DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed on 5/18/2026 have been entered. Claims 2-6, 12-15 cancelled, claims 16-18 newly added.
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 Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: claim recites “LED light strip”; it must be recited as “an LED light strip. Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitations:
Segment of claim 1, the claim limitation “refrigeration system” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholders “system” coupled with functional language “to maintain a temperature” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 including depending claims 7-11, 16-18 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“refrigeration system” has been interpreted to be a refrigerator.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 including depending claims 7-11, 16-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an illumination strip attached directly to the front edge of the shelf”. Based on figure 2 of application illumination strip 212 is attached to the shelf 108 indirectly. The bolded phrase makes the claimed limitations indefinite, because there is structure between strip 212 and shelf 108, there is an ‘U’ shape part attached to the shelf 108. The published specification contradicting the drawing in figure 2. More clarification is required.
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 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.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wirth (US 2022/0361689 A1).
Claim 1: Wirth discloses a refrigerator appliance (FIG.1), comprising:
a cabinet (2) with a shelf (17) for displaying products, wherein the shelf comprises a front edge (inherent) located toward a front of the cabinet (2):
a refrigeration system (refrigerator in FIG.1) for cooling the cabinet (2),
an illumination strip (paragraph [48]: light source strip 68 used as illumination strip) attached directly to the front edge (to clarify, in paragraph [32] discloses light source 68 which is inside the flow control 102 which is attached to each selves via brackets 106a/106b; light source becomes part of the structure of the flow control 102 after assembled, therefore in order to directly attach a part such as 102/with light 68 to the shelf 17, some connection parts such as brackets are required in order to attach two parts, only welding is able to connect two parts directly without any connectors) of the shelf (17) and extending parallel to the front edge (to clarify, light 68 provided on board inner beam 108b as shown in FIG.5 light 68 extended along the length of beam 108b parallel to the front edge of shelf 17) to illuminate products on the shelf (functional language);
a removable cover (paragraph [41]: cover 52 is hollow and thus defines cavity 56; to clarify, cover 52 is capable of being removed as it was placed upon assembling the structure) attached to the front edge of the shelf to define a cavity (56), the cavity (56) extending along and adjacent (to clarify, 56 is along length of 108b adjacent to the front edge of shelf 17; paragraph [33]: brackets 106a/106b to attach 102 to shelf) to the front edge of the shelf (17) and comprising
a slot opening (cavity 56 forming an opening within), and wherein the illumination strip (68) is housed within the cavity (56) and directed to emit light through the slot opening (cavity 56 forming an opening within);
an air curtain attachment (curtain attachment shown in FIG.2; paragraph [7]: flow control 102 include beam attachments 106 to attach flow control to shelf 17) attached to the front edge (inherent) of the shelf (17) adjacent to the illumination strip (68) and the removable cover (52; to clarify, cover 52 is capable of being removed as it was placed upon assembling the structure) wherein the air curtain attachment comprises an attachment portion (beam 108b used as attachment portion; to clarify, beam 108b attached to the shelf 17 via bracket 106a) attached to the front edge of the shelf (17), and
an air deflecting member (108a) mounted to the attachment portion (108b) by a support arm (110a) such that the air deflecting member (108a) is spaced forwardly of the attachment portion (108b) to define an air curtain passage (26) between the air deflecting member (108a) and the attachment portion (108b).
Claim 7: Wirth discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6, wherein the illumination strip (68) has a primary illumination direction that is non-parallel and non-perpendicular to the shelf (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, light emits in all directions including non-parallel and non-perpendicular).
Claim 11: Wirth discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the removable cover (52) is shaped to deflect the air curtain (paragraph [31]: air curtain passes from discharge grille 20) towards the air curtain passage (passage 26 formed between 108a/108b).
Claim 17: Wirth discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the illumination strip (68) is adjacent to and in contact with the front edge of the shelf (17).
Claim 18: Wirth discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the illumination strip (68) has a primary illumination direction that is upward and rearwardly along the shelf (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, light emits in all directions including upward and rearwardly).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 8, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wirth (US 2022/0361689 A1).
Claim 8: Wirth discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6, except for wherein the illumination strip (68) is oriented such that a primary illumination angle is between ten degrees and seventy degrees relative to the shelf. 20It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Wirth to optimize range of a primary illumination angle between ten degrees and seventy degrees relative to the shelf in order to emit the light in the desired direction as matter of choice, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only skill in the art. Note that the criticality of the limitations is not claimed - Optimum Range: MPEP 2144.05 II-A.
Claim 9: Wirth as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 8, wherein the illumination strip (68) comprises and LED light strip (paragraph [48]: light source 68 may be an LED strip light).
Claim 16: Wirth discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an air outlet (paragraph [17]: air outlet) arranged to generate an air curtain (paragraph [31]: air curtain passes from discharge grille 20) at the front of the cabinet, except for an air outlet disposed at a top of the cabinet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Wirth to place an air outlet disposed at a top of the cabinet as matter of choice, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Note that the criticality of the claimed limitations is not claimed - Location of Parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-C.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wirth (US 2022/0361689 A1), in view of Hirschbolz (US 2022/0187012 A1).
Claim 10: Wirth as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 9, the illumination strip (68), except for an overlying diffuser.
However, Hirschbolz teaches an overlying diffuser (paragraph [28]: lighting module has a diffuser plate) for the purpose of diffusely scatter the light, as a result uniform and homogeneous light can be produced (paragraph [28]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Wirth to include an overlying diffuser in order to diffusely scatter the light, as a result uniform and homogeneous light can be produced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding “an illumination strip attached directly to the front edge of the shelf ..." and "a removable cover attached to the front edge of the shelf to define a cavity, the cavity extending along and adjacent to the front edge of the shelf".
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because: as indicated in the office action cover 52 is part of the beam 108b which is attached to the shelf 17 (see rejection of claim 1 above for more detail). Also same as for illumination strip which is inside beam 108b.
Further, as to the applicant’s argument regarding the new amendment, it is addressed in this office action above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached on (571) 272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights