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 were received on 3/2/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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, 21 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Braz Ferro (US patent application 2019/0257570).
Regarding claim 1, Brez Ferro discloses a back bar refrigerator appliance comprising a storage compartment (4) and a door (5), wherein the door comprises an inner surface (surface of 11 shown in Fig. 6) facing into the storage compartment when the door is closed and an opposite outer surface (surface shown in Fig. 1), wherein the door comprises an insulated panel (11) and a window (23) covering less than 75% of the outer surface of the door (Fig. 1), and wherein the window is aligned with a door shelf (9) of the back bar refrigerator appliance to provide visual access to items positioned on the door shelf (Fig. 1), wherein the door shelf is located between the window and the insulated panel (Figs. 6 & 7).
Regarding claim 21, Brez Ferro discloses a refrigerator appliance, comprising: a storage compartment (4) and a door (5), wherein the door comprises an integrated compartment formed within the door, the integrated compartment being defined by a window (23) on one side of the integrated compartment, a door panel (11) on an opposite side of the integrated compartment, and a shelf (9) for holding products, wherein the door panel is located on an inner side of the door to face the storage compartment and to bound an inner side of the integrated compartment (Figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 30, Brez Ferro discloses a refrigerator appliance wherein the door panel covers an entirety of the inner side of the integrated compartment (Fig. 6).
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) 1-7, 10, 12, 17-26 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US patent application publication 2018/0192791) (hereinafter Miller) in view of Brez Ferro.
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a back bar refrigerator appliance comprising a storage compartment (14) and a door (50), wherein the door comprises an inner surface (Fig. 3) facing into the storage compartment when the door is closed and an opposite outer surface (Fig. 2), wherein the door comprises an insulated panel (162) and a window (190) covering less than 75% of the outer surface of the door ([0074]), and wherein the window is aligned with a door shelf (302) of the back bar refrigerator appliance to provide visual access to items positioned on the door shelf.
Miller does not disclose wherein the door shelf is located between the window and the insulated panel. Brez Ferro teaches a refrigerator wherein a door shelf (9) is located between a window (23) and an insulated panel (11). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller wherein the door shelf is located between the window and the insulated panel, because this arrangement would have provided a sectionized compartment separate from the chamber as taught by Brez Ferro at [0020].
Regarding claim 2, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the window covers less than 50% of the outer surface of the door, for example less than 25% of the outer surface of the door ([0074]).
Regarding claim 3, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the insulated panel comprises a sandwich panel with an outer casing (62) and a rigid insulation foam (182) within the outer casing.
Regarding claim 4, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the outer casing comprises stainless steel or aluminum sheet ([0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Miller, as modified, teaches the refrigerator as claimed. Miller, as modified, does not teach a refrigerator wherein the rigid insulation foam comprises polyurethane foam or polyisocyanurate foam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Miller wherein the rigid insulation foam comprises polyurethane foam or polyisocyanurate foam, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the window comprises glass or a composite material, said glass or composite material being at least partially transparent ([0072-0074]).
Regarding claim 7, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator further comprising a light source (22) configured to illuminate contents of the refrigerator visible through the window.
Regarding claim 10, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the light source comprises an LED and/or a light guide ([0102]).
Regarding claim 12, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the shelf is substantially the same width as the window (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 17, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the window has a height of between about 15 centimeters and about 60 centimeters ([0074]).
Regarding claim 18, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the window has a height of between about 15 centimetres and about 30 centimetres, for example between about 18 centimetres and about 23 centimetres, for example about 20 centimetres ([0074]).
Regarding claim 19, Miller discloses a refrigerator wherein the window has a width of between about 10 centimetres and about 20 centimetres, for about 15 centimetres ([0074]).
Regarding claim 20, Miller discloses a refrigerator comprising a plurality of doors and wherein one or more of the plurality of doors comprises the window (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Miller discloses a refrigerator appliance comprising a storage compartment (14) and a door (50).
Miller does not disclose wherein the door comprises an integrated compartment formed within the door, the integrated compartment being defined by a window on one side of the integrated compartment, a door panel on an opposite side of the integrated compartment, and a shelf for holding products, wherein the door panel is located on an inner side of the door to face the storage compartment and to bound an inner side of the integrated compartment.
Brez Ferro teaches a refrigerator wherein a door (5) comprises an integrated compartment formed within the door, the integrated compartment being defined by a window (23) on one side of the integrated compartment, a door panel (11) on an opposite side of the integrated compartment, and a shelf (9) for holding products, wherein the door panel is located on an inner side of the door to face the storage compartment (Figs. 6 & 7) and to bound an inner side of the integrated compartment. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the time of the effective filing date to modify Miller wherein the door comprises an integrated compartment formed within the door, the integrated compartment being defined by a window on one side of the integrated compartment, a door panel on an opposite side of the integrated compartment, and a shelf for holding products, wherein the door panel is located on an inner side of the door to face the storage compartment and to bound an inner side of the integrated compartment, because this arrangement would have provided a sectionized compartment separate from the chamber as taught by Brez Ferro at [0020].
Regarding claim 22, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator appliance wherein the door panel comprises a mirrored surface ([0042]).
Regarding claim 23, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator appliance wherein an inner side of the window comprises a mirrored surface, for example a semi-transparent mirrored surface ([0072-0074]).
Regarding claim 24, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator appliance wherein the door panel comprises insulation (162).
Regarding claim 25, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator appliance wherein the window covers less than about 75% of the outer surface of the door ([0074]).
Regarding claim 26, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator appliance further comprising a light source (22) configured to illuminate contents of the refrigerator visible through the window.
Regarding claim 30, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the door panel covers an entirety of the inner side of the integrated compartment (Brez Ferro: Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 8, 9 & 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Brez Ferro & Linder et al. (US patent application publication 2010/0180615) (hereinafter Linder).
Regarding claims 8 & 27, Miller, as modified, teaches the refrigerator as claimed. Miller, as modified, does not teach a refrigerator wherein the light source is attached to the door. Linder teaches a refrigerator wherein a light source (28) is attached to a door (Fig. 1). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Miller wherein the light source is attached to the door in view of Linder’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known configuration with another known configuration yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claims 9 & 28, Miller, as modified, teaches the refrigerator as claimed. Miller, as modified, does not teach a refrigerator wherein the light source is disposed at an edge of the window. Linder teaches a refrigerator wherein a light source (28) is attached at an edge of a window (Fig. 1). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to modify Miller, as previously modified, wherein the light source is attached to the edge of the window in view of Linder’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known configuration with another known configuration yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claim 29, Miller, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the light source comprises an LED and/or a light guide ([0102]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 & 21 under 102 in view of Miller have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Miller & Brez Ferro.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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