DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/26 have been fully considered but they are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection made in view of amendments to the claims.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims overcome the objections to claims 2-5 and 11 set forth in the prior Office action. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 1 and 9-12 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 2-8 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The claimed element “line lighting” is interpreted to be a lighting means configured such that light is emitted in a generally linear form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2020096258A1 by Kim et al. (citations are to English translation published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210199367).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses an apparatus for treating items comprising a cabinet 501 (fig. 30); an accommodating body 510 at a front of the cabinet and configured to move with the cabinet, the accommodating body having a chamber 506 that defines a space to receive items and an inlet 504 at a front of the accommodating body to communicate with the chamber; a door 520 coupled to the front of the accommodating body and configured to open and close at least a portion of the cabinet and the inlet; a door window 10 on the door that allows an inside of the chamber to be viewed from an outside; an air treater to dehumidify air inside the chamber (not shown but inherent to a refrigerator); a chamber lighting to illuminate the chamber (para. 436).
As to claim 6, Kim teaches a shelf disposed in the chamber (fig. 30).
As to claim 9, while Kim does not explicitly disclose that the air treater comprises a treating flow channel that defines a passage for withdrawing air inside the chamber and supply back the air into the chamber, a treating fan to move the air along the flow channel, and a dehumidifier to dehumidify the air introduced into the channel, such structural features are inherent to a refrigerator of the type disclosed by Kim in order for the air within the chamber to be cooled.
As to claim 10, while Kim does not explicitly disclose a first treating duct that guides air inside the chamber to an outside of the chamber and a second treating duct that guides the air to the chamber, such ducts would be required and inherent in order to move air to a heat exchanging evaporator and back into the chamber.
As to claim 13, Kim discloses that the door is configured to move together with the accommodating body (fig. 30).
As to claim 14, Kim discloses that the cabinet defines a first chamber that is capable of receiving clothes and a first inlet at a front of the first chamber, and the chamber of the accommodating body defines a second chamber, the inlet of the accommodating body defining a second inlet (fig. 30).
As to claim 15, Kim discloses that the accommodating body is configured to be inserted into the first chamber and withdrawn from the first chamber (fig. 30).
As to claim 16, Kim discloses that lighting is disposed at a side surface of the second chamber (paras. 382, 429).
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020096258A1 by Kim et al. in view of WO2020108243A1 by Yan et al.
As to claim 2, Kim teaches that the chamber lighting may be provided in the on top and side surfaces of the cabinet (para. 438) but is silent as to any particular structure of the lightning. Thus, Kim does not teach that the lighting comprises a line lighting. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to modify the apparatus taught by Kim to have lighting.
Yan teaches an apparatus for treating items similar in structure as the apparatus taught by Kim. Yan teaches that its apparatus includes line lighting around the side and/or top walls of its chamber (para. 8). Yan teaches that the line lighting increases the illumination range of the lamp assembly to illuminate all of the inside of the apparatus (para. 18). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivate to modify the apparatus taught by Kim to have line lighting on top and/or side surfaces of the chamber in order to illuminate all of the chamber to improve a user’s visual effect and experience, as taught by Yan.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 3, Yan teaches that its line lighting may be disposed along a perimeter (para. 8).
As to claim 4, Yan teaches that the line lighting comprises a first line lighting along a width direction in a top surface, a second line lighting in one of the side surfaces along a height direction, and a third line lighting on the other of the side surfaces along the height direction (para. 8, line lighting is disposed around the side and top walls in a circumferential direction).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020096258A1 by Kim et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20090052160 by Park et al.
As to claim 5, Kim does not teach lighting that changes at least one of intensities, colors, and wavelengths. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure lighting to change at least a color. Park teaches lighting within a refrigerator apparatus configured to change colors (abstract) and that not allowing a user to adjust a color according to his or her preferences lowers user friendliness and an emotional quality of the user (para. 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the lighting taught by Kim to change at least a color in order to satisfy a user’s preferences, as taught by Park. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claims 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020096258A1 by Kim et al.
As to claim 7, Kim does not explicitly teach that its shelves are detachably disposed in the chamber. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious that detachable shelves within a refrigerator were well-known and very common in the art. Although Kim does not explicitly teach that its shelves are detachable, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure them as such in order to provide for the well-known function of adjustability to accommodate various items.
As to claims 11 and 12, Kim does not explicitly teach a suction hole at a bottom of the chamber to communicate with the first duct and a discharge hole disposed on the bottom of the chamber to communicate with the second duct, the holes spaced apart in a width direction of the chamber. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that suction and discharge holes would have been required in order to allow for air flow in and out of the chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized as obvious that the particular locations of the holes would have been an obvious design choice without patentable significance absent persuasive evidence of a criticality.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020096258A1 by Kim et al. in view of WO2020108243A1 by Yan et al.
As to claim 8, Kim does not contemplate shelf lighting disposed on its shelves. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to include shelf lighting. Yan teaches and apparatus for treating items and teaches that it is desirable to increase the illumination range of a lighting assembly to illuminate all of the inside of the apparatus (para. 18). While Yan’s solution is to dispose lighting along the top and sides of the chamber, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to dispose lighting on a shelf in order to provide full illumination of all portions of the inside of the apparatus taught by Kim in order to improve a user’s visual effect and experience, as suggested by Yan. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights