DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on October 09, 2024 & November 30, 2025 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “630” – first stop member; “641” – third stop member & “642” – fourth stop member. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1 & 17 fail to recite sufficient structural elements and the interconnection of elements to positively position and define the “door opening and closing device” so that an integral structural apparatus is set forth which is able to function as claimed. In Claim 12, the limitations relating to the third and fourth stop members are unclear and confusing since the limitations are not represented in the drawings and therefore it is unclear as to their positioning on the base relative to the other claimed components in order to yield the desired outcome. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite 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.
Claims 1, 10-12 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111503981. CN`981 teaches of a door opening and closing device (fig. 1), comprising: a door ejection mechanism (shown along the left side of (3) as depicted in fig. 3) and a door rotation mechanism (shown along the right side of (3) as depicted in fig. 3) which are driven by a same drive mechanism (31, 32); the door rotation mechanism comprises a drive member (36) and a door rotation member (39); a first end (shown as the top right end of (39) – fig. 3) of the door rotation member is rotatably disposed on a door body (2); and a second end (shown as the bottom left end of (39) – fig. 3) of the door rotation member is rotatably connected to a first end (shown as the bottom right end of (36) – fig. 3) of the drive member; and a second end (shown as the top left end of (36) – fig. 3) of the drive member is rotatably disposed on a base (3); and the drive mechanism comprises a linkage gear (331); the linkage gear drives the drive member (via interlinking components) to rotate so as to drive the door rotation member to rotate the door body, and drive the door ejection mechanism to eject and push the door body (figures 4-5). As to Claim 10, the drive member and the door rotation member are rod-shaped (defined as connecting rods and shown as such). As to Claim 11, the drive member and the linkage gear are coaxially rotatably disposed on the base (note figs. 1 & 4 for instance). As to Claim 12, inherent third & fourth stop members are disposed on the base in order for the third stop member to stop the linkage gear from revolving when the door body is closed; and in order for the fourth stop member to stop the linkage gear from revolving when the door body is completely opened as would be conventional in the art, i.e., extreme range of motion limit stops in order to define the fully closed and fully opened range of motion for the door body. Regarding Claim 17, again, CN`981 teaches of an electrical apparatus (refrigerator), comprising: a box body (1), a door body (2) rotatably disposed on the box body, and a door opening and closing device (fig.1), comprising: a door ejection mechanism (shown along the left side of (3) as depicted in fig. 3) and a door rotation mechanism (shown along the right side of (3) as depicted in fig. 3) which are driven by a same drive mechanism (31, 32); the door rotation mechanism comprises a drive member (36) and a door rotation member (39); a first end (shown as the top right end of (39) – fig. 3) of the door rotation member is rotatably disposed on a door body (2); and a second end (shown as the bottom left end of (39) – fig. 3) of the door rotation member is rotatably connected to a first end (shown as the bottom right end of (36) – fig. 3) of the drive member; and a second end (shown as the top left end of (36) – fig. 3) of the drive member is rotatably disposed on a base (3); and the drive mechanism comprises a linkage gear (331); the linkage gear drives the drive member (via interlinking components) to rotate so as to drive the door rotation member to rotate the door body, and drive the door ejection mechanism to eject and push the door body (figures 4-5). As to Claim 18, the electrical apparatus is a refrigerator (refrigerator).
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, 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111503981. CN`981 teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed device as outlined {mapped} above, including an inherent rotation angle range of motion exhibited by the linkage gear between the third and fourth stop members; but does not stipulate a rotation angle of less than 130 degrees. As to this aspect, the position is taken it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the rotation angle range of motion so as to encompass several rotation angle ranges as dependent upon the needs or preferences of a user, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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 routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 1-5, 8 & 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-17 of co-pending Application No. 18/856,066 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed features within the cited claims of the instant invention are present and accounted for within the reference application. For example, the claimed features of Claims 1 & 17-18 of the instant invention are accounted for within Claims 1, 6 & 17 of the reference application, where the “transmission member” is analogous to the drive member. Subsequently, the claimed features of Claims 2-5 of the instant invention are accounted for within Claims 2-4 of the reference application; the claimed features of Claim 8 of the instant invention is accounted for within Claim 5 of the reference application; and the claimed features of Claims 19-20 of the instant invention are accounted for within Claims 1-3 & 17 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 9 & 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various door closing and opening devices associated with a refrigeration appliance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
JOH
March 27, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights