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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 100. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 “coupling” 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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 9 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 9 recites the limitation “a first portion of the ridge” and “a second portion of the ridge”. Claim 9 as amended is dependent on claim 8, which fails to establish proper antecedent basis for “the ridge”. To expedite prosecution, the first instance of “the ridge” has been interpreted as “a ridge”.
Claims 10-11 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the ridge”. Claim 10 as amended is dependent on claim 8, which fails to establish proper antecedent basis for “the ridge”. To expedite prosecution, “the ridge” has been interpreted as “a ridge”. Claim 11 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 10 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claim 12 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 12 recites the limitations “the first support portion” and “the second support portion”. Claim 12 as amended is dependent on claim 1, which fails to establish proper antecedent basis for “the first support portion” and “the second support portion”. To expedite prosecution, “the first support portion” and “the second support portion” have been interpreted as “a first support portion” and “a second support potion”.
Claim 15 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 15 recites the limitations “the first support portion” and “the second support portion”. Claim 15 as amended is dependent on claim 14, which fails to establish proper antecedent basis for “the first support portion” and “the second support portion”. To expedite prosecution, “the first support portion” and “the second support portion” have been interpreted as “a first support portion” and “a second support potion”.
Claims 16-17 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the outer surface”. Claim 16 as amended is dependent on claim 14, which fails to establish proper antecedent basis for “the outer surface”. To expedite prosecution, “the outer surface” has been interpreted as “an outer surface”. Claim 17 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 16 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claim 23 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 23 recites the limitation "a condenser unit for a refrigerator, the condenser unit comprising a condenser, a conduit, and a conduit support according to claim 22”. This claim is unclear in that claim 22 appears to require components from a condenser unit for a refrigerator. Is "a conduit” and “a condenser unit” the same or different from those discussed in claim 22?
Claim 25 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 25 recites the limitation "a refrigerator comprising a refrigerated area and a cabinet and the separation wall according to claim 24”. This claim is unclear in that claim 25 appears to require components from a refrigerator. Is "a cabinet” and “a refrigerated area” the same or different from those discussed in claim 22?
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) 1-3, 7-8, 10-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westinghouse (GB 338447).
Regarding claim 1, Westinghouse shows a refrigerator (see at least refrigerator #10), comprising:
a refrigerated area (see at least chamber #11) and a cabinet (see at least casing #45);
a separation wall dividing the refrigerated area and the cabinet (see at least insulated wall #43);
a refrigeration system comprising an evaporator disposed in the refrigerated area (see at least evaporator #37), a condenser unit disposed in the cabinet (see at least condenser #24) and a conduit connecting the condenser unit with the evaporator (see at least pipe(s) #40/#41), wherein the conduit extends through the separation wall (see at least pipe(s) #40/#41 extending through recess(es) #20/#21 of portion #17 of wall #43); and
a conduit support having an opening through which the conduit extends (see at least spacing member(s) #26/#27; page 2, lines 13-19; removable portion #18 with recess(es) #20/#21), wherein the separation wall comprises a recess shaped to receive the conduit support such that the conduit support can be separated from the separation wall for removal of the condenser unit from the cabinet (see at least recess(es) #20/#21 of portion #17 of wall #43; see also at least page 1, lines 79-89; page 2, lines 20-30).
Regarding claim 2, Westinghouse further shows wherein the condenser unit is removable from the cabinet in a removal direction (see at least page 2, lines 38-41), wherein the separation wall is parallel to the removal direction and the conduit extends perpendicularly to the separation wall (see at least page 2, lines 20-30 and page 2, lines 38-41: see Figure 1, pipe(s) #40/#41 within spacing member(s) #26/#27 extend perpendicular to wall #43 which is parallel to the removal direction).
Regarding claim 3, Westinghouse further shows wherein the refrigerator has a front surface (see at least Figure 1, surface with door(s) #14/#52), wherein the refrigerated area has a door on the front surface (see at least door #14), wherein the cabinet is located to a side of the refrigerated area (see at least casing #45 is located at a top side of chamber #11) and the condenser unit is removable from the front surface of the refrigerator see at least via door #52; page 2, lines 38-41).
Regarding claim 7, Westinghouse further shows wherein an outer surface of the conduit support comprises a ridge (see at least page 2, lines 30-35: strip #44 forms a ridge on removable portion #18).
Regarding claim 8, Westinghouse further shows wherein the conduit support comprises a first support portion (spacing member(s) #26/#27) releasably attached to a second support portion (see at least removable portion #18; page 2, lines 38-41).
Regarding claim 10, Westinghouse further shows wherein the recess comprises a groove sized and shaped to receive the ridge of the conduit support (see at least recess(es) #20/#21 are grooves that are sized and shape to correspond to and receive the vertical portions (ridges) #28/#29 of #26/#27).
Regarding claim 11, Westinghouse further shows wherein the groove and the ridge are configured to form a seal when the ridge is received in the groove (see at least recess(es) #20/#21 of #17/#18 sealing in the vertical portions #28/#29 of #26/#27).
Regarding claim 12, Westinghouse further shows wherein the first support portion defines a first conduit engaging surface (see at least portion #28/#29 of #26/#27) and the second support portion defines a second conduit engaging surface (see at least portion #30/#31 of #26/#27), the first and second conduit engaging surfaces together defining the opening (see at least #28/#30 or #29/#31 together define the opening for pipe #40 or #41).
Regarding claim 13, Westinghouse further shows wherein the conduit support is configured to seal against the recess and the conduit (see at least spacing member(s) #26/#27 secure (i.e. seal) the pipe(s) #40/#41 and secure (i.e. seal) within the recess(es) #20/#21 of portion #17 of wall #43).
Regarding claim 14, Westinghouse further shows wherein the conduit support comprises a cavity for receiving a mounting plate for attaching the conduit support to the condenser unit (see at least vertical portions #28/#29 of spacing members #26/#27 form a cavity for base #22 of the condenser unit).
Regarding claim 15, Westinghouse further shows wherein the first support portion and the second support portion each define a portion of the cavity (see at least portions #28/#29 each form part of the cavity for the base #22 of the condenser unit).
Regarding claim 16, Westinghouse further shows wherein a portion of the outer surface of the conduit support comprises a planar surface (see at least removable portion #18 includes planar surface(s)).
Regarding claim 18, Westinghouse further shows wherein the condenser unit comprises a condenser (see at least condenser #24), a compressor (see at least compressor #23) and an expansion valve (see at least expansion valve #38).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westinghouse (GB 338447).
Regarding claim 22, Westinghouse shows a conduit support (see at least spacing member(s) #26/#27) for supporting a conduit (see at least conduit(s) #40/#41) that extends through a separation wall between a refrigerated area of a refrigerator and a condenser unit of the refrigerator (see at least conduit(s) #40/#41 and spacing member(s) #26/#27 extend through wall #43 separating refrigerated area #11 from the condenser #24 on base #22), the conduit support comprising an opening for the conduit (see at least page 2, lines 13-19) and the conduit support being shaped to engage a recess formed in the separation wall such that the conduit support can be separated from the separation wall for removal of the condenser unit from the refrigerator (see at least page 2, lines 20-30; page 2, lines 38-41: recess(es) #20/#21 in wall #17).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westinghouse (GB 338447).
Regarding claim 23, Westinghouse shows a condenser unit for a refrigerator, the condenser unit comprising a condenser (see at least condenser #24), a conduit (see at least conduit(s) #40/#41), and a conduit support according to claim 22 (see at least rejection of claim 22, above).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westinghouse (GB 338447).
Regarding claim 24, Westinghouse shows a separation wall (see at least insulated wall #43) for a refrigerator, the refrigerator comprising a refrigerated area (see at least chamber #11) and a cabinet (see at least casing #45) for housing a condenser unit (see at least condenser #24), wherein the separation wall divides the refrigerated area and the cabinet (see at least wall #43 dividing chamber #11 from casing #45), and wherein the separation wall comprises a recess (see at least recess(es) #20/#21) shaped to receive a conduit support of the condenser unit (see at least spacing member(s) #26/#27) such that the conduit support can be separated from the separation wall for removal of the condenser unit from the refrigerator (see at least page 2, lines 20-30; page 2, lines 38-41: recess(es) #20/#21 in wall #17).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westinghouse (GB 338447).
Regarding claim 25, Westinghouse shows a refrigerator (see at least refrigerator #10) comprising a refrigerated area (see at least chamber #11) and a cabinet (see at least casing #45) and the separation wall according to claim 24 (see at least rejection of claim 24, above).
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.
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westinghouse as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 2,002,646).
Regarding claim 4, Westinghouse is silent regarding wherein the separation wall comprises a first wall panel proximal the refrigerated area and a second wall panel proximal the cabinet.
Smith teaches another refrigerator with a separation wall, regarding wherein the separation wall comprises a first wall panel proximal the refrigerated area (see at least Figures 1 and 3, wall panel #24; see also column 1, lines 42-51) and a second wall panel proximal the cabinet (see at least Figures 1 and 3, wall panel #22; see also column 1, lines 42-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Westinghouse with wherein the separation wall comprises a first wall panel proximal the refrigerated area and a second wall panel proximal the cabinet, as taught by Smith, to improve the refrigerator of Westinghouse by allowing for improved ease of cleaning and preventing the insulation from absorbing moisture.
Regarding claim 5, Westinghouse as modified by Smith to include the first/second wall panels further discloses wherein the separation wall comprises insulation between the first wall panel and the second wall panel (see at least Smith column 1, lines 42-51; insulated wall #43 of Westinghouse).
Regarding claim 6, Westinghouse as modified by Smith to include the first/second wall panels further discloses wherein the recess is arranged between the first wall panel and the second wall panel (see at least Westinghouse recess(es) #20/#21 extend from the top to the bottom of panel #17 of wall #43, thus as modified by Smith, the recess(es) are arranged between the first wall panel and second wall panel).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westinghouse (GB 338447).
Westinghouse discloses all the elements of claim 8, upon which claim 9 depends.
Regarding claim 9, Westinghouse does not disclose wherein the first support portion comprises a first portion of the ridge and the second support portion comprises a second portion of the ridge.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the first support portion comprises a first portion of the ridge and the second support portion comprises a second portion of the ridge would result in a difference in function of the Westinghouse refrigerator. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the refrigerator of Westinghouse, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed arrangement. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed arrangement solves any stated problem, indicating “In examples, the first support portion comprises a first portion of the ridge and the second support portion comprises a second portion of the ridge.” (see paragraph [0013]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the arrangement as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Westinghouse with wherein the first support portion comprises a first portion of the ridge and the second support portion comprises a second portion of the ridge as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westinghouse (GB 338447).
Westinghouse discloses all the elements of claim 16, upon which claim 17 depends.
Regarding claim 17, Westinghouse does not disclose wherein the planar surface is arranged flush with the mounting plate when the mounting plate is received in the cavity.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the planar surface is arranged flush with the mounting plate when the mounting plate is received in the cavity would result in a difference in function of the Westinghouse refrigerator. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the refrigerator of Westinghouse, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed position. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed position solves any stated problem, indicating “In examples, the planar surface is arranged flush with the mounting plate when the mounting plate is received in the cavity.” (see paragraph [0022]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the position as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Westinghouse with wherein the planar surface is arranged flush with the mounting plate when the mounting plate is received in the cavity as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westinghouse as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whitehead et al. (US 1,896,385).
Regarding claim 19, Westinghouse does not disclose further comprising a coupling configured for disconnecting the conduit from the evaporator within the refrigerated area.
However, it was old and well-known in the art to provide a refrigerator with comprising a coupling configured for disconnecting the conduit from the evaporator within the refrigerated area, as evidenced by Whitehead et al. (see at least page 2, column 1, lines 5-24).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Westinghouse with further comprising a coupling configured for disconnecting the conduit from the evaporator within the refrigerated area, since, as evidenced by Whitehead et al., such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for the compressor and condenser unit to be removed from the refrigerator for servicing or replacement.
Regarding claim 20, Westinghouse as modified by Whitehead et al. does not disclose wherein the coupling is arranged on the evaporator.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the coupling is arranged on the evaporator would result in a difference in function of the Westinghouse in view of Whitehead et al. refrigerator. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the refrigerator of Westinghouse in view of Whitehead et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed position. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed position solves any stated problem, indicating that “In this example, a coupling (not shown) is provided such that the conduit 90 can be disconnected from the evaporator to detach the condenser unit 512 from the rest of the refrigerator 500. It is envisaged that the coupling can be arranged on the evaporator or between the evaporator and the conduit support 10” (see paragraph [0049]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the position as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Westinghouse in view of Whitehead et al. with wherein the coupling is arranged on the evaporator as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Regarding claim 21, Westinghouse as modified by Whitehead et al. further discloses wherein the coupling is arranged between the evaporator and the conduit support (see at least Whitehead et al. page 2, column 1, lines 11-19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763