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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 9/6/2024 and 6/20/205 was/were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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) 17-18 and 20 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 17 recites “a fourth installation site”. However, it is unclear how there is a fourth installation site when only a first and second installation site are claimed in parent claim 1. For purposes of examination “a fourth installation site” will be considered - - a third installation site - - .
Claim 20 recites “wherein when the first frame and the second frame are injecting”. The metes and bounds of “are injecting” are unclear. For purposes of examination “wherein when the first frame and the second frame are injecting” will be considered - - wherein the first frame and the second frame are formed by injection molding - - .
Claim(s) 18 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hou (CN206031154).
Per claim 1, Hou teaches a refrigerator bracket, comprising:
a first frame (11), a second frame (12) and fasteners (“hot plate welding” locations),
wherein: the first frame (11) is disposed on a side of the second frame (12) in a height direction of the second frame (see figure 6), the first frame is detachably connected to the second frame by the fasteners (“upper frame assembly 11 and lower frame assembly 12 can be detachably connected”, pg. 3 of translation),
an installation cavity (see annotated figure below) is enclosed between the first frame (11) and the second frame (12), and a placement opening (33) is disposed on one side of the installation cavity (upper side of the installation cavity as shown in figure 2); and
the first frame is provided with a plurality of first installation sites (see annotated figure below),
the second frame is provided with a plurality of second installation sites (see annotated figure below) that are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of first installation sites (see annotated figure below), and
the fasteners (see annotated figure below) are connected to the plurality of first installation sites and the plurality of second installation sites (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
905
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hou teaches wherein at least some of the plurality of first installation sites are spaced apart in a first direction, and the first direction is orthogonal to a length direction and a height direction of the first frame (see annotated figure below).
Per claim 3, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Hou teaches . The refrigerator bracket according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of first installation sites are divided into a plurality of groups, each group of first installation sites comprises at least two first installation sites spaced apart along the length direction of the first frame, and the plurality of groups of first installation sites are spaced apart in the first direction (see annotated figure above showing the installation sites spaced along the length and spaced in the first direction).
Per claim 7, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hou teaches wherein a lower end of the second frame (lower region of 12) is provided with a first installation plate (see annotated figure below) and a second installation plate (see annotated figure below) that are spaced apart to define an installation space (space between the first and second installation plate is considered “an installation space”).
PNG
media_image2.png
562
832
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 8, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 7. Further, Hou teaches wherein at least one of the first installation plate and the second installation plate is provided with a heat dissipation hole (see annotated figure above).
Per claim 9, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hou teaches the first and second frame.
In regards to the frames being an injection molding member; the examiner is interpreting the limitations as a product by process and per MPEP 2113, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Since the product in the product by process claim is the same as the prior art of Hou the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Per claim 10, Hou teaches a refrigerator (3) comprising a cabinet (32) and the refrigerator bracket according to claim 1, wherein the cabinet (32) is disposed in the installation cavity (see figure 2)
Per claim 11, Hou teaches an automobile, comprising: a vehicle body (“vehicle”, pg. 3 of translation); and the refrigerator according to claim 10, wherein the refrigerator is disposed on the vehicle body (“A vehicle console with frozen storage and heat preservation function, comprising a console armrest frame 1 located at the central control station console armrest box on the handrail frame 1 2, vehicle refrigerator assembly 3”, pg. 3 of translation).
Per claim 13, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Hou teaches wherein the plurality of first installation sites are divided into two groups, the two groups of first installation sites are disposed opposites to each other on a left side and a right side of the first frame (see first annotated figure above showing the first installation sites on the two sides of the first frame (one side is hidden but there are necessarily installation sites on both sides of the first frame), and each group of the first installation sites includes three first installation sites space apart in a front-to-back direction of the first frame (see first annotate figure above showing four first installation sites in a front to back direction).
Per claim 14, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 7. Further, Hou teaches wherein a length direction of the first installation plate (see annotated figure below) is disposed along a front-to-back direction of the second frame (see annotated figure below), a length direction of the second installation plate is disposed along the front-to-back direction of the second frame (see annotated figure below), and the first installation plate and the second installation plate are arranged opposite to each other on a left side and a right side of the second frame (see annotated figure below showing the first and second installation plate on the left and right side of the second frame).
PNG
media_image3.png
586
893
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claim 16, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 7. Further, Hou teaches wherein the second frame (12) is provided with a third installation site (welding site for “hot plate welding” (pg. 3 of translation)) that is located on the first installation plate (pg. 3 third paragraph of translation).
Per claim 17, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hou teaches wherein a third installation site (installation site for refrigerator 3) disposed on a side wall (mounting wall for 3 in 12) of the second frame (12) away from the placement opening (33) (to clarify, the wall in which 3 is mounted is considered a “side wall” and site is considered “away” from the opening because the site is not in the same location as the opening).
Per claim 19, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hou teaches wherein the first frame and second frame is provided with a reinforcing rib (see annotated figure below showing the reinforcing rib on the first frame and see figure 6 showing reinforcing ribs on the second frame) (to clarify, the structure annotated below is a “rib” and provides reinforcement and thus is considered a “reinforcing rib”).
PNG
media_image4.png
406
796
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Per claim 20, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 19. Further, Hou teaches the first and second frame (11, 12) and the reinforcing rib on the first frame and second frame (see rejection of claim 19).
In regards to the frames being injection molded and the ribs being formed on the first and second frame by injection molding; the examiner is interpreting the limitations as a product by process and per MPEP 2113, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Since the product in the product by process claim is the same as the prior art of Hou the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou (CN206031154) in view of Kelly et al. (US 20080302441).
Per claim 12, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Hou teaches wherein the plurality of first installation sites but fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of first installation sites is a through hole, each of the plurality of second installation sites is a threaded groove, and each fastener is a threaded member that passes through the through hole and is screwed into the threaded groove.
However, through holes, fasteners, and threaded grooves are an old and well known technique for joining parts. For example, Kelly teaches a cooling system wherein each of a plurality of first installation sites is a through hole (70), each of a plurality of second installation sites is a threaded groove (71), and each of a plurality of fasteners is a threaded member (“screws 73”, para. 0032) that passes through the through hole (70) and is screwed into the threaded groove (73) for securing structure in the cooling system (para. 0032). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a plurality of first installation sites as a through hole, each of a plurality of second installation sites as a threaded groove, and each of a plurality of fasteners as a threaded member (“screws 73”, para. 0032) that passes through the through hole (70) and is screwed into the threaded groove, as taught by Kelly in the invention of Hou, in order to advantageously secure structure in the cooling system (para. 0032).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou (CN206031154).
Per claim 15, Hou meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 7. Further, Hou teaches the first installation plate and second installation plate (see second annotated figure above) and the second frame (12) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first installation plate and/or the second installation plate are integrally formed with the second frame.
However per MPEP 2144.02, section V, paragraph B, “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first installation plate and/or the second installation plate integrally formed with the second frame.in order to advantageously reduce the number of parts in the assembly, thereby reducing assembly time and assembly cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-6 is/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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Slone et al. (US 2004/0035119) teaches a vehicular storage container including a refrigerator.
Jung et al. (US 2020/0031265) teaches a vehicular storage container including a refrigerator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. 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.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763