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 “wherein the enclosure comprises a first side, a second side opposite the first side, an upper surface, a back surface and at least one door opposite the back surface, wherein the door is proximal to the first side” 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 18 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the duct body" in line 2 of the claim. 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.
Claims 1-7, 11-15, 18, 20, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chae et al (US 20180347886 A1, herein after Chae).
Regarding claim 1, Chae teaches an air duct (cooling air duct 60) for a refrigerator (refrigerator 1) having an enclosure (cabinet 11) and a refrigeration system (as shown on figure 2) with a fan (fan 26) for generating a cooling airflow (paragraph 0032), the air duct (cooling air duct 60) comprising: an air inlet (cooling air inlet 610) fluidly couplable to and arranged for receiving the cooling airflow from the refrigeration system (paragraph 0054); an air outlet (air outlet 613) downstream of the air inlet (paragraph 0060), arranged to direct the cooling airflow from the refrigeration system into the enclosure in a first direction (outwards towards duct 90, paragraph 0070 and as shown on figures 4 and 13); and a diverter (partition part 640) located between the air inlet and the air outlet (as shown on figure 13) configured to divert a portion of the cooling airflow (as shown on figure 13) into the enclosure (paragraph 0069) in a second direction different to the first direction (as shown on figure 13).
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 2, Chae teaches wherein the first direction (outwards towards duct 90, paragraph 0070 and as shown on figure 4 and 13) is parallel to an upper surface of the enclosure (parallel to the upper surface of cabinet 11, as shown on figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Chae teaches wherein the air duct (cooling air duct 60) and the upper surface of the enclosure (upper surface of cabinet 11, as shown on figure 4) define a channel (towards duct 90, as shown on figures 4 and 13).
Regarding claim 4, Chae teaches wherein the second direction (as shown on figure 13) is parallel to an upper surface of the enclosure (parallel to the upper surface of cabinet 11, as shown on figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Chae teaches wherein the second direction (as shown on figure 13) is sideways relative to the first direction (as shown on figure 13).
Regarding claim 6, Chae teaches wherein the second direction (as shown on figure 13) is downwards relative to the first direction (downwards towards duct 70, as shown on figure 11 and 13).
Regarding claim 7, Chae teaches wherein the diverter (partition part 640) comprises a plurality of openings (as shown on figure 13).
Regarding claim 11, Chae teaches wherein the second direction (as shown on figure 13) is towards a door of the refrigerator (cooling air flowing along the first cooling air passage 620 is introduced into the door discharge duct 70 through the first cooling air outlet 611, paragraph 0069) or towards a back surface of the enclosure opposite to the door.
Regarding claim 12, Chae teaches further comprising a duct body (body where passage 620 is located, as shown on figure 13) between the air inlet (cooling air inlet 610) and the outlet (cooling air outlet 611).
Regarding claim 13, Chae teaches wherein the duct body (body prior to where passage 620 is located, as shown on figure 13) comprises an inlet body portion (inlet body adjacent to cooling air inlet 610, as shown on figures 13 and 15) adjacent the air inlet (cooling air inlet 610).
Regarding claim 14, Chae teaches wherein the duct (cooling air duct 60) comprises an outlet body portion (outlet body portion adjacent to the outlet 611, as shown on figures 8 and 13) adjacent the air outlet (cooling air outlet 613).
Regarding claim 15, Chae teaches wherein the duct body (body prior to where passage 620 is located, as shown on figure 13) comprises an inlet body portion (inlet body adjacent to cooling air inlet 610, as shown on figures 13 and 15) adjacent the air inlet (cooling air inlet 610) and an outlet body portion (outlet body portion adjacent to the outlet 611, as shown on figures 8 and 13) adjacent the air outlet (cooling air outlet 613).
Regarding claim 18, Chae teaches wherein at least a portion of the duct body (a portion of the body prior to where passage 620 is located, as shown on figure 13) is planar (forming a flat surface, as shown on figure 13.
Regarding claim 20, Chae teaches a refrigerator (refrigerator 1), comprising: an air duct (cooling air duct 60) according to claim 1; an enclosure (cabinet 11): and a refrigeration system (as shown on figure 2) having a fan (fan 26) for generating a cooling airflow (paragraph 0032), wherein the refrigeration system is fluidly coupled to and arranged to supply the cooling airflow to the air inlet of the air duct (refrigerator 1 may include a cooling air duct 60 to receive cooling air through the connection fluid passage 114 and a plurality of discharge ducts 70 and 90 communicating with the cooling air duct 60 for discharging cooling air to the refrigerating compartment 112, paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 23, Chae teaches wherein the diverter (partition part 640) of the air duct (cooling air duct 60) diverts a portion of the cooling airflow towards the door (cooling air flowing along the first cooling air passage 620 is introduced into the door discharge duct 70 through the first cooling air outlet 611, paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 25, Chae teaches wherein the diverter (partition part 640) of the air duct (cooling air duct 60) diverts a portion of the cooling airflow into the enclosure towards the back surface of the enclosure (refrigerator 1 may include a cooling air duct 60 to receive cooling air through the connection fluid passage 114 and a plurality of discharge duct 90 communicating with the cooling air duct 60 for discharging cooling air to the refrigerating compartment 112, paragraph 0028).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al (US 20180347886 A1, hereinafter Chae) in view of Kawamoto et al (JP 2020118386 A, hereinafter Kawamoto).
Regarding claim 8, Chae teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the diverter comprises a louvre vent.
However, Kawamoto teaches wherein the diverter (duct plate 52, corresponding to partition 640 of Chae) comprises a louvre vent (louver vents, 174, 176, 178 and 180, as shown on figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refrigerator in the teachings of Chae to include wherein the diverter comprises a louvre vent in view of the teachings of Kawamoto in order to yield the predictable result of blowing cold air into the storage chamber.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the louvre vent (louver vents, 174, 176, 178 and 180, as shown on figure 7 of Kawamoto) comprises a plurality of blades (as shown on figure 7 of Kawamoto).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein at least two of the blades (vents 174/178 of Kawamoto) point in different directions (point in different directions than vents 176/180, as shown on figure 7 of Kawamoto).
Claims 16-17, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al (US 20180347886 A1, hereinafter Chae) in view of Hirosawa et al (US 6014868 A, hereinafter Hirosawa).
Regarding claim 16, Chae teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the inlet body portion and the outlet body portion are adjoined by a folded portion.
However, Hirosawa teaches wherein the inlet body portion (drawn air is cooled by the evaporator 27, being supplied into the blowout duct 71 by the compartment fan 31, col 5 lines 17-19) and the outlet body portion (blowout hole 75) are adjoined by a folded portion (guide plate 72 having a rising gradient, col 4 lines 65-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refrigerator in the teachings of Chae to include wherein the diverter comprises a louvre vent in view of the teachings of Hirosawa in order to yield the predictable result of cold air that is further supplied from the blowout hole toward the ceiling of the cold storage compartment.
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein an obtuse angle is formed between the inlet body portion and the outlet body portion.
However, the Applicant has not disclosed that having “wherein an obtuse angle is formed between the inlet body portion and the outlet body portion” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing cold air towards the cold storage compartment. Since it has been held that changes in shape has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, [In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)], see MPEP 2144.04 IV B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the blowout duct to form an obtuse angle is formed between the inlet body portion and the outlet body portion of Hirosawa and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of providing cold air towards the cold storage compartment.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach wherein the enclosure (body 1 of Hirosawa) comprises a first side (left side, figure 8 of Hirosawa), a second side opposite the first side (right side, figure 8 of Hirosawa), an upper surface (upper portion, figure 8 of Hirosawa), a back surface (back surface of body 1, figure 6 of Hirosawa) and at least one door (door 3 of Hirosawa) opposite the back surface (figure 4 of Hirosawa).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings teach wherein the air duct (cold air blowout duct 71 of Hirosawa) is arranged on the upper surface of the enclosure (as shown on figure 5 of Hirosawa), the refrigerator system is arranged on the first side of the enclosure (as shown on figure 5 of Hirosawa), and the air outlet is directed towards the second side of the enclosure (as shown on figure 5 of Hirosawa).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings teach wherein the door (door 3 of Hirosawa) is proximal to the first side (as shown on figure 5 of Hirosawa).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al (US 20180347886 A1, hereinafter Chae) in view of Zhu et al (CN 214039113 U, hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 19, Chae teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising a fan mounting plate adjacent the air inlet, comprising at least one opening configured for receiving a fan.
However, Zhu teaches further comprising a fan mounting plate (mounting frame 516) adjacent the air inlet (first air passage part 130), comprising at least one opening (as shown on figure 5) configured for receiving a fan (as shown on figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refrigerator in the teachings of Chae to include further comprising a fan mounting plate adjacent the air inlet, comprising at least one opening configured for receiving a fan in view of the teachings of Zhu in order to yield the predictable result of accelerating the speed of the air flow and improve the heat exchange efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763