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 .
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.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/151608 to Yun, hereinafter referred to as Yun (see English language translation provided with the non-final Office action mailed January 9, 2026), in view of WO2009/000700 to Keller et al., hereinafter referred to as Keller (see English language translation provided with the non-final Office action mailed January 9, 2026).
In reference to claim 16, Yun and Keller disclose the claimed invention.
Yun discloses a refrigeration appliance (1, see figure 1), comprising:
a box body (11) having a front (at 15), a top (11b), a rear side (11d), and a door (15) arranged at the front of said box body;
a control and/or power supply module (7);
said box body (11) being formed with an accommodating cavity (112) at the top of said box body, said accommodating cavity having an upwardly open first opening to allow said control and/or power supply module (7) to enter said accommodating cavity;
said control and/or power supply module having a first connector (73, 75, 77, 79) to enable a second connector (power line as described in underlined portion of page 7 of the English language translation), to be engaged with said first connector.
a top cap (113) for closing said first opening.
Yun fails to disclose said accommodating cavity being arranged to open towards the rear side of said box body to enable the second connector to be engaged with said first connector from the rear side of said box body.
Keller teaches that in the analogous art of power/cable management of refrigerators, that it is a known method to provide an accommodating cavity (7) being arranged to open towards the top and the rear side of said box body (1, see figure 1) to enable a second connector (14) to be engaged with a first connector (17) from the rear side of a box body (1). This is strong evidence that modifying Yun as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., allow for access to the control/power unit via the top and/or rear of the cabinet). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Yun by Keller such that, said accommodating cavity was arranged to open towards the rear side of said box body to enable the second connector to be engaged with said first connector from the rear side of said box body, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of allowing the control cavity to be accessed from both the top and rear of the refrigerator cabinet.
In reference to claim 17, Yun and Keller disclose the claimed invention.
Yun discloses said first connector comprises a power terminal (power module of the refrigerator) and said second connector is configured to supply power to the control and/or power supply module see underlined portion of page 8 of the English language translation.
In reference to claim 18, Yun and Keller disclose the claimed invention.
With respect to the limitation of said second connector is configured to burn a control program to said control and/or power supply module it is firstly noted that the second connector is not positively cited structure in the claims. Said second connector finds antecedent basis in claim 1 where the claim merely requires the accommodating cavity being arranged to enable a second connecter to be engaged with said first connector from the side of said box body. The second connector is only claimed as a functional capability of the arrangement of the accommodating cavity. Thus, claim 18 requires the cavity being arranged to enable a second connector configured to burn a control program to said control and/or power supply module to be engaged with said first connector from the side of said box body. Since the claim does not further specify, define, or limit what, if any, additional structure is required in order for the accommodating cavity " to enable a second connector configured to burn a control program to said control and/or power supply module to be engaged with said first connector from the side of said box body " beyond that previously recited, of which Yun includes, as detailed above, Yun as modified is considered to meet the limitations of the claim.
In reference to claim 19, Yun and Keller disclose the claimed invention.
said control and/or power supply module (7) comprises a printed circuit board (PCB), said first connector comprises a connection (73, 75, 77, 79) terminal arranged on said printed circuit board, and said second connector is configured to be connected to said connection terminal to burn the control program to said control and/or power supply module. In claim 19, the second connector is still not positively cited structure and is merely a functional requirement of the accommodating cavity being arranged to enable a second connector configured to be connected to said terminal to burn the control program but does not require the specific second connector. Since the claim does not further specify, define, or limit what, if any, additional structure is required in order for the accommodating cavity " to enable a second connector configured to burn a control program to said control and/or power supply module to be engaged with said first connector from the side of said box body " beyond that previously recited, of which Yun includes, as detailed above, Yun as modified is considered to meet the limitations of the claim.
In reference to claim 20, Yun and Keller disclose the claimed invention.
Keller teaches said box body is formed with a concave portion that is concave forward from a rear surface of said box body (at 7), and said second connector (14) is configured to be at least partially accommodated in said concave portion. Accordingly, when modifying Yun by Keller as applied in claim 1 supra, the limitations of claim 20 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claim 21, Yun and Keller disclose the claimed invention.
Yun discloses said control and/or power supply module (7) comprises a printed circuit board extending in a horizontal direction, but fails to disclose said second connector is configured to be plugged onto said first connector from the rear side of said box body in parallel with said printed circuit board.
It is noted that the claimed limitations are merely arranging old elements that would perform the exact same function and would yield no more than predictable results. It has been long established that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976). See also In re Einstein, 46 F.2d 373, 374 (CCPA 1931) where it was stated that “a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a previously patented device did not constitute invention.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yun by rearranging the essential parts of the second connector arranged from the rear side and arrive at the claimed invention since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a previously patented device did not constitute invention.
Claims 22, 23, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun and Keller as applied to claim 16 supra, and in further view of KR100758990 to Kim, hereinafter referred to as Kim (see English language translation provided with the non-final Office action mailed January 9, 2026).
In reference to claim 22, Yun, Keller, and Kim disclose the claimed invention.
Yun discloses said box body comprises a back plate (11c), an upper plate (11b), but fails to disclose an accommodating housing wherein said upper plate has a first opening, said accommodating housing is connected to said upper plate through said first opening, and said control and/or power supply module is at least partially accommodated in said accommodating housing.
Kim teaches that in the analogous art of housing electrical and electronic components in a refrigerator housing, that it is a known method to provide an accommodating housing (60) wherein said upper plate (11) has a first opening (14), said accommodating housing (60) is connected to said upper plate through said first opening, and said control and/or power supply module (40) is at least partially accommodated in said accommodating housing (60), see figure 2. This is strong evidence that modifying Yun as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e., facilitate repair and replacement of components, see underlined portion of page 2 of the English language translation). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify Yun by Kim such that, the refrigerator included an accommodating housing wherein said upper plate has a first opening, said accommodating housing is connected to said upper plate through said first opening, and said control and/or power supply module is at least partially accommodated in said accommodating housing, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a predictable result of facilitating repair and replacement of components.
In reference to claim 23, Yun, Keller, and Kim disclose the claimed invention.
The combination of Yun, Keller and Kim would result in a rear end of said accommodating housing is at least partially connected to said back plate. Note that the term “at least partially connected” is a broad term that includes connection via intervening structure. Since the rear end of the accommodating house would be connected via intervening structure of the refrigerator components and housing, it is reasonable to consider the combination to meet the limitations of the claim.
In reference to claim 28, Yun, Keller, and Kim disclose the claimed invention.
Keller teaches the top cap (8) forms a part of the rear surface of the box body. Accordingly, when modifying Yun by Keller as applied in claim 16 supra, the limitations of claim 28 would be met by the combination.
In reference to claim 29, Yun, Keller, and Kim disclose the claimed invention.
Kim discloses a waterproffing seal (70) arranged on said upper plate (11) through said first opening (at 14a), for blocking said accommodating cavity from outside jointly with said top cap (90).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-27 and 30 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 7 of the response that the amendment to claim 29 changing “a waterproof mechanism” to “a waterproofering seal” should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The examiner agrees that the amendment has removed the nonce term and is therefore no longer being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant argues on page 7 of the response that “control module” and “power supply module” should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) since the terms are structural elements understood as such by those skilled in the art. This argument is respectfully not found persuasive. There is no evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art, on reading the Specification, would understand the term “control module” and “power supply module” to connote a specific structure, or any indication that this term is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the art to designate particular structure. The term “module” serves only as a generic placeholder for “means” and the module is modified only by functional recitations of “control” and “power supply”. There is no dictionary definition to support Applicant’s allegation that the terms “control module” and “power supply module” refer to any specific structure that one skilled in the art would recognize as performing the function of “control” and/or “power supply”. As such, the interpreting the term(s) “control/power supply module” under 35 USC 112(f) is proper.
Applicant argues beginning on page 11 of the response that neither Yun nor Keller discloses an accommodation cavity being arranged to open towards a rear side of the box body to enable the second connector to be engaged with the first connector from the rear of said body. This is respectfully not found persuasive. Although neither piece of prior art individually teaches an accommodating cavity being arranged to open towards the rear side of said box body to enable the second connector to be engaged with said first connector from the rear side of said box body, the rejection is based on the combination of references. When Yun is modified such that the accommodating cavity (7) is at a position similar to Keller, then the modification of Yun would meet the limitations as claimed. Essentially, the only difference between Yun and Applicant’s claimed invention is the particular placement of the accommodating cavity to be opened to both a top and back portion of the refrigerator box. Yun teaches that the particular arrangement of the cavity is not critical as evidenced by the alternative embodiments of the cavity being located in any number of positions, see figure 1 where it is opened towards the top, and figure 2 where it is opened towards the back. This would suggest to one skilled in the art that the apparatus of Yun would work equally well no matter where the position of the accommodation cavity were as long as it was accessible for connecting wires. Keller provides the teaching that providing a wire management system for cable feedthrough that is opened both to the top and the back of a refrigerator is known. Thus one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when arranging a cable feedthrough accommodation cavity in the position claimed, that the refrigerator would not perform differently, or produce anything more than predictable results. There is no evidence of record that arranging the accommodation cavity as claimed would produce anything more than what would be predictable to one skilled in the art, nor is there any evidence of record that the apparatus of Yun would perform differently if so arranged. The rejection is made based on the combination of references, and Keller provides motivation for placing the accommodating cavity to open towards the rear side of said box body. This modification would enable the second connector (power lines) of Yun to be engaged with said first connector from the rear side of said box body. Since one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986), the rejection of the claims as being obvious over the combination of Yun and Keller is considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights