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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 March 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The status identifier of the claim states “canceled”, but the claim is also amended to appear as “currently amended”. For the purposes of this Office action, claim 10 is examined as “currently amended”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim is a duplicate of claim 4.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim is a duplicate of claim 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 61-110068 U in view of US 5,794,903 A (Peterson) and US 2022/0333847 A1 (Yoo).
With respect to claim 1: JP 61-110068 U discloses a refrigeration appliance system comprising: a refrigeration appliance (“freezing / refrigeration showcase”; apparatus depicted in Figs. 1-2) having a top wall (heat insulation wall 10a); and an anti-tip device (the two boards 50 in Fig. 2) mounted to a vertical wall surface (wall A in Fig. 1, via fasteners 55 of Figs. 2 and 5), the anti-tip device comprising a substantially rigid base leg (both of the pieces 52, forming a two-piece “base leg”) for mounting the anti-tip device to the vertical wall surface (using through-hole 52a and fastener 55), said base leg having a plurality of holes (two through-holes 52a) distributed along a length of said base leg (one hole 52a on the left, the other hole 52a on the right) and passing through said base leg from a forward surface to a rear surface for allowing fasteners (fasteners 55) to pass through said base leg (into wall A in Fig. 1), said base leg having a first end (left end) and a second end (right end); a substantially rigid first tip prevention leg (one of the two horizontal pieces 51) extending in a forward direction from said base leg at said first end thereof; and a substantially rigid second tip prevention leg (the other of the two horizontal pieces 51) extending in the forward direction from said base leg at said second end thereof.
JP 61-110068 U does not disclose the two boards 50 meet “the anti-tip device comprising a single, unitary piece of material forming: an elongate…base leg” as claimed.
Peterson shows it is known to have a securing apparatus 1 comprising a single, unitary piece of material forming an elongate base leg. There are a plurality of holes 21 for allowing fasteners to pass through the base leg and into a wall. The securing apparatus 1 is functionally equivalent and/or analogous to the two boards 50 in JP 61-110068 U.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the two boards 50 of JP 61-110068 U by connecting the two pieces 52 together such that a single, unitary component is formed (instead of two, separate boards 50) in order to create a stronger connection between wall A and main part 10 by physically joining the two boards 50 together. Additionally or alternatively, such a modification provides alternative and/or additional mounting locations for the fasteners 55 – at holes 21 in the “base leg” that are between the two horizontal pieces 51.
Such a modification meets “the anti-tip device comprising a single, unitary piece of material forming: an elongate and substantially rigid base leg (the two pieces 52 and the material joining the two pieces 52) for mounting the anti-tip device to the vertical wall surface, said base leg having a first end (left end) and a second end (right end); said base leg having a plurality of holes (holes 52a and holes 21) 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 (fasteners 55) to pass through said base leg; a substantially rigid first tip prevention leg (the left horizontal piece 51) extending in a forward direction from said base leg at said first end thereof; and a substantially rigid second tip prevention leg (the right horizontal piece 51) extending in the forward direction from said base leg at said second end thereof” as claimed.
JP 61-110068 U does not disclose “said top wall having a central region upon which refrigeration appliance components are located” and/or “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” as claimed.
Yoo Figs. 1-2 show wires 14/14a/14b extending out of wire holes 13a on the top of the main body 10 of a refrigerator 1, which connect to an electric box 50 mounted on top of the refrigerator 1. Also see Yoo Figs. 3-15. An upper case 110 and a lower case 120 accommodate, enclose, and protect the wires 14/14a/14b and electric box 50. Electric box 50 houses a printed circuit board 70 that is electrically connected to various devices of the refrigerator for control thereof ([0066]-[0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wall 10a of JP 61-110068 U to have Yoo’s wire holes 13a, wires 14/14a/14b, electric box 50, printed circuit board 70, etc. – in order to control various devices of the showcase similarly to Yoo’s invention. Yoo shows this is a known mounting location for control means of a refrigerator/freezer apparatus.
See Fig. 2 of JP 61-110068. When adding the electrical/control components from Yoo to wall 10a, it is obvious to have said electrical/control components between the two horizontal pieces 51.
Such a modification meets “said top wall (wall 10a) having a central region (region where Yoo’s electrical/control components are added) upon which refrigeration appliance components (the electrical/control components from Yoo) are located” and “said first and second tip prevention legs (left and right horizontal pieces 51) 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 (to wall A, as in Fig. 1), said first and second tip prevention legs overlie said top wall on opposite lateral sides of said refrigeration appliance components (the added electrical/control components are between the horizontal pieces 51 that overlie wall 10a)” as claimed.
With respect to claim 2: JP 61-110068, as modified, does not disclose “wherein the length of said base leg exceeds sixteen inches” as claimed.
Paterson’s apparatus 1 has an English scale 15 (IE – in inches), and col. 5 states:
The first leg 3 also includes a measuring scale 13, calibrated in both an English scale 15 and a metric scale 17. As discussed in greater detail below, an installer may use these scales when cutting the apparatus to various installation sizes to accommodate different sized furniture. The length of the device depends upon specific applications, but a nominal, manufactured length of eight to ten feet, a sufficient length to secure three standard width furniture pieces as a continuous unit, should be appropriate for general purpose use. Alternatively, the length could be 1/3 that discussed above when the device is intended for use with a single furniture piece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base leg to exceed 16 inches, in order to accommodate a showcase/cabinet having a width some amount greater than 16 inches.
With respect to claim 3: JP 61-110068, 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.
Peterson’s first leg 3 is formed with a width of 3.5 to 4 inches, which provides enough surface area to securely fasten the apparatus 1 to the furniture (col. 5, lines 33-45 and Figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base leg to be approximately 53 mm (approximately 2.09 inches) in vertical height, in order to provide sufficient area for abutting wall A and receiving the fasteners 55.
With respect to claim 4: JP 61-110068, 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.
Peterson col. 5, lines 53-67 and Fig. 8 disclose attaching nails 11 through holes 21 and into studs in a wall.
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 52a, 21 to have pairs of holes 52a, 21 spaced 16 inches or 24 inches from each other, in order to have the fasteners 55 engage studs of a wall.
With respect to claim 5: JP 61-110068, as modified, discloses wherein a length of said first tip prevention leg and a length of said second tip prevention leg is less than the length of said base leg (Fig. 2: the length of horizontal pieces 51 is less than the distance between the two boards 50).
With respect to claim 6: JP 61-110068, as modified, discloses wherein the first tip prevention leg is substantially parallel to the second tip prevention leg (Fig. 2: the horizontal pieces 51 are parallel).
With respect to claim 7: JP 61-110068, 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 (as explained in the rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 8: JP 61-110068, as modified, discloses said first and second tip prevention legs are bent forward from said base leg (horizontal pieces 51 are bent forward from pieces 52 and the material connecting the two pieces 52).
JP 61-110068, as modified, does not disclose “wherein the material is metal” as claimed.
Peterson col. 4, lines 35-48 disclose apparatus 1 may be made of metal, among other materials.
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 boards 50 and the structure connecting the boards 50 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: JP 61-110068, 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 (Figs. 1-2 and 5).
With respect to claim 10: In the combination of JP 61-110068 with Yoo, it is obvious to include Yoo’s cases 110, 120 on wall 10a of JP 61-110068 to thereby enclose the wiring and electronic components in the same way as in Yoo’s invention.
JP 61-110068, as modified, discloses one or more blocking elements (Yoo’s upper case 110 and lower case 120 and/or the left and right walls of upper case 110 and/or the left and right walls of lower case 120) affixed to the refrigeration appliance along opposite lateral sides of refrigeration appliance components (wires 14/14a/14b, electric box 50, and/or the components inside box 50) 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 upper case 110 and/or lower case 120 prevent(s) contact between 1. the wires 14/14a/14b, electric box 50, and/or the components inside box 50 and 2. the boards 50).
With respect to claim 11: JP 61-110068, 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.
Peterson col. 5, lines 53-67 and Fig. 8 disclose attaching nails 11 through holes 21 and into studs in a wall.
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 52a, 21 to have pairs of holes 52a, 21 spaced 16 inches or 24 inches from each other, in order to have the fasteners 55 engage studs of a wall.
With respect to claim 12: JP 61-110068, as modified, discloses wherein said base leg, said first tip prevention leg, and said second tip prevention leg of said anti-tip device are formed of a single piece of material (as explained in the rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 13: Yoo Figs. 1-2, 10, and 14 show wherein the refrigeration appliance components (wires 14/14a/14b, electric box 50, and/or the components inside box 50) are substantially centered along a width dimension of the top wall of the refrigeration appliance (refrigerator 1).
In the combination with JP 61-110068, the components are centered laterally on wall 10a in the same way.
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).
Yoo discloses wherein said one or more blocking elements (case 110 and/or case 120) 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 Yoo’s case 120 to be formed as a single component with the wall 10a of JP 61-110068, in order to expedite assembly by not having to attach the case 120 to the wall 10a.
With respect to claim 15: Yoo discloses wherein said one or more blocking elements are brackets (upper case 110 and/or lower case 120 is/are of bracket configuration) configured for attachment to the refrigeration appliance.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant has not presented any arguments or remarks related to the objections and rejections made in the Office action dated 28 January 2026. Those objections and rejections are maintained in this Office action.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 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