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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boarman (US 20140150459 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Boarman discloses a refrigerator appliance (Fig. 1) defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a transverse direction, comprising:
a cabinet #12 defining a chilled chamber ([0019]);
a door #16 being rotatably mounted to the cabinet to provide selective access to the chilled chamber ([0019-0020]), the door at least partially defining an icebox (see icebox comprising at least #24 & #26; best seen in Fig. 4; [0020]);
an ice making assembly #24 positioned within the icebox for forming ice cubes #46 ([0020]); and
an ice storage bin #26 positioned below the ice making assembly and defining a storage volume for storing the ice cubes (Fig. 4), wherein the ice storage bin defines an inner wall positioned against the door (see Fig. 4 of Boarman reproduced and annotated below) and an outer wall facing the chilled chamber (see Fig. 4 of Boarman below), and wherein bin insulation is positioned between the storage volume and the outer wall of the ice storage bin (see Fig. 4 of Boarman below and [0022]: #26 is an insulation material).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Boarman Reproduced and Annotated
Regarding claim 7:
Boarman further discloses wherein the ice making assembly further comprises: an ice maker housing defining an ice making volume (see Fig. 4); an ice maker positioned within the ice maker housing (see Fig. 4); and an insulated cover positioned over the ice maker housing (see Fig. 4 of Boarman below).
Regarding claim 13:
Boarman further discloses wherein the refrigerator appliance is a side-by-side refrigerator appliance ([0019]).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boarman (US 20140150459 A1) in view of Kim (KR 20040085596 A).
Regarding claim 2:
Boarman discloses wherein the ice storage bin comprises an outer shell (see Fig. 4 above: the outer wall of the ice storage bin constitutes the outer shell; in as much as #216 defines #212 in Fig. 5 of applicant).
Boarman does not discloses a storage insert positioned within the outer shell, the storage insert defining the storage volume.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches an ice storage bin comprising an outer shell #45; and a storage insert #43 positioned within the outer shell (best seen in Fig. 4), the storage insert defining the storage volume (see Fig. 4; [0044]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Boarman with a storage insert positioned within the outer shell, the storage insert defining the storage volume; in a similar manner as taught by Kim.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have preserved the integrity of the ice at least by virtue of preventing direct contacts with the insulation material. Other benefits include preventing degradation of the insulation material and easy cleaning of the storage volume.
Regarding claim 3:
Boarman as modified discloses wherein bin insulation is positioned along sidewalls of the storage insert (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Boarman as modified does not disclose wherein bin insulation is positioned along a bottom wall of the storage insert.
Nonetheless, kim further teaches that it is known to provide insulation along a bottom wall of a storage insert. See Fig. 1 & [0018]: insulation #108 is provided along the bottom wall of liner #105 of an ice bin #111.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Boarman as modified with bin insulation positioned along a bottom wall of the storage insert; in a similar manner as taught by Kim.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have kept ice in solid state for a prolonged amount of time; thereby, reducing energy consumption by reducing ice harvesting cycles.
Regarding claim 4:
Boarman as modified discloses all the limitations; except for wherein an inner wall of the storage insert is positioned directly against the inner wall of the outer shell.
Nonetheless, Kim further discloses wherein the inner wall of the storage insert #43 is positioned directly against the inner wall of the outer shell #13 (best seen in Fig. 5: see hem portion of #43 that meets #13).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Boarman as modified with an inner wall of the storage insert positioned directly against the inner wall of the outer shell; in a similar manner as taught by Kim.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided a firm and secured assembly of the insert within the outer shell.
Regarding claim 5:
Boarman as modified discloses all the limitations; except for wherein there is no insulation between the inner wall of the storage insert and the inner wall of the outer shell.
Nonetheless, selectively providing insulation between the inner wall of the storage insert and the inner wall of the outer shell would have been obvious; especially since it is known to provide ice bins with no insulation.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Boarman as modified with no insulation between the inner wall of the storage insert and the inner wall of the outer shell.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided a thermal bridge to allow for better thermal regulation of the ice bin. Other benefits include space saving and manufacturing cost reduction.
Regarding claims 14-16:
Refer to the rejection of claim 2-5 above.
Regarding claim 18:
Boarman further discloses an ice maker housing defining an ice making volume (see Fig. 4); an ice maker positioned within the ice maker housing (see Fig. 4); and an insulated cover positioned over the ice maker housing (see Fig. 4 of Boarman above).
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boarman (US 20140150459 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
Boarman discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the bin insulation comprises at least one of polyurethane or expanded polystyrene.
Nonetheless, the usage of polyurethane or expanded polystyrene as insulating material in refrigerators is well known in the art (official notice).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Boarman with the bin insulation comprising at least one of polyurethane or expanded polystyrene.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided amongst other things (i) excellent and lightweight insulation materials, (ii) high-efficiency insulation, and (iii) high durability and moisture resistance as known in the art.
Regarding claim 12:
While Boarman discloses wherein the chilled chamber is a refrigerating compartment of the refrigerator appliance; Boarman does not disclose wherein the chilled chamber is a freezer compartment.
Thus, the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art herein so far is with regards to the optimal operating temperature of the chilled chamber. However, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. Since the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to modify the operating temperature range of the chilled compartment. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Boarman with the chilled chamber being a freezer compartment.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have accommodated more items to be cooled or maintained at freezing temperature; thereby, increasing the freezing capacity of the refrigerator.
Regarding claim 17:
Refer to the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boarman (US 20140150459 A1) in view of Chikkakalbalu (US 20150137670 A1).
Regarding claims 8-10:
Boarman further discloses wherein the door at least partially defines the icebox and comprises: an outer door panel and an inner door panel spaced apart along the transverse direction to define a door gap (see at least Fig. 4).
While Boarman inherently discloses thermal insulation of the door, Boarman does not specifically disclose a first insulating material positioned within the door gap and having a first thermal conductivity; and a second insulating material positioned within the door gap and having a second thermal conductivity, the second thermal conductivity being lower than the first thermal conductivity; wherein the first insulating material is an insulating pad, insulating foam, or an expanded polystyrene block; and wherein the second insulating material is sprayed polyurethane foam surrounding the first insulating material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chikkakalbalu teaches that it is known to provide thermal insulation in the form of two layers #100 comprising a first insulating material #130 having a first thermal conductivity; and a second insulating material #100 having a second thermal conductivity, the second thermal conductivity being lower than the first thermal conductivity ([0036-0037]); wherein the first insulating material #130 is an insulating pad, insulating foam, or an expanded polystyrene block ([0037]); and wherein the second insulating material #100 is sprayed polyurethane foam surrounding the first insulating material (Fig. 3, [0036]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Boarman with the thermal insulation of the door having the characteristics above as taught by Chikkakalbalu.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided insulated foam panels with higher thermal resistance values for improved energy efficiency with fewer parts and overall lower construction and operating costs as suggested by Chikkakalbalu ([0004]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boarman (US 20140150459 A1) in view of Kim (KR 20040085596 A); and further in view of Chikkakalbalu (US 20150137670 A1).
Regarding claim 19:
Boarman further discloses wherein the door at least partially defines the icebox and comprises: an outer door panel and an inner door panel spaced apart along the transverse direction to define a door gap (see at least Fig. 4).
While Boarman inherently discloses thermal insulation of the door, Boarman does not specifically disclose a first insulating material positioned within the door gap and having a first thermal conductivity; and a second insulating material positioned within the door gap and having a second thermal conductivity, the second thermal conductivity being lower than the first thermal conductivity; wherein the first insulating material is an insulating pad, insulating foam, or an expanded polystyrene block; and wherein the second insulating material is sprayed polyurethane foam surrounding the first insulating material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chikkakalbalu teaches that it is known to provide thermal insulation in the form of two layers #100 comprising a first insulating material #130 having a first thermal conductivity; and a second insulating material #100 having a second thermal conductivity, the second thermal conductivity being lower than the first thermal conductivity ([0036-0037]); wherein the first insulating material #130 is an insulating pad, insulating foam, or an expanded polystyrene block ([0037]); and wherein the second insulating material #100 is sprayed polyurethane foam surrounding the first insulating material (Fig. 3, [0036]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Boarman with the thermal insulation of the door having the characteristics above as taught by Chikkakalbalu.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided insulated foam panels with higher thermal resistance values for improved energy efficiency with fewer parts and overall lower construction and operating costs as suggested by Chikkakalbalu ([0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art of record to provide the first insulating material defining a first thickness measured along the transverse direction, the door gap defining a door gap thickness, wherein the first thickness is greater than 30% of the door gap thickness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ryu (US 20250283645 A1), Miller (US 11629902 B2), Yao (US 20220154990 A1), Scalf (US 20200393185 A1), Mitchell (US 20200363115 A1), Laible (US 20170241692 A1), Smith (US 8109112 B2), Jung (US 20110146335 A1), and Flores (US 20100126202 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763