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 doorpost at the front of the cabinet recited in claim 9 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.
Claim 4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “adjacent support surfaces are spaced by a recess” is not clear because the claim never defines or recites “a support surface”. The claim will be examined as if it read –adjacent shelf supports are spaced by a recess--. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-17 & 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US patent 6,238,032) (hereinafter Cooper) in view of Miller, Jr. et al. (US patent 5,645,182) (hereinafter Miller, Jr.).
Regarding claim 1, Cooper discloses a refrigerator appliance, comprising: a cabinet (10) comprising a rear side (20) and a door (28)opposite the rear side at a front of the cabinet; a panel (40) disposed at the rear side of the cabinet and comprising an integrally moulded first shelf support (54) for supporting a rear end of a shelf (Fig. 4 & Col. 3: 66-Col., 4: 10); and a second shelf support (56) spaced from the first shelf support and arranged to support a front and/or side of the shelf (Fig. 4).
Cooper does not disclose wherein the second shelf support comprises a rail having a plurality of attachment positions for a clip to support the shelf. Miller, Jr. teaches a shelf support comprising a rail (78) having a plurality of attachment positions (80) for a clip (70) to support a shelf. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replaced the shelf support of Cooper with the shelf support of Miller, Jr., because this arrangement would have replaced one known shelf support with another known shelf support yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claim 2, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the first shelf support comprises a plurality of integrally moulded support surfaces (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the heights of the support surfaces of the first shelf support correspond to the attachment positions of the second shelf support (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein adjacent support surfaces are spaced apart by a recess shaped and sized for receiving the shelf (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the second shelf support comprises a first rail (Miller, Jr.: 78) having a plurality of attachment positions (Miller, Jr.: 80) for a first clip (Miller, Jr.: 70) attachable to one of the plurality of attachment positions of the first rail, and a second rail (Miller, Jr.: 78, opposite side) having a plurality of attachment positions (Miller, Jr.: 78) for a second clip (Miller, Jr.: 70) attachable to one of the plurality of attachment positions of the second rail.
Regarding claim 6, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the respective first and second rails are arranged to support a front of the shelf (Miller, Jr.: Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the respective first and second rails are arranged to support a side of the shelf (Miller, Jr.: Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the first rail is arranged to support one of the front and side of the shelf, and the second rail is arranged to support the other of the front and side of the shelf (Miller, Jr.: Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the second shelf support is disposed on or adjacent to a doorpost (29) at the front of the cabinet (Figs. 1 & 2).
Regarding claim 10, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the first shelf support extends partially over the height of the rear side of the cabinet (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein ends of the first shelf support are spaced from a top and bottom of the cabinet (Figs. 1 & 2).
Regarding claim 12, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the panel is an insulated panel (at 38).
Regarding claim 13, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator comprising a moulding (40) that extends across the rear side of the cabinet, and wherein the first shelf support is formed on the moulding (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the moulding further extends across the top and/or bottom of the cabinet (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the moulding further extends around at least one side of the cabinet (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the plurality of attachment positions are provided by openings (Miller, Jr.: 80) in the rail.
Regarding claim 17, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator further comprising a clip (Miller Jr.: 70) for the second shelf support, and wherein the clip comprises two protruding arms (Miller, Jr.: 72, 77), each arm being attachable to an opening in the rail (Miller, Jr. Figs. 5 & 6).
Regarding claim 19, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the first shelf support extends partially across the width of the rear side of the cabinet (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the first shelf support comprises a first support portion (54) at a first side and a second support portion (54, opposite side) spaced apart from the first support portion at a second side (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21, Cooper, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the refrigerator appliance is a back bar refrigerator appliance (Cooper, as modified, is capable of performing this).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Miller, Jr. and Adanur et al. (US patent application publication 2018/0127150) (hereinafter Adanur).
Regarding claim 18, Cooper, as modified, teaches the refrigerator as claimed. Cooper, as modified, does not teach a refrigerator wherein the first shelf support extends across the width of the rear side of the cabinet. Adanur teaches a shelf support that extends from the width of a side of a cabinet (Fig. 1). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooper, as previously modified, wherein the first shelf support extends across the width of the rear side of the cabinet in view of Adanur’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known configuration with another known configuration yielding a predictable result.
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