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 on 05/20/2026. The previous objections to drawings and specification have been partially withdrawn. Furthermore, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections and claim interpretations have been withdrawn. Claims 11, 16, 18-19, 21-29, and 31-33 remain pending for consideration.
This Office Action contains a New Grounds of Rejection. Since these new grounds of rejection did not result from an amendment to the claims, this Office Action is being made non-final to afford the applicant the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference number 338 in Fig. 6
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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:
“a fan matching structure” in claim 33.
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:
“a fan matching structure” corresponds to matching structures such as convex ribs, grooves, or the like as described in paragraph [0066] 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 32 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.
In claim 32, Applicant has added the limitation “wherein the guide groove at the top portion of the fixed bracket and a ribbed groove structure are arranged in alignment along the transverse direction of the cabinet to guide refrigeration lines and electrical lines between the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber in an orderly manner”. However, in paragraph [0074] of the originally filed specification, Applicant discloses “The fixed bracket 3 may also be provided with a ribbed groove structure for lines and pipes connecting the first heat dissipation chamber 121 and the second heat dissipation chamber 122 to pass through, as needed”. There is nothing in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be NEW MATTER.
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, 16, 18-19, 21-29, and 31-33 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 limitation “bottom rear thereof” line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “bottom rear thereof” will be interpreted as -- a bottom rear thereof --
Claim 19 recites the limitation “one side of the bracket body” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “one side of the bracket body” will be interpreted as -- the one side of the bracket body --
Regarding claim 32, the claim recites “electrical lines” which renders the claim indefinite. The drawings and the disclosure do not support the disclosed “electrical lines”.
Claims 16, 18, 21-29, 31, and 33 are also rejected due to dependency.
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 11, 16, 18, 21-23, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (CN214095076U, herein after referred to as Zhao), in view of Zhang et al. (CN205190359U, herein after referred to as Zhang), in view of Lim et al. (US 20220397336 A1, herein after referred to as Lim), and in further view of Aoki et al. (JP2020091085A, herein after referred to as Aoki).
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 (front to back 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), a heat dissipation fan (fan 5 Fig. 2) mounted on the fixed bracket (Figs. 1-2) and configured to induce a heat dissipation airflow (understood to be the flow associated with the disclosed “cold air” in paragraph [46]); a condenser (condenser 9 Fig. 2), mounted on the fixed bracket (Figs. 1-2) and cooled by the heat dissipation airflow (paragraph [46]); 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), the bracket body being 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).
Zhao teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the heat dissipation fan mounted on a fan fixing structure of the fixed bracket; the fan fixing structure comprises a plurality of fan fixing jaws extending from the bracket body, the fan fixing jaws being configured to snap into a casing of the heat dissipation fan, and a portion of the casing of the heat dissipation fan being embedded in the bracket body”.
However, Zhang teaches a heat dissipation fan (fan 1 Fig. 2 corresponds to the heat dissipation fan of Zhao) mounted on a fan fixing structure (fixing block 21 and elastic buckle 22 Figs. 3-4 and paragraph [20]) of a fixed bracket (Figs. 3-4 where bracket 2 corresponds to the fixed bracket of Zhao); the fan fixing structure comprises a plurality of fan fixing jaws (elastic buckles 22 Fig. 4) extending from a bracket body (Fig. 4 where the body of bracket 2 corresponds to the bracket body of Zhao), the fan fixing jaws being configured to snap into a casing of the heat dissipation fan (Fig. 11 and paragraph 21 where the outer shell of fan 1 corresponds to the casing), and a portion of the casing of the heat dissipation fan (corresponds to the entirety of the casing Figs. 10-11) being embedded in the bracket body (Figs. 10-11) to adopt a full snap-fit design which greatly improves installation efficiency (paragraph [16]).
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 heat dissipation fan mounted on a fan fixing structure of the fixed bracket; the fan fixing structure comprises a plurality of fan fixing jaws extending from the bracket body, the fan fixing jaws being configured to snap into a casing of the heat dissipation fan, and a portion of the casing of the heat dissipation fan being embedded in the bracket body” in view of the teachings of Zhang to adopt a full snap-fit design which greatly improves installation efficiency.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the condenser, mounted on a condenser fixing structure of the fixed bracket; and the condenser fixing structure comprises a plurality of condenser fixing jaws extending from the bracket body, and the plurality of condenser fixing jaws are configured to snap into the condenser”.
However, Lim teaches a condenser (main condenser 620 Fig. 13 corresponds to the condenser of Zhao), mounted on a condenser fixing structure (condenser fixing parts 247 Fig. 12) of a fixed bracket (Figs. 12-13 where defrost water tray 240 corresponds to the fixed bracket of Zhao); and the condenser fixing structure comprises a plurality of condenser fixing jaws (condenser fixing parts 247 Fig. 12) extending from a bracket body (Fig. 12 where the body of water tray 240 corresponds to the bracket body of Zhao), and the plurality of condenser fixing jaws are configured to snap into the condenser (Figs. 12-13 and paragraph [0144]).
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 “the condenser, mounted on a condenser fixing structure of the fixed bracket; and the condenser fixing structure comprises a plurality of condenser fixing jaws extending from the bracket body, and the plurality of condenser fixing jaws are configured to snap into the condenser” in view of the teachings of Lim to ease the installation/removal of the condenser.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the heat dissipation airflow enters from outside of the cabinet, passes through the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber, and then discharges from the cabinet”.
However, Aoki teaches a heat dissipation airflow (the airflow inside machine room 14 Fig. 6B corresponds to the heat dissipation airflow of Zhao) enters from outside of a cabinet (Fig. 6B where heat insulating box 11 Fig. 1 corresponds to the cabinet of Zhao), passes through 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), and then discharges from the cabinet (Fig. 6B) to remove dust from the condenser (paragraph [0046]).
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 “the heat dissipation airflow enters from outside of the cabinet, passes through the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber, and then discharges from the cabinet” in view of the teachings of Aoki to remove dust from the condenser.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the plurality of fan fixing jaws extending towards the first heat dissipation chamber; the plurality of condenser fixing jaws extending towards the second heat dissipation chamber”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the plurality of fan fixing jaws extending towards the first heat dissipation chamber; the plurality of condenser fixing jaws extending towards the second heat dissipation chamber” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing a snap-fit connection when coupling both the condenser and the heat dissipation fan to the fixed bracket. 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 produce the predictable results of providing a snap-fit connection when coupling both the condenser and the heat dissipation fan to the fixed bracket.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach 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
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach wherein the heat dissipation fan (blower 21 Figs 6A-B of Aoki corresponds to that of Zhao) is an axial flow fan (paragraph [0027] of Aoki), and an air blowing direction of the heat dissipation fan (the blowing direction illustrated in Fig. 6B of Aoki) is from the first heat dissipation chamber through the bracket body to the second heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 6B of Aoki where the bracket of blower 21 and shielding member 29 correspond to the bracket of Zhao).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach wherein the condenser is a microchannel condenser (paragraph [0026] of Aoki where microchannel condenser 23 corresponds to the condenser of Zhao).
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).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teachings teach 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).
Regarding claim 31, the combined teachings teach wherein the fixed bracket, the heat dissipation fan and the condenser form a pre-assembled integrated component (paragraph [39] of Zhao where condenser 9, fan 5, and condenser air duct 6 are described as a “fan condenser module”) configured to be integrally mounted into the heat dissipation compartment as a single unit (Fig. 2 of Zhao).
Furthermore, it is understood that claim 31 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configure to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Zhang, Lim, and Aoki as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 20220397336 A1, herein after referred to as Lim).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein one or more protruding winding snaps are provided at an outer periphery of one side of the bracket body, each winding snap extends outward from the outer periphery of the one side of the bracket body to form a winding space with an outer wall of the bracket body, and are used for wrapping a cable having an excess length portion of the heat dissipation fan”.
However, Sun teaches wherein one or more protruding winding snaps (hooks 68 Fig. 4) are provided at an outer periphery of one side of a bracket body (Fig. 4 where frame 60 corresponds to the bracket body of Zhao), each winding snap extends outward from the outer periphery of the one side of the bracket body (Fig. 4) to form a winding space (receiving space 74 Fig. 4) with an outer wall of the bracket body (upper installing portion 62 Fig. 4), and are used for wrapping a cable (wire 50 Fig. 3) having an excess length portion (understood to be the portion of wire 50 that would be wound around hook 68 Figs. 3-4) of a heat dissipation fan (Figs. 3-4 where impeller 40 corresponds to the heat dissipation fan of Zhao) 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 protruding winding snaps are provided at an outer periphery of one side of the bracket body, each winding snap extends outward from the outer periphery of the one side of the bracket body to form a winding space with an outer wall of the bracket body, and are used for wrapping a cable having an excess length portion of the heat dissipation fan” in view of the teachings of Sun to satisfactorily secured the excess portion of the wire.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the one side of the bracket body facing the first heat dissipation chamber”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the one side of the bracket body facing the first heat dissipation chamber” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing a structure which can be used to manage a lengthy fan wire. 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 produce the predictable results of providing a structure which can be used to manage a lengthy fan wire.
Claims 24, 26, 29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Zhang, Lim, and Aoki as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN111609632A, herein after referred to as Wang).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail 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 (partition wall 117 Fig. 6 corresponds to the fixed bracket of Zhao) further comprises: a windshield (windshield 1056 Fig. 6), extending from a front end of the bracket body (front end of partition 117 Figs. 5-6), and used for sealing off front areas of a first heat dissipation chamber (paragraph [65] and Fig. 6 where the space located between left side panel 119 and partition 117 corresponds to the first heat dissipation chamber of Zhao) and a second heat dissipation chamber (paragraph [65] and Fig. 6 where the space located between right side panel 119 and partition 117 corresponds to the second heat dissipation chamber of Zhao) to make sure that air entering the heat dissipation passes through the condenser (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 the combined teachings 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 make sure that air entering the heat dissipation passes through the condenser.
Regarding claim 26, the combined teachings teach a compressor (compressor 4 Fig. 2 of Zhao), mounted in the first heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 2 of Zhao); and an evaporating dish (water receiving box 8 Fig. 2 of Zhao), mounted in the second heat dissipation chamber (Fig. 2 of Zhao) and used for receiving water (paragraph [49] of Zhao) discharged from a drain pipe (drainage pipe 7 Fig. 2 of Zhao); wherein the heat dissipation airflow flows sequentially through the compressor, the heat dissipation fan, the condenser, and the evaporating dish (Fig. 6B of Aiko).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail 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 the combined teachings 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.
Regarding claim 29, the combined teachings teach a heat dissipation air inlet port (second ventilation opening 27 Fig. 6B of Aoki) and a heat dissipation air exhaust port (first ventilation opening 26 Fig. 6B of Aoki) provided at the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber, respectively (Fig. 6B of Aoki).
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 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.
Regarding claim 33, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the bracket body comprises a fan matching structure to confine an installation space for the heat dissipation fan, the fan matching structure being configured to prevent incorrect installation of the heat dissipation fan in an un-designed direction”.
However, Wang teaches wherein a bracket body (main body portion 9113 Fig. 16 corresponds to the bracket body of Zhao) comprises a fan matching structure (receiving groove 9114 Fig. 15) to confine an installation space (corresponds to the space formed by receiving groove 9114 Fig. 16) for a heat dissipation fan (heat dissipation fan 106 Fig. 14 corresponds to that of Zhao), the fan matching structure being configured to prevent incorrect installation of the heat dissipation fan in an un-designed direction (paragraph [61] and Fig. 14 where a person skilled in the art would recognize that fan fixing frame 500 can only installed in a direction in which protrusion 510 snaps into receiving groove 9114).
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 bracket body comprises a fan matching structure to confine an installation space for the heat dissipation fan, the fan matching structure being configured to prevent incorrect installation of the heat dissipation fan in an un-designed direction” in view of the teachings of Wang to correctly install the frame of the fan.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Zhang, Lim, and Aoki as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wang and Tanaka (JP2004293938A).
Regarding claim 25, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail 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”.
However, Wang teaches wherein a fixed bracket (partition wall 117 Fig. 6 corresponds to the fixed bracket of Zhao) further comprises: an installation snap (claws 930 Fig. 16), provided at a bottom of the fixed bracket (Fig. 16) and used for snapping to a bottom plate (pallet 112 Fig. 13) of a heat dissipation compartment (paragraph [62] and Fig. 5 of where compressor compartment 300 corresponds to the heat dissipation compartment of Zhao) to fix the bracket to the bottom plate (paragraph [63]).
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 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” in view of the teachings of Wang to fix the bracket to the bottom plate.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “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, Tanaka teaches a fixation screw post (handle portion 11 Fig. 3), provided at a rear portion (rear portion of partition plate 6 Fig. 3) of a fixed bracket (partition plate 6 Fig. 3 corresponds to the fixed bracket of Zhao) and used for fixing with a rear wall panel (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0015]) of a heat dissipation compartment (machine room 2 Fig. 1 corresponds to the heat dissipation compartment of Zhao) by screws (paragraph [0015]) to strengthen the coupling of the bracket inside the heat dissipation compartment (paragraph [0016]).
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 “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 t” in view of the teachings of Tanaka to strengthen the coupling of the bracket inside the heat dissipation compartment.
Claims 27-28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Zhang, Lim, Aoki, and Wang as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Sakai et. (JP2011202904A, herein after referred to as Sakai).
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, Sakai teaches wherein a top portion (top portion of fan ring 18 Fig. 3) of a fixed bracket (fan ring 18 Fig. 3 corresponds to the bracket of Zha) is provided with a guide groove (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Sakai) for making a refrigeration line (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Sakai) connecting a compressor (compressor 16 Fig. 1 corresponds to the compressor of Zhao) as well as a condenser (condenser 14 Fig. 3 corresponds to the condenser of Zhao) to pass through (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
588
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
500
592
media_image3.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 Sakai to provide the shortest path for the refrigerant lines connecting the compressor to the condenser.
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 Fig. 3 corresponds to the bracket of Zha) is provided with a ribbed groove structure (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Sakai) for lines 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) to provide the shortest path to connect components located in the first chamber to others located in the second chamber.
PNG
media_image4.png
588
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
500
592
media_image3.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 provide the shortest path to connect components located in the first chamber to others located in the second chamber.
Regarding claim 32, the combined teachings teach wherein the guide groove at the top portion of the fixed bracket and a ribbed groove structure (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Sakai) are arranged in alignment along the transverse direction of the cabinet (Fig. 2 of Sakai) to guide refrigeration lines and electrical lines (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Fig. 2 of Sakai) between the first heat dissipation chamber and the second heat dissipation chamber in an orderly manner (Fig. 2 of Sakai).
PNG
media_image5.png
588
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
500
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 10 that a preliminary amended Abstract was filed on 03/29/2024, Examiner was not able to find such document.
Therefore, the previous objections are still maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 15 that in Zhao “both the fan and condenser must be installed separately in the compressor chamber” and that “This design cannot achieve a pre-assembled integrated module”, Examiner disagrees.
The disclosure does not mention that the installation of the fan and the condenser in the compression chamber must be done separately as asserted by the Applicant. Instead, in paragraph [39], Zhao refers to condenser 9, fan 5, and condenser air duct 6 as a “fan condenser module” which a person skilled in the art would recognize as an assembly of different components designed to operate together as a single unit and could be installed in the compressor compartment as one unit.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 19 that Lim fails to teach or disclose “the condenser, mounted on a condenser fixing structure of the fixed bracket; and the condenser fixing structure comprises a plurality of condenser fixing jaws extending from the bracket body, and the plurality of condenser fixing jaws are configured to snap into the condenser” as recited by amended claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, the above rejection of claim 11 is repeated below:
Regarding claim 11, Lim teaches a condenser (main condenser 620 Fig. 13), mounted on a condenser fixing structure (condenser fixing parts 247 Fig. 12) of a fixed bracket (Figs. 12-13 where defrost water tray 240 corresponds to the fixed bracket); and the condenser fixing structure comprises a plurality of condenser fixing jaws (condenser fixing parts 247 Fig. 12) extending from a bracket body (Fig. 12 where the body of water tray 240 corresponds to the bracket body), and the plurality of condenser fixing jaws are configured to snap into the condenser (Figs. 12-13 and paragraph [0144]) to ease the installation/removal of the condenser.
Zhao and Lim do not teach “the plurality of condenser fixing jaws extending towards the second heat dissipation chamber”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the plurality of condenser fixing jaws extending towards the second heat dissipation chamber” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing a snap-fit connection when coupling the condenser to the fixed bracket. 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 produce the predictable results of providing a snap-fit connection when coupling the condenser to the fixed bracket.
Furthermore, with Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., The condenser fixing structure of claim 11 must bear gravity, transverse impact forces during transport, and fan resonance loads) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 24-25 that one person skilled in the art would not be motivated to provide the winding snaps of Sun to “a completely different bracket that serves as the core of a modular assembly”, Examiner disagrees.
Applicant is reminded that "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
In the case at hand, Zhao teaches a heat dissipation fan (fan 5 Fig. 2) mounted on a fixed bracket (condenser duct 6 Figs. 1-2) and a condenser (condenser 9 Fig. 2) mounted on the fixed bracket (Figs. 1-2).
The teachings of Sun would have suggested to a person skilled in the art to provide one or more protruding winding snaps (hooks 68 Fig. 4 of Sun) used for wrapping a cable (wire 50 Fig. 3 of Sun) having an excess length portion (understood to be the portion of wire 50 that would be wound around hook 68 Figs. 3-4 of Sun) of a heat dissipation fan (Figs. 3-4 of Sun where impeller 40 corresponds to the heat dissipation fan) to satisfactorily secured the excess portion of the wire (paragraph [0017] of Sun).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 29 that Wang’s windshield “is a separate, independent partition structure used only to seal the front of a single-chamber compressor cabin (300)”, Examiner disagrees.
Referring to paragraph [65], Wang teaches “The windshield 1056 may be a windshield sponge, which respectively fills the space between the upper end of the condenser 105, the upper end of the fan fixing frame 500, the upper end of the partition 117 and the bending section 401” (see also Fig. 6 for illustration). Therefore, in essence, Wang teaches that compressor compartment 300 is divided into two separate compartments that are sealed from each other by windshield 1056: One compartment that accommodates condenser 105 and another and separate compartment that accommodates compressor 104.
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that it has been held that make integral parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 V. B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the windshield of Wang and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of combining the windshield to the fixed bracket as one single structure.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 29 that Wang does not suggest or teach that “the integrated windshield forms a synergistic design with the bracket duct to guide 100% of the airflow through the microchannel condenser”, Examiner disagrees.
In paragraph [65], Wang explicitly states “the upper end of the windshield 1056 abuts the inner surface of the bending section 401, To seal the upper end of the condenser 105, so as to prevent part of the air entering the compressor cabin 300 from passing through the space between the upper end of the condenser 105 and the bending section 401 without passing through the condenser 105”. In essence, Wang then does suggest providing the entirety of the airflow generated by the heat dissipating fan to pass through the condenser.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 31-32 that Aoki does not teach or suggest “the heat dissipation airflow flows sequentially through the compressor, the heat dissipation fan, the condenser” as disclosed in claim 26, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, in Fig. 6B, Aoki discloses a heat dissipation airflow (the arrows illustrated inside machine room 14 Fig. 6B) flows sequentially through a compressor (compressor 22 Fig. 6B), a heat dissipation fan (blower 21 Fig. 6B) and a condenser (microchannel condenser 23 Fig. 6B).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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
Prosecution Insights