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 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,139 to Baik et al. (Baik). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same invention, namely a refrigerator comprising a body including a storage space (claim 1, line 2); and a cooling module to supply air into the storage space (claim 1, line 3), an evaporator and a condenser (claim 1, line 5); a case having a first space for receiving the evaporator and a second space for receiving the condenser (claim 1, line 6-8); a wall to separate the first space from the second space (claim 1, line 9); and an inlet disposed at the case and through which the air in the storage space is introduced into the evaporator (claim 1, line 11); wherein the cooling module includes wherein a first direction in which the first and second receiving spaces are arranged is different from a second direction of an airflow of the air from the storage space to the inlet (claim 1, line 13).
In reference to claim 2, Baik claims the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Baik additionally claims wherein the storage space and the cooling module are vertically arranged, and the first direction corresponds to a horizontal direction of the body (claim 2).
In reference to claim 3, Baik claims the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Baik additionally claims a door to open or close a front opening of the body, wherein the first direction corresponds to a lateral direction of the body (claim 3).
In reference to claim 4, Baik claims the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Baik additionally claims wherein the inlet is disposed at a surface of the case adjacent to the storage space, and the second direction corresponds to a direction toward the cooling module from the storage space (claim 4).
In reference to claim 5, Baik claims the system as explained in the rejection of claim 4 above, and Baik additionally claims wherein the inlet is disposed at a top surface of the cooling module, and the second direction corresponds to a vertical direction of the body (claim 5).
In reference to claim 6, Baik claims the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Baik additionally claims wherein the cooling module further includes an outlet through which the air is returned from the storage space to the evaporator, wherein the inlet and the outlet are disposed at a surface of the cooling module body (claim 6).
In reference to claim 7, Baik claims the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Baik additionally claims wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (claim 11).
In reference to claim 8, Baik claims the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Baik additionally claims wherein the storage space and the cooling module are arranged in the first direction, and wherein a height of the evaporator in the first direction is same as a height of the condenser in the first direction (claim 12).
In reference to claim 9, Baik claims the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Baik additionally claims wherein the cooling module includes an additional inlet disposed at the case and through which outside air is introduced to the condenser, and wherein the first direction is different from a third direction of an airflow of the outside air passing through the additional inlet (claim 7).
Claims 10-14 claim the same limitations as claims 1-9; thus, said claims 10-14 are rejected in the same manner as claims 1-9, as described in detail above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
5/30/2026
Prosecution Insights