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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 7-20 in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the restriction was made for a requirement for unity of invention and as discussed in the restriction requirement filed 11/07/2025, Groups I and Il lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a movable tray, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Glaros et al. (US 2011/0225981) and Umemura et al. (WO 2018/074355).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/18/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20210082785) in view of Gamble et al. (US 2017/0341838).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses a vehicle refrigerator, comprising: a fixed body (3) to couple to a vehicle (paragraph 2); a movable body (2) configured to move inside the fixed body in a sliding manner (via rails 22) and to move outside the fixed body in a sliding manner, and configured to cool at least one container (via thermoelectric assembly; paragraph 13).
Kim does not explicitly teach a movable tray configured to support a plurality of containers at a slant, the movable tray being detachably installed at the movable body, and configured to provide cold air for cooling the plurality of containers.
Gamble teaches the concept of a refrigerator including a movable tray (20) configured to support a plurality of containers (beverage containers shown in Fig. 2) at a slant (paragraph 25), the movable tray being detachably installed at the movable body (paragraphs 27, 29), and configured to provide cold air for cooling the plurality of containers (cold air in interior 12 of refrigerator configured to provide cold air for cooling the plurality of containers) that facilitates removing the tray from the refrigerator and transporting the container with beverage cans to a location away from the refrigerator for consumption (Abstract, paragraphs 2, 29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the vehicle refrigerator of Kim to have a movable tray configured to support a plurality of containers at a slant, the movable tray being detachably installed at the movable body, and configured to provide cold air for cooling the plurality of containers taught by Gamble in order to facilitate removal of the tray so that beverage cans can be carried to a location away from the refrigerator for consumption.
Regarding claim 8, Kim as modified discloses the vehicle refrigerator of claim 7, the fixed body comprising: a fixed case (3) configured to allow the movable body to be slidably installed or slidably partly withdrawn (via rail 61), wherein the fixed case includes a plurality of first holes on a side of the fixed case (holes for screws for fastening cover 63 to fixed case; paragraph 43; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Kim as modified discloses the vehicle refrigerator of claim 7, comprising: a side rail (22) at an inside of the fixed body, and configured to extend along a path for movement of the movable body; and a rail holder (61, 63) installed on a lateral surface of the movable body, which faces the side rail, and configured to move along the side rail (paragraphs 41-44).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20210082785) in view of Gamble et al. (US 2017/0341838), further in view of Lee et al. (US Pat. 8,668,289).
Regarding claim 13, Kim as modified discloses the vehicle refrigerator of claim 7, further comprising: a moving device (22, 61) configured to connect to the fixed body and the movable body.
Kim does not explicitly teach the moving device configured to move the movable body to an outside of the fixed body by using electric energy.
Lee teaches the concept of a refrigerator including a moving device (50, 43) configured to move the movable body (20) to an outside of the fixed body by using electric energy (column 6, lines 54-58) that allows for automatic movement of the movable body facilitating movement of the storage compartment when large or heavy items are stored therein (column 1, lines 39-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the vehicle refrigerator of Kim to have the moving device configured to move the movable body to an outside of the fixed body by using electric energy taught by Lee in order to automate and facilitate movement of the movable body to facilitate access to the storage compartment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12, 14, and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show "a plurality of openings on the movable case at a position where the movable case faces the plurality of first holes when the movable case is stored inside the fixed case; a cooling unit disposed inside of the movable case, and configured to generate cold air by using electric energy; and a mounting unit configured to mount the movable tray, and to receive cold air from the cooling unit"; “a belt member at the driving gear, and configured to move based on a rotation of the driving gear; a driven gear rotatably installed at a position where the driven gear is spaced from the driving gear, and configured to connect to the belt member; and a belt fixing unit fixed to the movable body and the belt member, and configured to move the movable body, together with the belt member”; “a cooling module between a bottom of the refrigerated storage and the housing, and configured to cool the refrigerated storage; and a battery to be disposed inside the housing, and configured to supply a power source to the cooling module”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH F TRPISOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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.
/JOSEPH F TRPISOVSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763