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 § 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, 14 and 16-18 are 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 claims 3 and 14, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For claims 16-18, since only one support beam is claimed in claim 1, stating “the or each support beam” or “the at least one support beam” lack antecedent basis.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howington et al (CA2,741,122). Howington teaches a refrigerator appliance (Fig. 1) comprising: a cuboid cabinet (10) formed by opposing side walls (28), a back wall (26), a top wall (11) and a bottom wall (24), a door (30) at a front of the cabinet, and a support beam (36) extending across the front of the cabinet, wherein the support beam comprises a light source (52) for illuminating the cabinet, the light source having a primary direction that is non-parallel to the back wall of the cabinet (Fig. 3). Wherein said primary direction is non-parallel to the side walls of the cabinet. Wherein said primary direction is at an angle of between about 20 degrees and about 70 degrees from the back wall of the cabinet, for example between about 30 degrees and about 60 degrees, for example about 45 degrees. Wherein the support beam comprises an external surface (a; see annotated figure below) that is parallel to the back wall of the cabinet, and a light mounting surface (b) against which the light source is mounted such that the primary direction is normal to the light mounting surface. Wherein the support beam comprises a projection (c) extending into the cabinet, the projection being disposed to a side of the light source and comprising an angled side that is non-parallel to the back wall and side walls of the cabinet. Wherein the light source is a first light source for illuminating a first part of the cabinet, wherein the support beam further comprises a second light source for illuminating a second part of the cabinet, the second light source having a primary direction that is non-parallel to the back wall of the cabinet (Fig. 3). Wherein the support beam comprises a central projection (c) extending into the cabinet, the central projection being disposed between the first light source and the second light source and comprising angled sides that are non-parallel to the back wall and side walls of the cabinet. Wherein the support beam comprises a shell (48) and a core (46), said core comprising a foam material (paragraph 0024). Wherein the light source comprises an LED strip (paragraph 0025). Wherein the light source has an illumination angle of more than about 90 degrees, for example about 120 degrees (Fig. 3). Wherein the refrigerator appliance comprises a plurality of support beams (paragraph 0036). Wherein the or each support beam extends vertically between the top wall and the bottom wall of the cabinet (Fig. 1). Wherein the or each support beam defines a door closure surface (a) against which the door is closed (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oketani et al (2009/0135587). Oketani teaches a refrigerator appliance (Fig. 1) comprising: a cuboid cabinet (1) formed by opposing side walls, a back wall, a top wall and a bottom wall, a door (7) at a front of the cabinet, and a support beam (8) extending across the front of the cabinet, wherein the support beam comprises a light source (17) for illuminating the cabinet, the light source having a primary direction that is non-parallel to the back wall of the cabinet (Fig. 2). Wherein said primary direction is non-parallel to the side walls of the cabinet. Wherein said primary direction is at an angle of between about 20 degrees and about 70 degrees from the back wall of the cabinet, for example between about 30 degrees and about 60 degrees, for example about 45 degrees. Wherein the support beam comprises an external surface (45) that is parallel to the back wall of the cabinet, and a light mounting surface (24) against which the light source is mounted such that the primary direction is normal to the light mounting surface. Wherein the support beam comprises a projection (with 46,47) extending into the cabinet, the projection being disposed to a side of the light source and comprising an angled side that is non-parallel to the back wall and side walls of the cabinet. Wherein the light source is a first light source for illuminating a first part of the cabinet, wherein the support beam further comprises a second light source for illuminating a second part of the cabinet, the second light source having a primary direction that is non-parallel to the back wall of the cabinet (Fig. 2). Wherein the support beam comprises a central projection (with 21,47) extending into the cabinet, the central projection being disposed between the first light source and the second light source and comprising angled sides that are non-parallel to the back wall and side walls of the cabinet. Wherein the light source comprises an LED strip (17). Wherein the light source has an illumination angle of more than about 90 degrees, for example about 120 degrees (Fig. 2). Wherein the refrigerator appliance comprises a plurality of support beams (Fig. 1; paragraph 0029). Wherein the or each support beam extends vertically between the top wall and the bottom wall of the cabinet (Fig. 1). Wherein the or each support beam defines a door closure surface (45) against which the door is closed (Fig. 1). Wherein the support beam comprises a recess (within 23,27) for receiving the light source, and wherein the light mounting surface is in the recess. Wherein the central projection is trapezoidal (Fig. 2).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howington et al (CA2,741,122) in view of Oketani et al (2009/0135587). As stated above, Howington teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a support beam. Howington further teaches a shell as part of the support beam that is made of a polymeric material (paragraph 0007). For claim 11, Howington fails to teach that the support beam shell is specifically comprised of metal. Oketani teaches a mullion/divider (50) that can be made from metal (paragraph 0030). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support beam shell of Howington by making all or a portion thereof out of metal, such as is taught by Oketani, depending on personal preferences for the appearance and strength of the support beam desire/required.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howington et al (CA2,741,122) in view of Peng et al (6,121,545). As stated above, Howington teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a support beam. Howington further teaches a shell as part of the support beam that is made of a polymeric material (paragraph 0007). For claim 12, Howington fails to teach that the support beam shell is specifically comprised of expanded polypropylene. Peng teaches a mullion/divider (50) that can be made from expanded polypropylene (column 7, lines 42-51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support beam shell of Howington by making all or a portion thereof out of expanded polypropylene, such as is taught by Peng, depending on personal preferences for the appearance and strength of the support beam desire/required.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oketani et al (2009/0135587) in view of Howington et al (CA2,741,122). As stated above, Oketani teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a support beam. The support beam having a shell (46) and insulation/core (47). For claim 10, Oketani fails to teach that the support beam core is made of foam material. Howington teaches a support beam comprises a shell (46) and a core (47), said core comprising a foam material (paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support beam of Oketani by making the core out of foam, such as is taught by Howington, depending on personal preferences for the insulation properties and strength of the support beam desire/required.
For claim 11, Oketani in view of Howington further teaches a mullion/divider (50 of Oketani) that can be made from metal (paragraph 0030).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oketani et al (2009/0135587) in view of Peng et al (6,121,545). As stated above, Oketani teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a support beam. Oketani further teaches a shell as part of the support beam that is made of a metal material. For claim 12, Oketani fails to teach that the support beam shell is specifically comprised of expanded polypropylene. Peng teaches a mullion/divider (50) that can be made from expanded polypropylene (column 7, lines 42-51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support beam shell of Oketani by making all or a portion thereof out of expanded polypropylene, such as is taught by Peng, depending on personal preferences for the appearance and strength of the support beam desire/required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references teach 4940297; 20160153705; 20160123659; 20140184049;20100097780; 5895111; 20200200360; 10874227; 20120170258; 824067; and 20100018232 teach various mullions of refrigerators with LEDs.
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 23, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637