartments. Roh further teaches that recycling and mixing air from separate compartments to be re-cooled is a known technique in the prior art regarding mono-cycle type refrigerators, and is known to produce an expected result of success [¶ 0003]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the inlet as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the inlet would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. mixing air from separate compartments to be re-cooled is a known technique in the prior art regarding mono-cycle type refrigerators, and is known to produce an expected result of success. Thus, there is a reasonable expectation that one of ordinary skill in the art may explore all known techniques if they are expected to result in a success [¶ 0003].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Gupta to have a first inlet in fluid communication with the fresh food chamber, in view of the teachings of Roh where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. mixing air from separate compartments to be re-cooled is a known technique in the prior art regarding mono-cycle type refrigerators, and is known to produce an expected result of success. Thus, there is a reasonable expectation that one of ordinary skill in the art may explore all known techniques if they are expected to result in a success.
Regarding Claim 17, Gupta, as modified, teaches the sealed cooling system of claim 16 above and Gupta wherein the bridge chamber comprises a first outlet [74] in fluid communication with the fresh food chamber, a second inlet [62] in fluid communication with the freezer chamber, and a second outlet in fluid communication with the freezer chamber [76] [Figs. 2 and 19; ¶ 0045-0046; air enters channel 72 via 62 and is cooled and directed to 74 and/or 76 to flow towards their respective chambers].
While Gupta generally teaches an inlet, Gupta does not explicitly teach wherein the bridge chamber comprises a first inlet in fluid communication with the fresh food compartment.
However, Roh teaches a refrigerator [1] [Fig. 3] comprising a first and second compartment [11, 12] wherein each compartment may receive cold air from the cold air generating space [111] via ducts [21, 22, 23], wherein the cold air generating space is disposed between the first and second compartments [¶ 0066-0068]. Roh further teaches a (fifth) channel [233] for guiding air from the refrigerator compartment to the cold air generating space, as well as another (fourth) channel [232] for guiding air from the freezer compartment to the cold air generating space [¶ 0070], therefore providing a plurality of inlets to the cold air generating space from respective compartments. Roh further teaches that recycling and mixing air from separate compartments to be re-cooled is a known technique in the prior art regarding mono-cycle type refrigerators, and is known to produce an expected result of success [¶ 0003]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the inlet as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the inlet would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. mixing air from separate compartments to be re-cooled is a known technique in the prior art regarding mono-cycle type refrigerators, and is known to produce an expected result of success. Thus, there is a reasonable expectation that one of ordinary skill in the art may explore all known techniques if they are expected to result in a success [¶ 0003].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Gupta to have a first inlet in fluid communication with the fresh food chamber, in view of the teachings of Roh where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. mixing air from separate compartments to be re-cooled is a known technique in the prior art regarding mono-cycle type refrigerators, and is known to produce an expected result of success. Thus, there is a reasonable expectation that one of ordinary skill in the art may explore all known techniques if they are expected to result in a success.
Response to Arguments
On pages 6-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, are patentable over every cited reference, separately or in any combination. Specifically stating that a rearrangement of parts would modify the operation of the modulator, as the present Application is configured to control the charge of the evaporator such that operation is driven without the use of moving parts by the vapor pressure. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Prior art Junge explicitly discloses that the modulator 200 may also be a passive system without moving parts, thus regulating the charge of the refrigeration system based entirely on thermodynamics and vapor pressure without sensors, control valve, etc. [Jung ¶ 0038]. Applicant’s assertion that the location of the inlet is allegedly providing an advantage over the prior art cannot be followed, as the prior art explicitly discloses the same functionality and fundamental properties, regardless of the difference in structure. Therefore leading one to believe that modifying the location of the inlet does not: provide any significant or unexpected result, or modify the operation of the modulator art in such a manner that it does not perform its original function. Thus, the rearrangement is considered patentably insignificant.
On pages 6-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art can discern that the liquid refrigerant would flow out of the reservoir in Junge much more readily than in the present application. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive, as the specific arguments are not reflected in the claims.
Respectfully, the phase of the refrigerant entering or exiting the modulator does not appear to impact the fundamental function that the difference in temperature between inlet/outlets is what drives the passive flow to and from the modulator [Junge ¶ 0037-0038]. Upon review of Applicant’s specification, no criticality can be found regarding the specific liquid or gas phase of the refrigerant entering or exiting the modulator. Applicant’s ¶ 0063 discloses the temperature difference of inlets/outlets accomplishing the passive function of modulating refrigerant. Compared to Junge ¶ 0038, the prior art’s modulator accomplishes the same exact function (i.e. provide or receive refrigerant) in the same exact manner (i.e. temperature difference), therefore leading one to believe that the phase of refrigerant entering/leaving the modulator does not impact the function of the modulator holding a portion of refrigerant and equalizing said refrigerant in a refrigeration circuit. Accordingly, the location of the conduit does not appear to modify the function of the modulator in a patentably significant manner.
On page 7 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the remaining dependent claims are allowable at least based on their dependency to an allegedly allowable independent claim. As the independent claims have been addressed above and remain rejected, all claims depending therefrom also remain rejected.
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 KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights