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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,516,869 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the overlap in scope between the patented claims and the claims in this application renders obvious the claims in this application.
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.
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) 1-3, 9, 11, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0026155 A1 (Yun) in view of US 5,884,366 A (Jeong).
With respect to claim 1: Yun discloses an appliance (“refrigerator” @ [0002]) defining a vertical direction (up and down), a lateral direction (left and right), and a transverse direction (forward and backward), the appliance comprising: a case body (main body 10) defining a plurality of case apertures (through slots 21-22, through holes 23-25, and fastening holes 25-27), wherein the plurality of case apertures comprises a first set of case apertures that are pass through apertures (through slots 21-22) and a second set of case apertures that are locator fit apertures (through holes 23-24, which fit and locate the protrusions 35-36 therein); a locator rail (fastening bracket 30) attached to a first side of the case body (bottom side), the locator rail comprising a plurality of locator tabs (fastening ribs 31/33 and protrusions 35-36), each locator tab of the plurality of locator tabs being engaged with one corresponding aperture of the plurality of case apertures ([0002]-[0023]); and a door hinge bracket (hinge plate 40) positioned on a second side of the case body (top side), the door hinge bracket defining a plurality of bracket apertures (through openings 41-42, insertion slot 43, and insertion hole 44), each locator tab of the plurality of locator tabs being engaged with one corresponding bracket aperture of the plurality of bracket apertures ([0002]-[0023]).
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the plurality of locator tabs constrains the door hinge bracket in at least three degrees of freedom”, see Yun Fig. 2.
The fastening ribs 31 and 33 constrain the hinge plate 40 at least translation along the lateral (left and right) direction, translation along the transverse (front and back) direction, translation along the vertical (up) direction, and rotation about the vertical direction. Protrusions 35-36 constrain the hinge plate 40 at least translation along the lateral (left and right) direction, translation along the transverse (front and back) direction, translation along the vertical (up direction), and rotation about the vertical direction.
Yun does not disclose “and wherein at least one of the plurality of locator tabs passes through the pass through apertures without contacting the case body” as claimed.
IE – Yun does not specifically state in writing or show in Fig. 2 at least one of fastening rib 31 and fastening rib 33 passing through the through slot 21 or 22 without contacting the main body 10.
Jeong discloses a hinge support member 10 and upper hinge 20 that are functionally equivalent and/or analogous to Yun’s fastening bracket 30 and hinge plate 40, respectively.
Jeong Figs. 9A, 9B, and 10-11 show the engaging plates 11 passing through engaging grooves 23 without contacting the upper hinge 20. The engaging shoulder 12 engages the edges of the engaging groove 22.
See Yun Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the through slots 21-22 to not contact the fastening ribs 31 and 33 (while the holes 23-24 contact the protrusions 35-36), because the fastening bracket 30 is located and held in the proper position on main body 10 without engagement of the fastening ribs 31 and 33 with the slots 21-22.
The protrusions 35-36 engaging holes 23-24 and/or the fastening screws S1-S3 engaging holes 25-27 and holes 37-39 is/are sufficient to properly locate the bracket 30 on the main body 10.
The fastening ribs 31 and 33 are not for locating the bracket 30 on the main body 10; they are for engagement with the fixing lever 50 that fixes the hinge plate 40 in place.
With respect to claim 2: Yun discloses wherein the plurality of case apertures are defined on a top wall (upper surface 20) of the case body (Fig. 2), the first side of the case body is a bottom side of the top wall (bracket 30 is on a bottom side of main body 10), and the second side of the case body is a top side of the top wall (hinge plate 40 is on the top side of main body 10).
With respect to claim 3: Yun discloses wherein the three degrees of freedom comprise translation along the lateral direction (Fig. 2: ribs 31, 33 and/or protrusions 35-36 constrain left and right translation of hinge plate 40), translation along the transverse direction (Fig. 2: ribs 31, 33 and/or protrusions 35-36 constrain front and back translation of hinge plate 40), and rotation about the vertical direction (Fig. 2: ribs 31, 33 and/or protrusions 35-36 constrain rotation of hinge plate 40 about a vertical axis of rotation).
With respect to claim 9: Yun discloses wherein the locator rail and the plurality of locator tabs are formed of a unitary construction (fastening ribs 31 and 33, protrusions 35-36 are unitarily formed with bracket 30).
With respect to claim 11: Yun discloses wherein each of the plurality of locator tabs defines a tab height measured from a top surface of the locator rail along the vertical direction (Fig. 2: the vertical height of fastening ribs 31/33 and/or protrusions 35-36 above the top surface of the bracket 30), and wherein the tab height is greater than a case thickness of the case body plus a bracket thickness of the door hinge bracket (protrusions 35-36 project through the thickness of upper surface 20, through the thickness of hinge plate 40, and project above the hinge plate 40).
Yun does not disclose the fastening ribs 31/33 project above hinge plate 40 when engaged in slot 43 and hole 44. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the height of the fastening ribs 31/33 to be tall enough to project above hinge plate 40 when engaged in slot 43 and hole 44, in order to ensure that the bracket 30 properly and easily locates the hinge plate 40.
With respect to claim 15: By making the same combinations/modifications as in the rejections above, Yun’s modified invention meets a hinge bracket assembly of a door (“door (not shown)” @ [0012) of an appliance (“refrigerator” @ [0002]), the appliance comprising a case body (main body 10) defining a vertical direction (up and down), a lateral direction (left and right), and a transverse direction (front and back), the case body further defining a plurality of case apertures (through slots 21-22, through holes 23-25, and fastening holes 25-27), wherein the plurality of case apertures comprises a first set of case apertures that are pass through apertures (through slots 21-22) and a second set of case apertures that are locator fit apertures (through holes 23-24, which fit and locate the protrusions 35-36 therein), the hinge bracket assembly comprising: a locator rail (fastening bracket 30) attached to a first side of the case body (lower side of upper surface 20), the locator rail comprising a plurality of locator tabs (fastening ribs 31/33 and protrusions 35-36), each locator tab of the plurality of locator tabs being engaged with one corresponding aperture of the plurality of case apertures ([0002]-[0023]); and a door hinge bracket (hinge plate 40) positioned on a second side of the case body (upper side of upper surface 20), the door hinge bracket defining a plurality of bracket apertures (through openings 41-42, insertion slot 43, and insertion hole 44), each locator tab of the plurality of locator tabs being engaged with one corresponding bracket aperture of the plurality of bracket apertures ([0002]-[0023]), wherein the plurality of locator tabs constrains the door hinge bracket in at least three degrees of freedom (see the rejection of claim 1 re this limitation), and wherein at least one of the plurality of locator tabs passes through the pass through apertures without contacting the case body (see the rejection of claim 1 re this limitation).
With respect to claim 16: Yun discloses wherein the plurality of case apertures are defined on a top wall (upper surface 20) of the case body (Fig. 2), the first side of the case body is a bottom side of the top wall (bracket 30 is on a bottom side of main body 10), and the second side of the case body is a top side of the top wall (hinge plate 40 is on the top side of main body 10), and wherein the three degrees of freedom comprise translation along the lateral direction (Fig. 2: ribs 31, 33 and/or protrusions 35-36 constrain left and right translation of hinge plate 40), translation along the transverse direction (Fig. 2: ribs 31, 33 and/or protrusions 35-36 constrain front and back translation of hinge plate 40), and rotation about the vertical direction (Fig. 2: ribs 31, 33 and/or protrusions 35-36 constrain rotation of hinge plate 40 about a vertical axis of rotation).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0026155 A1 (Yun) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of US 2021/0062561 A1 (Pavnick).
With respect to claims 4 and 17: Yun does not disclose “wherein the plurality of bracket apertures are elongated such that the plurality of locator tabs only contact the door hinge bracket along sides of the plurality of locator tabs” as claimed.
Applicant’s Fig. 7 shows apertures 252 elongated such that tabs 226, 228, 230 only contact bracket 250 along sides of the tabs 226, 228, 230.
Pavnick Figs. 3-5, 7B-13, and 14B-19 show it is known in the art to have elongated apertures such that tabs only contact the bracket along the sides of the tabs. Pavnick [0050] and [0084] teach these apertures are designed to interact with the tabs to limit rotational movement and/or sliding of the hinge plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yun’s through openings 41-42, insertion slot 43, and insertion hole 44 to be like Pavnick’s apertures, and to modify Yun’s fastening ribs 31/33 and protrusions 35-36 to be like Pavnick’s tabs, as an obvious variation or and/or functional equivalent to the means for limiting motion of Yun’s hinge plate 40.
Such elongation of the apertures and having the sides of the tabs contact the bracket predictably limits motion or rotation to a particular, desired direction (degree of freedom).
With respect to claims 5 and 18: Yun does not disclose “wherein the plurality of bracket apertures are aligned diagonally along a mounting plate of the door hinge bracket” as claimed.
Pavnick’s flanges 70 are aligned diagonally along anchor plate 14, such that the corresponding openings 118 and/or notch 106 are aligned diagonally along a mounting plate of the hinge 26 (Figs. 3-5 and 10-13). The flanges 370a, 370b are aligned diagonally along anchor plate 314, such that the corresponding openings 418a, 418b are aligned diagonally along a mounting plate of the hinge plate 326 (Figs. 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yun’s hinge plate 40 to have two openings 41-42, insertion slots 43, and/or insertion holes 44 aligned diagonally thereon, and to modify Yun’s bracket 30 to have two corresponding fastening ribs 31/33 and/or protrusions 35-36 thereon (instead of what is shown in Yun Fig. 2), as an obvious variation of the location means for Yun’s hinge plate 40 relative to main body 10 - to another known configuration for performing that function.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0026155 A1 (Yun) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of CN 211549271U (Bo).
With respect to claims 5 and 18: Yun does not disclose “wherein the plurality of bracket apertures are aligned diagonally along a mounting plate of the door hinge bracket” as claimed.
Bo discloses positioning posts 23, 24 diagonally disposed on a reinforcement 20, and corresponding to diagonally disposed locating holes 13, 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yun’s hinge plate 40 to have two locating holes 13, 14 aligned diagonally thereon, and to modify Yun’s bracket 30 to have two corresponding positioning posts 23, 24 thereon (instead of what is shown in Yun Fig. 2), as an obvious variation of the location means for hinge plate 40 relative to main body 10 - to another known configuration for performing that function.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0026155 A1 (Yun) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of CN 201697414 U (Wang).
With respect to claims 6 and 19: Yun does not disclose “wherein a first locator tab of the plurality of locator tabs is oriented along a first direction to constrain movement of the door hinge bracket along the first direction and a second locator tab of the plurality of locator tabs is oriented along a second direction approximately perpendicular to the first direction to constrain movement of the door hinge bracket along the second direction.” as claimed.
Wang discloses wherein a first locator tab of the plurality of locator tabs (one of the front two tongues 23) is oriented along a first direction (front-and-back direction) to constrain movement of the door hinge bracket along the first direction and a second locator tab of the plurality of locator tabs (the rear tongue 23) is oriented along a second direction (side-to-side direction) approximately perpendicular to the first direction to constrain movement of the door hinge bracket along the second direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yun’s hinge assembly to have Wang’s tongues 23 and openings 32, as an obvious variation of Yun’s fastening protrusions 35-36, holes 23-24, slot 43, and hole 44. These are functionally equivalent means and/or structure for locating a hinge on top of the refrigerator with a mounting plate.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0026155 A1 (Yun) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 11,603,690 B2 (Pierce).
With respect to claim 8: Yun discloses wherein the plurality of case apertures comprise a set of first side case apertures at a first end of the case body (right end in Fig. 2), and wherein the plurality of locator tabs comprise a set of first side locator tabs at a first end of the locator rail (right end in Fig. 2).
Yun does not disclose “a set of second side case apertures at a second end of the case body…and a set of second side locator tabs at a second end of the locator rail opposite the first end of the locator rail” as claimed.
Pierce’s stiffener plate 110 extends from left side 18 to right side 20 of a refrigerator cabinet 12, to which left and right doors 40, 50 are attached. Pierce discloses a hinge 120 for attaching doors 40, 50 and thereby define their rotational axes 450, 550. The hinge 120 attaches to stiffener plate 110.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the left side of Yun’s refrigerator to have the same openings as those on the right side, to modify Yun’s bracket 30 to extend to the left side of the refrigerator, and to modify the left end of the bracket 30 to have the same connecting means as the right end, in order to mount a hinge plate 40 to the main body 10 for a left-side door.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0026155 A1 (Yun) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 204438680 U (Xu).
With respect to claim 12: Yun discloses wherein the locator rail defines a plurality of receiving bosses (fastening holes 37-39), the appliance further comprising: a plurality of mechanical fasteners (screws S1-S3) that are secured in the plurality of receiving bosses.
Yun does not disclose “wherein the door hinge bracket further defines a plurality of through holes and the locator rail defines a plurality of receiving bosses, the appliance further comprising: a plurality of mechanical fasteners that pass through the plurality of through holes and are secured in the plurality of receiving bosses to constrain the door hinge bracket in three additional degrees of freedom” as claimed.
Xu shows it is known in the art to use more than one mechanical fastener (three screws 60) in combination with a locator rail (bottom beam 40 and reinforcing member 50) having multiple locator tabs (positioning members 53). The door hinge bracket (hinge 30) and locator rail (bottom beam 40 and reinforcing member 50) have holes (holes 33, 41, 52) corresponding to the mechanical fasteners (screws 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yun’s hinge plate 40 to have holes through which the screws S1-S3 pass, in order to create a stronger assembly by having the fasteners secured to more components of the assembly.
With respect to claim 13: Yun, as modified, makes obvious wherein the plurality of through holes are clearance holes that are wider than the plurality of mechanical fasteners (like holes 33 in Xu, which are disclosed as elongated and allowing movement of the screws 60).
With respect to claim 14: Yun, as modified, makes obvious wherein the three additional degrees of freedom comprises translation along the vertical direction (as modified, the screws S1-S3 constrain upward translation of hinge plate 40), rotation about the lateral direction (as modified, the screws S1-S3 constrain rotation of hinge plate 40 about a left-right rotational axis), and rotation about the transverse direction (as modified, the screws S1-S3 constrain rotation of hinge plate 40 about a front-back rotational axis).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The double patenting rejections made in the previous Office action are maintained, as no Terminal Disclaimer has been filed to overcome such rejections.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) made in the previous Office action are withdrawn, as being overcome by the latest claim amendments.
The Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 made in the previous Office action are rendered moot, as those grounds of rejection are no longer relied upon. The new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in this Office action are necessitated by the latest claim amendments.
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 ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, 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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights