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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darney (GB2,439,328) in view of KR101176962. Daney teaches a refrigerator (Fig. 4a) comprising: a main body (402) forming a storage compartment; a door (210) configured to open and close the storage compartment and including a guide rail (412 on 408); and a hinge bracket (406) connecting the main body and the door so that the door is rotatable about a rotation axis (at 418) between an open position at which the storage compartment is open (Fig. 5d), and a closed position at which the storage compartment is closed (Fig. 5a), wherein the guide rail is spaced apart from the rotation axis, the hinge bracket includes a guide shaft (416) inserted into the guide rail and configured to guide rotation of the door, and the guide rail includes: a first end (416 location on rail shown in Fig. 5a) where the guide shaft is located when the door is in the closed position, a second end where the guide shaft is located when the door is in the open position (416 location on rail shown in Fig. 5d), a free area between the first end and the second end having a first width (416 location on rail shown in Fig. 5c) and having an arc shape approximately centered on the rotation axis. For claims 1 and 16, Darney fails to teach a limited area between the second end and the free area having a second width which is less than the first width. KR’962 teaches a guide rail (80; Fig. 8) having a limited area (82) between one of its ends (location of 67 in Fig. 8) and a free area (middle of 80) and having a second width which is less than a first width of the free area. It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guide rail of Darney by adding a limited area, such as is taught by KR’962, adjacent the second end, to provide a damping mechanism with the hinge device when the door is in the open position.
For claim 2, Darney in view of KR’962 further teaches that a portion of the guide shaft inserted into the guide rail has a width which is greater than the second width.
For claim 3, Darney in view of KR’962 further teaches that a portion of the guide shaft inserted into the guide rail has a width which is less than the first width.
For claim 4, Darney in view of KR’962 further teaches that an area of the guide rail between the second end and the limited area has a width which is greater than a width of a portion of the guide shaft inserted into the guide rail.
For claim 5, Darney in view of KR’962 further teaches that an area of the guide rail between the second end and the limited area has a width which is equal to the first width.
For claim 6, Darney in view of KR’962 further teaches that the free area extends from the first end toward the limited area.
For claim 7, Darney in view of KR’962 further teaches that a length of the free area is greater than a length of the limited area.
For claim 8, Darney in view of KR’962 further teaches that the guide rail is on a surface of the door facing the hinge bracket, and the guide shaft extends from the hinge bracket toward the guide rail.
For claim 9, Darney in view of KR’962 further teaches a hinge shaft coupled to the door and the hinge bracket, and which passes through the rotation axis, wherein the guide rail is spaced apart from the hinge shaft.
For claim 10, Darney in view of KR’962 further teaches that the guide rail is recessed from an outer surface of the door in a direction parallel to the rotation axis, and the guide shaft is parallel to the rotation axis.
For claim 11, Darney in view of KR’962 further teaches that the first end is in contact with the guide shaft when the door is in the closed position, and the second end is in contact with the guide shaft when the door is in the open position.
For claim 12, Darney in view of KR’962 further teaches that the door is rotatable to the open position by rotating the door in a first direction about the rotation axis, the door is rotatable to the closed position by rotating the door in a second direction about the rotation axis which is opposite to the first direction, when the door is in the closed position, the first end is in contact with the guide shaft to prevent further rotation of the door in the second direction, and when the door is in the open position, the second end is in contact with the guide shaft to prevent further rotation of the door in the first direction.
For claim 13, Darney in view of KR’962 further teaches a hinge shaft (418) coupled to the door and to the hinge bracket, and which passes through the rotation axis, wherein the door further includes a shaft coupling member (420) to which the hinge shaft is coupled, and the guide rail is coupled to the door so as to be separable from the shaft coupling member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References 12/480706, CN101501288, EP4006285 and EP151890 teach various hinged doors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
Wilkens
January 15, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637