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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025 and 09/30/2025 were filed after the filing date of the application on 03/29/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
“wherein a vibration-damping foam is provided between the casing of the heat dissipation fan and an inner cylinder wall of the bracket body” in claim 17,
“wherein the microchannel condenser includes a plurality of microchannels, gaps between the microchannels of the microchannel condenser are aligned with a direction of the heat dissipation airflow” in claim 22,
and ““wherein the fixed bracket is provided with a ribbed groove structure for lines and pipes connecting the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber to pass through” in claim 28.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract exceeds 150 words
The word “means” in line 14
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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:
“winding snaps” in claim 19.
“isolation member” in claim 30.
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 shows 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:
“winding snaps” correspond to protrusions used to wind a long cable around as described in paragraph [0069] 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “isolation member”. The term “isolation member” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the isolation function is performed. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of isolating “the heat dissipation air inlet port and the heat dissipation air exhaust port”. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “…a heat dissipation compartment…” and “…a heat dissipation compartment…” which render the claim indefinite because the claim as written leave the structure ambiguous in nature as it become difficult to tell if the claim is referencing a previously claimed element or disclosing an element in addition to the previously claimed element.
Claim 15 recites an apparatus claim (a refrigerator) and the limitation of "utilizing the fan fixing jaws to snap into a casing of the heat dissipation fan" is a method step of using the apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since it is unclear if infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows the fan fixing jaws to snap into a casing of the heat dissipation fan, or whether infringement occurs when the fan fixing jaws snap into a casing of the heat dissipation fan, see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). As such, claim 15 is indefinite as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it reads, "the fan fixing jaws are capable of being snapped into a casing of the heat dissipation fan".
Regarding claim 19, the term “excessively” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “excessively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claim 19 indefinite because it is unclear what “excessively long cable” is. Thus, as used to qualify the length of the cable, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claim 20 recites an apparatus claim (a refrigerator) and the limitation of " utilizing the condenser fixing jaws to snap into the condenser" is a method step of using the apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since it is unclear if infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows the condenser fixing jaws to snap into the condenser, or whether infringement occurs when the condenser fixing jaws snap into the condenser, see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). As such, claim 20 is indefinite as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it reads, "the condenser fixing jaws are capable of being snapped into the condenser".
Claim 30 recites the limitation “isolation member” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 12-14, 16-18, and 21-29 are also rejected due to dependency.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (CN214095076U, herein after referred to as Zhao).
Regarding claim 11, Zhao teaches a refrigerator (Fig. 3) with a heat dissipation compartment (disclosed “compressor compartment” in paragraph [38] and Fig. 2) at a bottom (Fig. 3), comprising: a cabinet (refrigerator body 1 Fig. 3), having the heat dissipation compartment at a bottom rear thereof (Fig. 3); and a fixed bracket (condenser duct 6 Fig. 2), which is disposed in a middle of the heat dissipation compartment (Fig. 2) along a transverse direction (from right to left Fig. 2), divides the heat dissipation compartment into a first heat dissipation chamber (the area that contains compressor 4 and fan 5 Fig. 2) and a second heat dissipation chamber (the area that contains condenser 9 and drain pipe 7 Fig. 2) along the transverse direction of the cabinet (Fig. 2), and is provided with a fan fixing structure (paragraph [39] where it is disclosed that fan 6 is installed inside condenser duct 6) on one side of the fixed bracket (left side of condenser duct 6 Fig. 2) facing the first heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 2) and a condenser fixing structure (paragraph [39] where it is disclosed that condenser 9 is installed inside condenser duct 6) on one side of the fixed bracket (right side of condenser duct 6 Fig. 2) facing the second heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 2).
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.
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.
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao.
Regarding claim 12, Zhao teaches further comprising: a heat dissipation fan (fan 5 Fig. 2), mounted on the fan fixing structure (Figs. 1-2) and configured to induce the formation of a heat dissipation airflow (disclosed “cold air” in paragraph [46]) that passes through the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber (paragraph [46]); and a condenser (condenser 9 Fig. 2), mounted on the condenser fixing structure (Figs. 1-2) and cooled utilizing the heat dissipation airflow (paragraph [46]).
Zhao teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the heat dissipation airflow enters from outside of the cabinet and then discharges from the cabinet”.
However, referring to paragraph [46] and Fig. 3 of the drawings, a person skilled in the art would recognize that “the heat dissipation airflow enters from outside of the cabinet and then discharges from the cabinet” since rear cover plate 3 is provided with an air inlet and air outlet which are communicating with outside air.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to recognize that the apparatus of Zhao includes “the heat dissipation airflow enters from outside of the cabinet and then discharges from the cabinet” since Zhao teaches a rear cover plate 3 that is provided with an air inlet and air outlet which are communicating with outside air to remove heat from the machine room.
Regarding claim 13, Zhao teaches wherein the fixed bracket comprises: a bracket body (body of condenser duct 6 Fig. 2) extending along the transverse direction of the cabinet (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Zhao teaches wherein the bracket body is in a shape of a square cylinder (Figs. 1-2 where condenser duct 6 is shaped as a square box with a circular opening for fan 5).
Regarding claim 16, Zhao teaches wherein an inner cylinder cross-section of one end of the bracket body (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Zhao) facing the first heat dissipation chamber is adapted to a shape of the casing of a heat dissipation fan (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Zhao).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Oh (KR20070062357A).
Regarding claim 15, Zhao teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the fan fixing structure comprises a plurality of fan fixing jaws extending from the bracket body towards the first heat dissipation chamber, utilizing the fan fixing jaws to snap into a casing of the heat dissipation fan, and a portion of the casing of the heat dissipation fan is embedded in the bracket body”.
However, Oh teaches wherein a fan fixing structure (the disclosed “fixing device” on page 2 corresponds to the fan fixing structure of Zhao) comprises a plurality of fan fixing jaws (catch step 280 Fig. 3 and page 2) extending from a bracket body (Figs. 2-3 where the body of fixing holder 210 corresponds to the bracket body of Zhao) towards a first heat dissipation chamber (the disclosed machine room” on page 3 corresponds to the first heat dissipation chamber of Zhao), utilizing the fan fixing jaws to snap into a casing of the heat dissipation fan (cover 220 Fig. 3 and page 2), and a portion of the casing of the heat dissipation fan (catch step 290 Fig. 3) is embedded in the bracket body (Fig. 3) to reduce the work time when assembly and disassembly work is required (page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Zhao to include “wherein the fan fixing structure comprises a plurality of fan fixing jaws extending from the bracket body towards the first heat dissipation chamber, utilizing the fan fixing jaws to snap into a casing of the heat dissipation fan, and a portion of the casing of the heat dissipation fan is embedded in the bracket body” in view of the teachings of Zhao to reduce the work time when assembly and disassembly work is required.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Candeo et al. (US 20170276421 A1, herein after referred to as Candeo).
Regarding claim 17, Zhao teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein a vibration-damping foam is provided between the casing of the heat dissipation fan and an inner cylinder wall of the bracket body”.
However, Candeo teaches wherein a vibration-damping foam (gasket 122 Fig. 5) is provided between a casing (frame 108 Figs. 4-5 corresponds to the casing of Zhao) of a heat dissipation fan (cooling fan 102 Fig. 5 corresponds to the cooling fan of Zhao) and an inner cylinder wall of a bracket body (opening 66 Fig. 5 where the body of housing 62 corresponds to the bracket body of Zhao) to dampen the transmission of vibration and sound from the fan to the housing (paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Zhao to include “wherein a vibration-damping foam is provided between the casing of the heat dissipation fan and an inner cylinder wall of the bracket body” in view of the teachings of Candeo to dampen the transmission of vibration and sound from the fan to the housing.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Aoki et al. (JP2020091085A, herein after referred to as Aoki).
Regarding claim 18, Zhao teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the heat dissipation fan is an axial flow fan, and an air blowing direction of the heat dissipation fan is from the first heat dissipation chamber through the bracket body to the second heat dissipation chamber”.
However, Aoki teaches wherein a heat dissipation fan (blower 21 Fig. 2 corresponds to the fan of Zhao) is an axial flow fan (paragraph [0027]), and an air blowing direction of the heat dissipation fan (Fig. 6B) is from a first heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 6B where the portion of machine room 14 which is located between the left wall and blower 21 corresponds to the first heat dissipation chamber of Zhao) through a bracket body (Figs. 2 and 6B where the body of the body of the fixture holding blower 21 corresponds to the bracket body of Zhao) to a second heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 6B where the portion of machine room 14 which is located between the right wall and blower 21 corresponds to the second heat dissipation chamber of Zhao) to prevent dust from accumulating on the surface of the micro-channel condenser (paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Zhao to include “wherein the heat dissipation fan is an axial flow fan, and an air blowing direction of the heat dissipation fan is from the first heat dissipation chamber through the bracket body to the second heat dissipation chamber” in view of the teachings of Aoki to prevent dust from accumulating on the surface of the micro-channel condenser.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao and Oh as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sun (US 20080149365 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein one or more winding snaps are provided at an outer periphery of one side of the bracket body facing the first heat dissipation chamber and are used for wrapping an excessively long cable of the heat dissipation fan”.
However, Sun teaches wherein one or more winding snaps (wire securing mechanism 26 Fig. 3) are provided at an outer periphery (periphery 12 Fig. 3) of one side of a bracket body (Fig. 3 where frame 10 corresponds to the bracket body of Zhao) facing a first heat dissipation chamber (the aera where the fan is located corresponds to the first heat dissipation chamber of Zhao) and are used for wrapping a long cable of the heat dissipation fan (wire 50 Fig. 3 and paragraph [0015]) to satisfactorily secured the excess portion of the wire (paragraph [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein one or more winding snaps are provided at an outer periphery of one side of the bracket body facing the first heat dissipation chamber and are used for wrapping an excessively long cable of the heat dissipation fan” in view of the teachings of Sun to satisfactorily secured the excess portion of the wire.
Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Lim et al. (US 20220397336 A1, herein after referred to as Lim).
Regarding claim 20, Zhao teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the condenser fixing structure comprises a plurality of condenser fixing jaws extending from the bracket body towards the second heat dissipation chamber, utilizing the condenser fixing jaws to snap into the condenser”.
However, Lim teaches wherein a condenser fixing structure (condenser seating plate 246 Figs. 12-13 corresponds to the condenser fixing structure of Zhao) comprises a plurality of condenser fixing jaws (condenser fixing parts 247 Fig. 12) extending from a bracket body (Figs. 12-13 where the body of defrost water tray 240 corresponds to the bracket body of Zhao) towards a second heat dissipation chamber (Figs. 11-13 where the room in which main condenser 620 is located corresponds to the second heat dissipation chamber of Zhao), utilizing the condenser fixing jaws to snap into the condenser (paragraph [0144]) to ease the installation of the condenser in the machine room (paragraph [0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Zhao to include “wherein the condenser fixing structure comprises a plurality of condenser fixing jaws extending from the bracket body towards the second heat dissipation chamber, utilizing the condenser fixing jaws to snap into the condenser” in view of the teachings of Lim to ease the installation of the condenser in the machine room.
Regarding claim 23, the combined teachings teach wherein a shape of the condenser (shape of condenser 9 Fig. 1 of Zhao) is designed to fit the inner cylinder of the bracket body facing the second heat dissipation chamber (Figs. 1-2 of Zhao).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao and Lim as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Aoki.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the condenser is a microchannel condenser”.
However, Aoki teaches wherein a condenser (microchannel condenser 23 Fig. 2 corresponds to the condenser of Zhao) is a microchannel condenser (paragraph [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the condenser is a microchannel condenser” in view of the teachings of Aoki to provide higher heat transfer efficiency in a much smaller package.
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings teach wherein the microchannel condenser includes a plurality of microchannels (heat transfer tube 30 Figs. 3A-3B of Aoki), gaps (narrow channels 37 Fig. B of Aoki) between the microchannels of the microchannel condenser (Fig. 3B of Aoki) are aligned with a direction of the heat dissipation airflow (Figs. 2 and 6B of Aoki).
Claims 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Wang et al. (CN111609632A, herein after referred to as Wang).
Regarding claim 24, Zhao teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the fixed bracket further comprises: a windshield, extending from a front end of the bracket body, and used for sealing off front areas of the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber”.
However, Wang teaches wherein a fixed bracket (fan fixing frame 500 and partition 117 Fig. 6 corresponds to the fixed bracket of Zhao) further comprises: a windshield (windshield 1056 Fig. 6), extending from a front end of a bracket body (Figs. 5-6), and used for sealing off front areas (Figs. 5-6) of a first heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 9 where the section of compressor compartment 300 in which compressor 104 is located corresponds to the first heat dissipation chamber of Zhao) and a second heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 9 where the section of compressor compartment 300 in which condenser 105 is located corresponds to the second heat dissipation chamber of Zhao) to control the flow of the air entering the compressor compartment (paragraph [65]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Zhao to include “wherein the fixed bracket further comprises: a windshield, extending from a front end of the bracket body, and used for sealing off front areas of the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber” in view of the teachings of Wang to control the flow of the air entering the compressor compartment.
Regarding claim 30, Zhao teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein an isolation member is provided on a lower surface of the bottom plate of the heat dissipation compartment, the isolation member isolates the heat dissipation air inlet port and the heat dissipation air exhaust port”.
However, Wang teaches wherein an isolation member (partition 117 Fig. 16) is provided on a lower surface of the bottom plate (lower surface of supporting plate 112 Figs. 8-9) of a heat dissipation compartment (compressor cabin 300 Fig. 5 corresponds to the heat dissipation compartment of Zhao), the isolation member isolates a heat dissipation air inlet port (Fig. 9 and paragraph [57] where air inlet 110a corresponds to the heat dissipation air inlet port of Aoki) and a heat dissipation air exhaust port (Fig. 9 where bottom air outlet 110b corresponds the heat dissipation air exhaust port of Aoki) to allow external air to pass through the bottom located on the lateral side of the isolation member under the action of the heat dissipation fan (paragraph [57]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Zhao to include “wherein an isolation member is provided on a lower surface of the bottom plate of the heat dissipation compartment, the isolation member isolates the heat dissipation air inlet port and the heat dissipation air exhaust port” in view of the teachings of Wang to allow external air to pass through the bottom located on the lateral side of the isolation member under the action of the heat dissipation fan.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Taylor et al. (CN201081495Y, herein after referred to as Taylor).
Regarding claim 25, Zhao teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the fixed bracket further comprises: an installation snap, provided at a bottom of the fixed bracket and used for snapping to a bottom plate of the heat dissipation compartment; and a fixation screw post, provided at a rear portion of the fixed bracket and used for fixing with a rear wall panel of the heat dissipation compartment by screws”.
However, Taylor teaches wherein a fixed bracket (evaporator box 4 Fig. 1 corresponds to the fixed bracket of Zhao) further comprises: an installation snap (notch 19 Fig. 6), provided at a bottom of the fixed bracket (Fig. 6) and used for snapping (paragraph [29]) to a bottom plate (top plate of refrigerator body 1 Figs. 1 and 6) of a heat dissipation compartment (Figs. 1 and 6 where machine room 3 corresponds to the heat dissipation compartment of Zhao); and a fixation screw post (bent plate 21 Fig. 7) used for fixing with a wall panel of the heat dissipation compartment (top plate of refrigerator body 1 Fig. 7) by screws (paragraph [29]) to stably and accurately install the bracket in the machine room (paragraph [29]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Zhao to include “wherein the fixed bracket further comprises: an installation snap, provided at a bottom of the fixed bracket and used for snapping to a bottom plate of the heat dissipation compartment; and a fixation screw post, provided at a rear portion of the fixed bracket and used for fixing with a rear wall panel of the heat dissipation compartment by screws” in view of the teachings of Taylor to stably and accurately install the bracket in the machine room.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the fixation screw post provided at a rear portion of the fixed bracket and used for fixing with a rear wall panel of the heat dissipation compartment”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the fixation screw post provided at a rear portion of the fixed bracket and used for fixing with a rear wall panel of the heat dissipation compartment” does anything more than produce the predictable result of securing the fixed bracket inside the heat dissipation room. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of securing the fixed bracket inside the heat dissipation room.
Claims 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, in view of Wang, and in further view of Aoki.
Regarding claim 26, Zhao teaches further comprising: a compressor (compressor 4 Fig. 2), mounted in the first heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 2); and an evaporating dish (water receiving box 8 Fig. 2), mounted in the second heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 2) and used for receiving water (paragraph [49]) discharged from a drain pipe (drainage pipe 7 Fig. 2).
Zhao teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the drain pipe connected to a cooling chamber”.
However, Wang teaches a drain pipe (water introduction pipe 700 Fig. 6) connected to a cooling chamber (cooling chamber 200 Figs. 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Zhao to include “the drain pipe connected to a cooling chamber” in view of the teachings of Wang to remove any moisture collected on the evaporator.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the heat dissipation airflow flows sequentially through the compressor, the heat dissipation fan, the condenser, and the evaporating dish”.
However, Aoki teaches wherein a heat dissipation airflow (the arrows in Fig. 6B correspond to the heat dissipation airflow of Zhao) flows sequentially through a compressor (compressor 22 Figs. 2 and 6B corresponds to the compressor of Zhao), a heat dissipation fan (blower 21 Figs. 2 and 6B corresponds to the fan of Zhao), a condenser (microchannel condenser 23 Figs. 2 and 6B corresponds to the condenser of Zhao), and an evaporating dish (evaporating dish 25 Figs. 2 and 6B corresponds to the evaporating dish of Zhao) to prevent dust from accumulating on the surface of the micro-channel condenser (paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the heat dissipation airflow flows sequentially through the compressor, the heat dissipation fan, the condenser, and the evaporating dish” in view of the teachings of Aoki to prevent dust from accumulating on the surface of the micro-channel condenser.
Regarding claim 29, Zhao teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “a heat dissipation air inlet port and a heat dissipation air exhaust port provided at the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber, respectively”.
However, Aoki teaches a heat dissipation air inlet port (second ventilation opening 27 Fig. 6B) and a heat dissipation air exhaust port (first ventilation opening 26 Fig. 6B) provided at a first heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 6B where the portion of machine room 14 which is located between the left wall and blower 21 corresponds to the first heat dissipation chamber of Zhao) and a second heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 6B where the portion of machine room 14 which is located between the right wall and blower 21 corresponds to the second heat dissipation chamber of Zhao), respectively (Fig. 6B) to prevent dust from accumulating on the surface of the micro-channel condenser (paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Zhao to include “a heat dissipation air inlet port and a heat dissipation air exhaust port provided at the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber, respectively” in view of the teachings of Aoki to prevent dust from accumulating on the surface of the micro-channel condenser.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein a bottom plate of the heat dissipation compartment is provided with the heat dissipation air inlet port and the heat dissipation air exhaust port at front portions of the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber”.
However, Wang teaches wherein a bottom plate (supporting plate 112 Figs. 8-9) of a heat dissipation compartment (compressor cabin 300 Fig. 5 corresponds to the heat dissipation compartment of Zhao) is provided with a heat dissipation air inlet port (Fig. 9 where air inlet 110a corresponds to the heat dissipation air inlet port of Aoki) and a heat dissipation air exhaust port (Fig. 9 where bottom air outlet 110b corresponds the heat dissipation air exhaust port of Aoki) at front portions (Figs. 5-6 and 9) of a first heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 9 where the section of compressor compartment 300 in which compressor 104 is located corresponds to the first heat dissipation chamber of Zhao) and a second heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 9 where the section of compressor compartment 300 in which condenser 105 is located corresponds to the second heat dissipation chamber of Zhao) to make full use of the space between the refrigerator and the supporting surface, without increasing the distance between the rear wall of the refrigerator and the cabinet, and reducing therefore the space occupied by the refrigerator (paragraph [42]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein a bottom plate of the heat dissipation compartment is provided with the heat dissipation air inlet port and the heat dissipation air exhaust port at front portions of the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber” in view of the teachings of Wang to make full use of the space between the refrigerator and the supporting surface, without increasing the distance between the rear wall of the refrigerator and the cabinet, and reducing therefore the space occupied by the refrigerator.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Wang, and Aoki as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Lim.
Regarding claim 27, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein a top portion of the fixed bracket is provided with a guide groove for making a refrigeration line connecting the compressor as well as the condenser to pass through”.
However, Lim teaches wherein a top portion of a fixed bracket (Figs. 12 and 15 where defrost water tray 240 corresponds to the fixed bracket of Zhao) is provided with a guide groove (see below annotated Fig. 15 of Lim) for making a refrigeration line (evaporation tube L2 Fig. 15) connecting a compressor (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0248] where compressor 610 corresponds to the compressor of Zhao) as well as a condenser (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0248] where main condenser 620 corresponds to the condenser of Zhao) to pass through (Fig. 15) to ease the installation of the condenser (paragraph [0146]).
PNG
media_image2.png
736
1056
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein a top portion of the fixed bracket is provided with a guide groove for making a refrigeration line connecting the compressor as well as the condenser to pass through” in view of the teachings of Lim to ease the installation of the condenser.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Wang, and Aoki as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Sakai et. (JP2011202904A, herein after referred to as Sakai).
Regarding claim 28, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the fixed bracket is provided with a ribbed groove structure for lines and pipes connecting the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber to pass through”.
However, Sakai teaches wherein a fixed bracket (fan ring 18 Figs. 1-3 corresponds to the fixed bracket of Zhao) is provided with a ribbed groove structure (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Sakai) for lines (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Sakai) and pipes (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Sakai) connecting a first heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 1 and paragraph [30] where the disclosed “leeward side” corresponds to the first heat dissipation chamber of Zhao) and a second heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 1 and paragraph [30] where the disclosed “windward side” corresponds to the second heat dissipation chamber of Zhao) to pass through see below annotated Fig. 2 of Sakai).
PNG
media_image3.png
452
683
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
500
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the fixed bracket is provided with a ribbed groove structure for lines and pipes connecting the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber to pass through” in view of the teachings of Sakai to connect components located in the first chamber to others located in the second chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763