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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two jambs arranged on different faces of the support beam as recited in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 3-5, 10-13, 15 & 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “optionally” is not clear and it can’t be determined if the limitations after optionally are required by the claim or not.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “optionally” is not clear and it can’t be determined if the limitations after optionally are required by the claim or not.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations “optionally” and “further optionally” are not clear and it can’t be determined if the limitations after optionally are required by the claim or not.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "spine" in lines 2 & 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “optionally” is not clear and it can’t be determined if the limitations after optionally are required by the claim or not.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “optionally” is not clear and it can’t be determined if the limitations after optionally are required by the claim or not.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations “optionally” and “further optionally” are not clear and it can’t be determined if the limitations after optionally are required by the claim or not.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “optionally” is not clear and it can’t be determined if the limitations after optionally are required by the claim or not.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “optionally” is not clear and it can’t be determined if the limitations after optionally are required by the claim or not.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "spine" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, 14, 15, 17 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howington et al. (US patent application publication 2011/0304253) (hereinafter Howington).
Regarding claim 1, Howington discloses a support beam (36) for a refrigerator, the support beam comprising: an outer shell (48) defining a cavity, a filler (46) occupying the cavity, at least one jamb (at 64, see Fig. 3) formed by the outer shell, wherein the filler and outer shell are formed of the same material ([0024]) teaches they are both polyurethane.
Regarding claim 2, Howington discloses a support beam for a refrigerator, the support beam comprising: a rigid spine (48) comprising a keyed surface (Fig. 4), a filler (46) at least partially coating the spine, and engaged with the keyed surface (Fig. 4), at least one jamb (at 64, see Fig. 4), formed by the filler, wherein the filler and the spine are formed of the same material ([0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Howington discloses a support beam wherein the material is a polymer, optionally the polymer is polypropylene ([0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Howington discloses a support beam wherein the filler is a foam ([0024]), optionally wherein the foam comprises expanded polypropylene.
Regarding claim 5, Howington discloses a support beam wherein the outer shell or spine is a single piece ([0024]), optionally formed by extrusion, and further optionally wherein the outer shell or spine are formed by extrusion of polypropylene.
Regarding claim 6, Howington discloses a support beam wherein the support beam comprises two jambs (left and right sides of 64), each arranged to abut first and second respective doors.
Regarding claim 8, Howington discloses a support beam wherein the support beam is a barrier to thermal conductivity between the interior of a refrigerator and the exterior of a refrigerator (via 60).
Regarding claim 9, Howington discloses a support beam wherein, in use, the support beam provides a closing face to a door of a refrigerator (bottom face in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Howington discloses a support beam wherein the support beam comprises a door sealing surface, optionally an air-tight door sealing surface (at 64).
Regarding claim 11, Howington discloses a support beam wherein the support beam comprises an ancillary component mount (54) optionally formed in the filler or outer shell.
Regarding claim 12, Howington discloses a support beam wherein an ancillary component (52) is at least temporarily fixed to the ancillary component mount, and optionally wherein the ancillary component is a light, further optionally a light strip, and still more optionally an LED light strip.
Regarding claim 14, Howington discloses a support beam wherein the support beam is capable of bearing the load of one or more refrigerator shelves and/or a refrigerator top panel (this is an intended use limitation which Howington is capable of performing).
Regarding claim 15, Howington discloses a support beam wherein the support beam is provided with one or more accessible fixings to at least temporarily connect the support beam to a refrigerator ([0024]), and optionally wherein the one or more accessible fixings are tool-less fixings.
Regarding claim 17, Howington discloses a refrigerator comprising a support beam as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Howington discloses a kit of parts comprising a support beam as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wach et al. (US patent application publication 2013/0285517) (hereinafter Wach).
Regarding claim 1, Wach discloses a support beam for a refrigerator, the support beam comprising: an outer shell (12) defining a cavity, a filler (18) occupying the cavity, at least one jamb (21) formed by the outer shell, wherein the filler and outer shell are formed of the same material ([0041] teaches PVC).
Regarding claim 6, Wach discloses a support beam wherein the support beam comprises two jambs (21a, 21b), each arranged to abut first and second respective doors.
Regarding claim 7, Wach discloses a support beam wherein the two jambs are arranged on different faces of the support beam (at 21a & 21b).
Regarding claim 16, Wach discloses a method of manufacturing a support beam as claimed in claim 1 comprising: extruding an outer shell (12), the outer shell according to claim 1, and applying a filler (18) to the cavity of the outer shell, such that the filler adheres to the outer shell or spine.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howington in view of An (US patent application publication 2004/0189165).
Regarding claim 13, Howington discloses the support beam as claimed. Howington does not disclose a support beam wherein the support beam further comprises means to urge a door in contact with the support beam towards the support beam, optionally wherein the urging means is a magnet or ferromagnetic strip. An teaches a support beam comprising a means to urge (32) a door in contact with the support beam. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Howington to comprise a means to urge in view of An’s teaching, because this arrangement would have forces a door to seal on the surface as taught by An.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it gives a general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-7624. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Dan 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.
/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637