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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the recitation “of refrigeration” should be “of the refrigeration”. In lines 4-5, the recitation “a top” should be “the top”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 7: The recitation “wherein said base leg, said first tip prevention leg, and said second tip prevention leg are formed of a single piece of material” of claim 7 fails to further limit the recitation “the anti-tip device comprising a single, unitary piece of material forming: an elongate and substantially rigid base leg for mounting the anti-tip device to the vertical wall surface,…a substantially rigid first tip prevention leg extending in a forward direction from said base leg at said first end thereof; and a substantially rigid second tip prevention leg extending in the forward direction from said base leg at said second end thereof” in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215176401 U (Zhang) in view of US 4,669,695 A (Chou) and KR 0136595 Y1 (Lee).
With respect to claim 1: Zhang discloses a refrigeration appliance system, comprising: a refrigeration appliance (box body 1) having a top wall (Fig. 1); and an anti-tip device (pressing plate 6) mounted to a vertical wall surface (via bolt holes 62), the anti-tip device comprising a single, unitary piece of material (Fig. 8) forming: an elongate and substantially rigid base leg (vertical wall 61) for mounting the anti-tip device to the vertical wall surface (via said bolt holes 62), said base leg having a first end and a second end (left and right ends); a plurality of holes (bolt holes 62) distributed along a length of said base leg and passing through said base leg from a forward surface to a rear surface for allowing fasteners (bolts) to pass through said base leg (Fig. 8).
Zhang does not disclose “said top wall having a central region upon which refrigeration appliance components are located” as claimed.
Zhang does not disclose “a substantially rigid first tip prevention leg extending in a forward direction from said base leg at said first end thereof; and a substantially rigid second tip prevention leg extending in the forward direction from said base leg at said second end thereof; and said first and second tip prevention legs being spaced apart by a distance greater than a width of said central region of the top wall, such that when said anti-tip device is mounted to said vertical wall surface, said first and second tip prevention legs overlie said top wall on opposite lateral sides of said refrigeration appliance components, and said base leg lying in a first vertical plane, said first tip prevention leg lying in a second vertical plane disposed at an angle to the first vertical plane, and said second tip prevention leg lying in a third vertical plane disposed at an angle to the first vertical plane” as claimed.
Instead of first and second tip prevention legs as defined in claim 1, Zhang’s pressing plate 6 has a horizontal “transverse wall” that presses on the upper side of the refrigerating box body 1 (translation and Fig. 8). The length of the pressing plate 6 is equal to the transverse width of the box body 1, and the plate 6 prevents the box body 1 from tipping forward (translation).
Lee Fig. 2 shows that it is known in the art to mount “refrigeration appliance components” as claimed (Lee’s substrate 24, cover 21, etc.) on a central region of the top wall of a refrigerator 20. By placing the substrate 24 on the upper surface, heat generated thereby is not passed into the refrigerator (translation).
Chou discloses an anti-tip system for a home appliance. While depicted as a free-standing cooking appliance 10, the system may be used with any free-standing cabinet structure (Chou col. 2, lines 17-27).
Chou’s system includes brackets 26 that have a first substantially flat portion 32 that is secured to a wall 25 using fasteners (bolts) 40 in the holes 36 of said portion 32. This makes Chou’s portion 32 analogous and/or functionally equivalent to Zhang’s vertical wall 61 and bolt holes 62.
A second portion 34 extends substantially perpendicular to the first flat portion 32 of Chou’s bracket 26, and includes an inwardly turned flange 42 that forms a stop surface on the underside thereof. Chou’s second portion 34 and/or flange 42 is/are analogous and/or functionally equivalent to Zhang’s horizontal “transverse wall” that contacts the top of box body 1.
See Zhang Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhang’s box body 1 by adding Lee’s substrate 24, cover 21, etc. thereto, in order to provide control means for the refrigerator that does not pass heat into the refrigerate compartment – similarly to Lee’s invention. The substrate 24, cover 21, etc. added to Zhang’s box body 1 meet “said top wall having a central region upon which refrigeration appliance components are located” as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhang’s pressing plate 6 by replacing the horizontal “transverse wall” shown in Zhang Fig. 8 with Chou’s second portion 32 and flange 42 extending forward at each end of the pressing plate 6, in order to eliminate interference between said horizontal “transverse wall” and the substrate 24, cover 21, etc. added to the top of Zhang’s box body 1.
The modified pressing plate 6 meets, as claimed, a substantially rigid first tip prevention leg (the second portion 32 and flange 42 added at one end of plate 6) extending in a forward direction from said base leg at said first end thereof; and a substantially rigid second tip prevention leg (the second portion 32 and flange 42 added at the other end of plate 6) extending in the forward direction from said base leg at said second end thereof; and said first and second tip prevention legs being spaced apart by a distance greater than a width of said central region of the top wall, such that when said anti-tip device is mounted to said vertical wall surface, said first and second tip prevention legs overlie said top wall on opposite lateral sides of said refrigeration appliance components (the second portions 32 added to Zhang’s pressing plate 6 lie on opposite lateral sides of the substrate 24, cover 21, etc. added to Zhang’s box body 1), and said base leg lying in a first vertical plane (Zhang’s vertical wall 61 is in a vertical plane), said first tip prevention leg lying in a second vertical plane disposed at an angle to the first vertical plane (the first added second portion 32 is vertical as in Choi Fig. 2, and perpendicular to the vertical wall 61), and said second tip prevention leg lying in a third vertical plane disposed at an angle to the first vertical plane (the second added second portion 32 is vertical as in Choi Fig. 2, and perpendicular to the vertical wall 61).
With respect to claim 2: Zhang, as modified, does not disclose “wherein the length of said base leg exceeds sixteen inches” as claimed.
Zhang’s translation states that the length of pressing plate 6 is equal to the transverse width of the box body 1.
Chou discloses that second portion 34 extends from the first portion 32 approximately eight inches (col. 3, lines 36-45). Chou cols. 2-3 state that portion 32 is approximately 18 inches in length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhang’s vertical wall 61 to exceed 16 inches in length, in order to accommodate a box body 1 having a width some amount greater than 16 inches.
With respect to claim 3: Zhang, as modified, does not disclose “wherein a height of said base leg, measured perpendicularly to the length of said base leg, is approximately 53 millimeters” as claimed.
Chou discloses that second portion 34 extends from the first portion 32 approximately eight inches (col. 3, lines 36-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhang’s vertical wall 61 to be approximately 53 mm (approximately 2.09 inches) in vertical height, in order to provide sufficient area for forming the three rows of bolt holes 62 shown in Zhang Fig. 8.
With respect to claim 4: Zhang, as modified, does not disclose “wherein said holes are arranged along the length of said base leg so that selected pairs of said holes are separated by a distance selected from the group consisting of sixteen inches and twenty-four inches” as claimed.
Chou col. 2, line 54 to col. 3, line 17 teach that the length of portion 32 and the spacing of the holes 36 are selected so as to enhance the likelihood that a stud will be engaged by a fastener 40. In residences, it is standard practice for vertical wall frame members or studs (not shown in Chou) to be spaced 16” on center.
The Office Action dated 23 September 2025 stated:
OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that one of ordinary skill in the art would find conventional studs being spaced at an interval of 16 or 24 inches.
The applicant did not traverse the assertion of official notice. As such, the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the holes 62 to have pairs of holes 62 spaced 16 inches or 24 inches from each other, in order to have the bolts in said holes 62 engage studs of a wall.
With respect to claim 5: By making the same modification as in claim 2, the prior art of record meets wherein a length of said first tip prevention leg and a length of said second tip prevention leg (Chou col. 3 discloses portion 34 approximately 8 inches in length) is less than the length of said base leg (vertical wall 61 greater than 16 inches in length, as in the rejection of claim 2).
With respect to claim 6: Zhang, as modified, discloses wherein the first tip prevention leg is substantially parallel to the second tip prevention leg (Chou Fig. 1: the two portions 34 are parallel).
With respect to claim 7: Zhang, as modified, discloses wherein said base leg, said first tip prevention leg, and said second tip prevention leg are formed of a single piece of material (similarly to Zhang Fig. 8, but with Chou’s portions 34 integrally formed at lateral ends of vertical wall 61, instead of the horizontal “transverse wall” shown in Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 8: Zhang, as modified, discloses said first and second tip prevention legs are bent forward from said base leg (similarly to Chou’s portions 34 being bent forward from the portion 32).
Zhang, as modified, does not disclose “wherein the material is metal” as claimed.
Zhang’s lug/suspension loop 4 made of hard metal alloy material, and gives stainless steel as one example of such hard metal alloy (translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the plates 6 to be metal, because that is a known material used for forming a means for attaching a cabinet/structure to a vertical wall.
With respect to claim 9: Zhang, as modified, discloses wherein said rear surface of said base leg is substantially flat to facilitate mounting of the anti-tip device to a wall (Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 10: For the purposes of the rejection of claim 10, the cover 21 is not interpreted as the “refrigeration appliance components”. The claimed “refrigeration appliance components” are substrate 24, the sub-components on substrate 24 (Lee Fig. 2), and any wiring attached to substrate 24. The cover 21 is interpreted as comprising the claimed “one or more blocking elements”.
Zhang, as modified, meets one or more blocking elements (cover 21 and/or the left and right sides thereof) affixed to the refrigeration appliance along opposite lateral sides of refrigeration appliance components (cover 21 surrounds the left and right sides of substrate 24) that are disposed on a top wall of the refrigeration appliance, said one or more blocking elements being configured to prevent contact between the refrigeration appliance components and said first and second tip prevention legs (the cover 21 necessarily prevents contact between substrate 24 and the portions 34 added to plate 6, because the portions 34 would be blocked from the substrate 24 by the cover 21).
With respect to claim 13: Lee’s figures do not show the entire top of the refrigerator 20 and/or if the cover 21, substrate 24, etc. are centered along a width direction (laterally) on top of the refrigerator 20.
See Zhang Fig. 1. The wiring groove structure 3 is located at the center of the top of box body 1. It is obvious to connect the substrate 24 to the wiring in the wiring groove structure 3, in order to connect to and control other components of the refrigerator with said substrate 24.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to mount the cover 21, substrate 24, etc. in the center of the top of Zhang’s box body 1, in order to connect the substrate 24 to wiring in the wiring groove structure 3.
This meets, as claimed, wherein the refrigeration appliance components (cover 21, substrate 24, etc.) are substantially centered along a width dimension of the top wall of the refrigeration appliance (box body 1).
With respect to claim 14: “Integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte (177 USPQ 326).
Zhang, as modified, meets wherein said one or more blocking elements (cover 21 and/or the lateral sides thereof) are integral components of the refrigeration appliance (by virtue of being fastened thereto).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify cover 21 to be formed as a single component with the top of Zhang’s box body 1, in order to expedite assembly by not having to attach the cover 21 to the box body 1.
With respect to claim 15: Zhang, as modified, meets wherein said one or more blocking elements are brackets (cover 21 and/or the sides thereof is/are of bracket configuration) configured for attachment to the refrigeration appliance.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections made in the previous Office action are withdrawn, as being overcome by the claim amendments dated 01 June 2026. New claim objections are made above in this Office action.
The Applicant’s remarks related to the prior art rejections in the Office action dated 31 March 2026 are moot, as those grounds of rejection are not maintained in this Office action. New prior art rejections are made above in this Office action, as necessitated by the amendments to the claims dated 01 June 2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights