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 .
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) 1-6 & 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto et al. (US patent application publication 2008/0271478) (hereinafter Pinto) in view of Ueda et al. (US patent application publication 2013/0027906) (hereinafter Ueda) and Selin et al. (US patent application publication 2011/0162403) (hereinafter Selin).
Regarding claim 1, Pinto discloses a refrigerator, comprising: a cabinet (1) including a back wall (Fig. 1) partially defining a compartment; a door (4) operably coupled to the cabinet and configured to seal the compartment; a plurality of wall panels (3a, 3b, 3c) operably coupled to the cabinet, wherein each wall panel of the plurality of wall panels includes a first side (9) and a second side (10), wherein at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels is disposed adjacent to the back wall (Fig. 1) and includes a three-dimensional design (9) on the first side thereof (Fig. 1), the three-dimensional design including a wave pattern (Fig. 2).
Pinto does not disclose an air vent disposed on the back wall of the cabinet to move air within the compartment; and a lighting structure operably coupled to the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels to provide light to the compartment.
Selin teaches an air vent (53a) disposed on a back wall of a cabinet to move air within a compartment. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinto to include an air vent on the back wall in view of Selin’s teaching, because this arrangement would have distributed cold air throughout the compartment as taught by Selin in [0068].
Ueda teaches a lighting structure (200) operably coupled to the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels to provide light to the compartment (Figs. 3 & 4). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinto to include a lighting structure in view of Ueda’s teaching, because this arrangement would have illuminated the compartment.
Regarding claim 2, Pinto, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the first side of each wall panel faces the compartment and the second side of each wall panel faces the cabinet (Figs. 1 & 2).
Regarding claim 3, Pinto, as modified, teaches the refrigerator as claimed. Pinto, as modified, does not teach a refrigerator wherein the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels includes the three-dimensional design on the second side thereof facing the cabinet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinto, as previously modified, wherein the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels includes the three-dimensional design on the second side thereof facing the cabinet, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Pinto, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the second side of the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels includes a flat surface positioned adjacent to the back wall of the cabinet (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Pinto, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels extends a full height and a full width of the back wall of the cabinet (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Pinto, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the three-dimensional design includes spaced peaks and valleys to form the wave pattern (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Pinto, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the lighting structure is disposed adjacent to an edge of the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels (Ueda: Figs. 3 & 4).
Regarding claim 10, Pinto, as modified, teaches the refrigerator as claimed. Pinto, as modified, does not teach wherein the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels is at least partially opaque. The examiner is taking OFFICIAL NOTICE that opaque wall panels are common and well known in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinto, as previously modified, wherein the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels is at least partially opaque, because this arrangement would have replaced one known wall panel with another known wall panel yielding a predictable result.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto view of Ueda, Selin and Chow et al. (US patent application publication 2016/0123655) (hereinafter Chow).
Regarding claim 7, Pinto, as modified, teaches the refrigerator as claimed. Pinto, as modified, does not teach wherein the compartment includes compartment storage structures, and wherein the plurality of wall panels extend between the cabinet and the compartment storage structures. Chow teaches a refrigerator including compartment storage structures (34), and wherein the plurality of wall panels extend between the cabinet and the compartment storage structures (Fig. 3). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinto, as previously modified, wherein the compartment includes compartment storage structures, and wherein the plurality of wall panels extend between the cabinet and the compartment storage structures in view of Chow’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a space for storing goods.
Regarding claim 8, Pinto, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the compartment storage structures are secured to the cabinet independently of the plurality of wall panels via compartment mounting structures (Chow: 28).
Claim(s) 11, 14 & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto in view of Ueda.
Regarding claim 11, Pinto discloses a refrigeration appliance, comprising: a cabinet (1) including a plurality of walls defining a compartment (Fig. 1); a door (4) operably coupled to the cabinet configured to seal the compartment; a plurality of wall panels (3a, 3b, 3c) operably coupled to the cabinet, wherein each wall panel of the plurality of wall panels includes a first side (9) facing the compartment and a second side (10) facing the cabinet, and wherein the first side of at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels includes a three-dimensional design (Fig. 2) and the second side is a flat surface (Fig. 2).
Pinto does not disclose a lighting structure operably coupled to an edge of the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels to provide light to the compartment.
Ueda teaches a lighting structure (200) operably coupled to an edge of the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels to provide light to the compartment (Figs. 3 & 4). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinto to include a lighting structure in view of Ueda’s teaching, because this arrangement would have illuminated the compartment.
Regarding claim 14, Pinto, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the plurality of walls form a bottom surface, a back surface, a top surface, and a pair of side surfaces of the compartment (Fig. 1), and wherein the plurality of wall panels extends from the bottom surface to the top surface to extend a full height of the compartment (Fig. 1), and wherein the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels extend between the pair of side surfaces to extend a full width of the back surface of the compartment (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Pinto, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the three-dimensional design defines a wave pattern (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Pinto discloses an appliance, comprising: a cabinet (1) defining a compartment (Fig. 1); a door (4) operably coupled to the cabinet configured to seal the compartment; a wall panel assembly operably coupled to the cabinet within the compartment, wherein the wall panel assembly includes: a plurality of wall panels (3a, 3b, 3c) operably coupled to the cabinet, wherein each of the plurality of wall panels includes a first side (9) facing the compartment and a second side (10) facing the cabinet; and a three-dimensional pattern on the first side of at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels (Fig. 2).
Pinto does not disclose a lighting structure configured to light the compartment.
Ueda teaches a lighting structure (200) configured to light the compartment (Figs. 3 & 4). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinto to include a lighting structure in view of Ueda’s teaching, because this arrangement would have illuminated the compartment.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto in view of Ueda and Selin.
Regarding claim 12, Pinto, as modified, teaches the refrigerator as claimed. Pinto, as modified, does not teach a refrigerator further comprising: at least one refrigeration component coupled with at least one of the plurality of walls of the cabinet, and wherein the at least one refrigeration component is disposed between the cabinet and the second side of the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels for the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels to conceal the at least one refrigeration component.
Selin teaches a refrigerator comprising at least one refrigeration component (53a) coupled with at least one of the plurality of walls (4) of the cabinet, and wherein the at least one refrigeration component is disposed between the cabinet and the second side of the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels for the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels to conceal the at least one refrigeration component (Figs. 14 & 15). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinto, as previously modified, to comprise at least one refrigeration component coupled with at least one of the plurality of walls of the cabinet, and wherein the at least one refrigeration component is disposed between the cabinet and the second side of the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels for the at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels to conceal the at least one refrigeration component in view of Selin’s teaching, because this arrangement would have distributed cold air throughout the compartment as taught by Selin in [0068].
Regarding claim 13, Pinto, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the at least one refrigeration component includes an air vent (Selin: 53a) disposed along the at least one of the plurality of walls of the cabinet to move air within the compartment.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto in view of Ueda and Khizar et al. (US patent application publication 2016/0281959) (hereinafter Khizar).
Regarding claim 15, Pinto, as modified, teaches the refrigerator as claimed. Pinto, as modified, does not teach a refrigerator wherein at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels includes a reflective surface.
Khizar teaches a wall panel with a reflective surface (100). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinto, as previously modified, wherein at least one wall panel of the plurality of wall panels includes a reflective surface in view of Khizar’s teaching, because this arrangement would have replaced one known surface with another known surface yielding a predictable result.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinto in view of Ueda and Lee (US patent 8,393,746)
Regarding claim 18, Pinto, as modified, teaches the refrigerator as claimed. Pinto, as modified, does not teach a refrigerator further comprising: a controller configured to activate the lighting structure, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the lighting structure between different conditions based on a user interaction. Lee teaches a refrigerator comprising: a controller configured to activate the lighting structure, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the lighting structure between different conditions based on a user interaction (Col. 7: 37-62). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pinto, as previously modified, to comprise a controller configured to activate the lighting structure, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the lighting structure between different conditions based on a user interaction in view of Lee’s teaching, because this arrangement would have provided a means for controlling the lighting structure.
Regarding claim 19, Pinto, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the controller is coupled to a door ajar detection system configured to detect when the door is in an open position or a closed position, and wherein the user interaction includes adjusting the door to the open position (Lee: Col. 7: 37-62).
Regarding claim 20, Pinto, as modified, teaches a refrigerator wherein the three-dimensional pattern is a wave pattern of peaks and valleys (Fig. 2).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,585,592 in view of Selin.
Regarding claims 1-20, the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,585,592 recite similar features such as a refrigerator comprising a cabinet, a door, a plurality of wall panels including a three-dimensional design including a wave pattern; and a lighting structure. They do not recite an air vent. Selin teaches an air vent (53a). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,585,592 to include an air vent in view of Selin’s teaching, because this arrangement would have distributed cold air throughout the compartment as taught by Selin in [0068].
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,405,051 in view of Selin.
Regarding claims 1-20, the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,405,051 recite similar features such as a refrigerator comprising a cabinet, a door, a plurality of wall panels including a three-dimensional design including a wave pattern; and a lighting structure. They do not recite an air vent. Selin teaches an air vent (53a). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,405,051 to include an air vent in view of Selin’s teaching, because this arrangement would have distributed cold air throughout the compartment as taught by Selin in [0068].
Conclusion
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