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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
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.
Claim 3 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the top of the evaporator" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is considered as -- a top of the evaporator --.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the middle of the evaporator" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is considered as -- a middle of the evaporator --.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the bottom of the evaporator" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is considered as -- a bottom of the evaporator --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
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 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 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, 8 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takizawa et al. (US 4648247).
In regards to claim 1, Takizawa discloses a refrigeration display cabinet (open showcase 1; Fig. 1), comprising: a cabinet (a heat insulating wall 2); a display rack (a plurality of shelves 16), fixed inside the cabinet (2); an air channel (outer passage 7 and inner passage 13), arranged at least partially surrounding the display rack (16); a partition (a first partition plate 4), mounted in the air channel (7/13) to separate the air channel into an inner air channel (inner passage 13) and an outer air channel (outer passage 7), wherein the partition (4) is provided with an opening (first and second windows 4C and 4D) for connecting the inner air channel (13) and the outer air channel (7), (as can be seen in Fig. 1); an evaporator (inner heat exchanger 11), arranged in the inner air channel (13), wherein a side of the evaporator (11) is located at or near the opening (4C and 4D); and a damper assembly (first and second dampers 4A and 4B), fixed at the opening (4C and 4D) of the partition (4), wherein the damper assembly (4A and 4B) is capable of opening or closing the opening (refer to col.3, lines 35-36).
In regards to claim 8, Takizawa meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Takizawa teaches wherein a shape of the opening (4C and 4D) is consistent with a shape of the side of the evaporator (as can be seen in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 11, Takizawa meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Takizawa teaches wherein the refrigeration display cabinet (1) further comprises a fan (inner blower 12) arranged at or near the bottom of the partition (as can be seen in Fig. 1).
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 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 of this title, 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 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa et al. (US 4648247) in view of Yan et al. (CN 210601915, see attached translation).
In regards to claim 2, Takizawa meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Takizawa teaches wherein the damper assembly comprises a plurality of wind deflectors (refer to col.6, lines 66-68), but fails to explicitly teach where the plurality of wind deflectors are rotatably fixed at the opening, and the plurality of wind deflectors synchronously open or close the opening by means of a linkage mechanism.
Yan teaches a device (Figs. 7-8) wherein the damper assembly (damper 70) comprises a plurality of wind deflectors (air guide plates 21, 22 and 40), where the plurality of wind deflectors (21, 22 and 40) are rotatably fixed (pars. 43 and 54) at the opening (air outlet 11), and the plurality of wind deflectors (21, 22 and 40) synchronously open or close the opening (par. 58) by means of a linkage mechanism (linkage mechanism 50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Takizawa such that the damper assembly comprises a plurality of wind deflectors, where the plurality of wind deflectors are rotatably fixed at the opening, and the plurality of wind deflectors synchronously open or close the opening by means of a linkage mechanism as taught by Yan in order to maintain the airflow blown from the air outlet 11 can be made more uniform, thus improving the airflow effect (par. 55 of Yan).
In regards to claim 3, Takizawa meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Yan teaches wherein the plurality of wind deflectors comprise a first wind deflector (21), a second wind deflector (40), and a third wind deflector (22), where the first wind deflector (21) is arranged at or near the top of the evaporator (top of evaporator of Takizawa 11), the second wind deflector (40) is arranged in or near the middle of the evaporator (middle of evaporator of Takizawa 11), and the third wind deflector is arranged at or near the bottom of the evaporator (bottom of evaporator of Takizawa 11).
In regards to claim 7, Takizawa meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Takizawa wherein the first wind deflector, the second wind deflector, and the third wind deflector are made of metal or plastic (resin which is form of plastic; col.3, lines 53-55).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa et al. (US 4648247) in view of Yan et al. (CN 210601915), further in view of Kalore (US 2010/0140365).
In regards to claim 9, Takizawa meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first wind deflector, the second wind deflector, and the third wind deflector are controlled by a stepper motor controller. Kalore teaches ventilation dampers wherein the first wind deflector, the second wind deflector, and the third wind deflector (a plurality of movable dampers 14) are controlled by a stepper motor controller (refer to par. 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Takizawa such that the first wind deflector, the second wind deflector, and the third wind deflector are controlled by a stepper motor controller as taught by Kalore in order to allow better speed control (par. 44 of Kalore).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa et
al. (US 4648247) in view of Van et al. (US 5730652).
In regards to claim 10, Takizawa meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the damper assembly is fixed at the opening of the partition by bolts. Van teaches a device (Fig. 1) wherein the damper assembly (1) is fixed at the opening of the partition by bolts (31, 31a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Takizawa such that the damper assembly is fixed at the opening of the partition by bolts as taught by Van in order to allow better connection (par. 44 of Van).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763