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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, lines 4-5, “sunk in in said recess” should read “sunk in said recess”.
In claim 15, line 2, "baseplate” should read "base plate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 18 is/are objected to for their dependency on an objected base claim.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
closing unit in at least claim 5.
drive unit in at least claim 5.
transmission unit in at least claim 6.
Module carrier in at least claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Closing unit is interpreted to cover a lid as per para [0026] of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
Drive unit is interpreted to cover a motor as per para [0033] of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
Transmission unit is interpreted to cover at least one of a crank transmission, a wheel transmission, a roller transmission, and a worm transmission as per para [0032] of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
Module carrier is interpreted to cover at least one of a hook and lug as per para [0040] of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
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(s) 1-18 is/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 calls for the limitation “which is filled with a thermally insulating material” in lines 5-6, which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what previously recited limitation the term “which” is referring to. Is “which” referring to the base plate? The clearance? It’s uncertain. Appropriate correction is required.
For examination purposes, “which” will be interpreted as if directed to the clearance.
Claim 1 also calls for the limitation “a further electronics module” in line 10; which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear as to how a further electronics module is introduced in the claim when there is no prior recitation of a first electronics module. It raises some confusion as to whether elements are omitted in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 calls for the limitation “which is open”, which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what previously recited limitation the term “which” is referring to. Is “which” referring to the recess? The ceiling wall? Or the base plate? It’s uncertain. Appropriate correction is required.
For examination purposes, “which” will be interpreted as if directed to the recess of the ceiling wall of the base plate.
Claim(s) 2-18 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
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) 1-4, 9-10, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 116105430 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Wang discloses a household cooling appliance #1 (Fig. 1-8), comprising:
a housing #11 defining a receiving space #12 for food ([0068]);
a plate-shaped separation unit #14 being releasably disposed in said receiving space and is disposed for separating a volume of said receiving space ([0072]. #14 is releasably disposed in the receiving space at least via #152. See [0086]. Also, with appropriate tools provided, #14 can be removed from #12 by an ordinary skill artisan), wherein said plate-shaped separation unit has a base plate (made of both #144 & #142) which has a clearance (best seen in Fig. 7), said clearance being filled with a thermally insulating material #143 ([0078]), said plate-shaped separation unit has in said base plate at least one light module #16 configured as a function module ([0088-0090]), said base plate is configured as a multi-module carrier plate for receiving several functionally different function modules (see Fig. 7-8; [0088-0090] & [0093]); and
a further electronics module #17 (note: #17 is a food preservation light as discussed in ([0082]). A food preservation light is an electronics module at least because it uses semiconductor components to convert electrical energy into specific, controlled wavelengths of UV or visible light) disposed on said base plate (best seen in Fig. 7) and is separate and functionally different from said at least one light module (Fig. 7; [0082] & [0088-0090]).
Regarding claim 2:
Wang further discloses wherein said base plate has a bottom wall #144 with a recess formed therein that is open towards a bottom (Fig. 7-8, [0090]), wherein said at least one light module is disposed and sunk in said recess such that light of said at least one light module is emitted through a first opening of said recess towards the bottom (see Fig. 1, 7-8, and 10; [0088]).
Regarding claim 3:
Wang further discloses wherein said base plate has a ceiling wall (made of both #141 & #142) with a recess #1421 formed therein; and said further electronics module #17 is an operating and/or display device ([0076]), said operating and/or display device is disposed in said recess of said ceiling wall of said base plate (Fig. 7, [0080]), said recess of the ceiling wall of the base plate is open towards a top and in which said operating and/or display device is disposed sunk in, such that said operating and/or display device may be viewed from a top through an second opening of said recess.
Regarding claim 4:
Wang further discloses wherein said ceiling wall is made of glass (#141 is made of glass. See [0078]) and has a cut-out formed therein (#142 has a cut-out #1421), wherein said further electronics module is disposed in said cut-out of said ceiling wall ([0080]).
Regarding claim 9:
Wang further discloses a first module carrier (#1442 & #1443; Fig. 8 & 10), said at least one light module is disposed on said first module carrier that is disposed sunk in in said clearance ([0090]).
Regarding claim 10:
Wang further discloses wherein said at least one light module has a light housing #153 with a cavity formed therein (Fig. 8 & 10), and a circuit board with at least one light source, wherein said circuit board is received in said cavity formed in said light housing (see Fig. 8 & 10. Note: #16 is a food preservation light as discussed in ([0105]). A food preservation light is an electronics module at least because it uses semiconductor components/circuit board to convert electrical energy into specific, controlled wavelengths of UV or visible light).
Regarding claim 14:
Wang further discloses bearing elements #1441 disposed on a vertical sidewall of said base plate for bearing said plate-shaped separation unit and are disposed in said receiving space (see Fig. 7-8, [0087]).
Regarding claim 15:
Wang further discloses wherein said base plate has a ceiling wall #142 with first and second bottom sides (Fig. 7-8); and said bearing elements are separate parts, which are attached to said second bottom side of said ceiling wall (Fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 16:
Wang further discloses wherein said first module carrier is disposed completely sunk in in said clearance (Fig. 8 & 10).
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) 11-12 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 116105430 A).
Regarding claim 11:
Wang discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the bottom wall of the base plate is made of metal.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
By official notice, the examiner submits that it is known to make the material of refrigerator partition metal; especially stainless steel.
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 Wang with the bottom wall of the base plate made of metal.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have enhanced cooling efficiency by maintaining consistent, colder temperatures throughout. Other benefits include distributing cold air more evenly, making the base plate more robust, improving the aesthetic appearance, and facilitation of cleaning.
Regarding claims 12 & 17:
Wang discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the thermally insulating material is polystyrene board.
By official notice, the examiner submits that it is known to use polystyrene board for insulation in refrigerators.
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 Wang with the thermally insulating material being polystyrene board.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided excellent thermal insulation within the refrigerator. Other benefits include cost-effectiveness and recyclability.
Regarding claim 18:
Wang further discloses wherein said bearing elements are separate parts (Fig. 7-8), which are attached to said second bottom side of said ceiling wall.
Wang does not disclose wherein said attachment is by an adhesive bond.
Nonetheless, connecting elements by adhesive bonding 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 Wang with said attachment being by an adhesive bonding.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have offered superior structural integrity by distributing stress evenly across the entire surface of the structures rather than at localized points; thereby, reducing fatigue and preventing crack initiation.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 116105430 A) in view of Pritts (US 6006531 A).
Regarding claim 13:
Wang further discloses wherein said base plate has a bottom wall #144 with a recess formed therein (Fig. 8).
Wang does not disclose wherein said further electronics module is a detection sensor for detecting a storage parameter of said receiving space, wherein said detection sensor is sunk in in said recess of said bottom wall of said base plate for detecting the storage parameter in a lower volume subspace of said receiving space.
Nonetheless, Wang already discloses the provision of a sensor (light module) in a recess formed in the bottom wall of the base plate (see rejection of claim 1).
In the same field of endeavor, Pritts teaches that it is known to provide a detection sensor for detecting a storage parameter of a receiving space, wherein said detection sensor is sunk in a partition that separates compartment of the refrigerator (col. 4, L 59 – col. 5, L 12).
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 Wang with said further electronics module being a detection sensor for detecting a storage parameter of said receiving space, wherein said detection sensor is sunk in in said recess of said bottom wall of said base plate for detecting the storage parameter in a lower volume subspace of said receiving space; since these concepts are known in the cart as taught by Wang and Pritts.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided critical, real-time monitoring of the temperature within the refrigerator so as to ensure food safety, prevent spoilage, and maintain optimal, consistent, and energy-efficient cooling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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 so as to provide a closing unit which is external to said plate-shaped separation unit; wherein the further electronics module is a drive unit for driving said closing unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahn (US 20170219269 A1) discuss providing a sensor in a partition plate of a refrigerator.
Kuehl (US 5419148 A) teaches provision on a bottom wall of a partition of a refrigerator.
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