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 11, 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.
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 1-17 & 19-21 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. Claim 1 fails 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 7, line 3, the phrase “the base” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 10, line 2, the phrase “the base” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 11, lines 3 & 4 respectively, the phrase “the base” does not have a proper antecedent basis. 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 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son et al., [US 2017/0260794]. Son teaches of a door opening and closing device (fig. 4), comprising: a drive mechanism (30), a door ejection mechanism (generally viewed as (330)), a door rotation mechanism (generally viewed as (340)) and an angle acquisition unit (such as (22, 370)), wherein the drive mechanism comprises: a driver (321); a first transmission assembly (components along (233)); a second transmission assembly (components along (322, 325a) for instance), connected to the driver and simultaneously separably connected to the first transmission assembly; a clutch-ejection-push assembly (components interacting with (350) for instance), pushing the second transmission assembly to separate from or connect to the first transmission assembly (note [0153] to [0156] for example); a linkage gear (347), connected to the first transmission assembly and simultaneously connected to the door ejection mechanism and the door rotation mechanism; and wherein the angle acquisition unit is configured to acquire a rotation angle of the linkage gear (note [0188] for example). As to Claim 10, the door ejection mechanism is rotatably disposed on a base (313), and comprises: a first tooth portion (tooth along (348)) meshing with the linkage gear and a door ejection portion (end of (333)) for ejecting and pushing a door body {6}, and wherein the linkage gear drives, by the first tooth portion, the door ejection mechanism to rotate relative to the base ((348) rotates), and to drive the door ejection portion to eject and push the door body. As to Claim 17, in combination with an electrical apparatus (refrigerator), comprising: a box body (2), a door body (6) rotatably disposed on the box body, wherein the door opening and closing device is disposed between the box body and the door body (fig. 3), wherein the electrical apparatus is a refrigerator.
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 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 8-11, 13, 16, 19-21, 24 & 27 of co-pending Application No. 18/856,596 in view of Son et al. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-17 are generic to all that is recited in Claims 1-2, 8-11, 13, 16, 19-21, 24 & 27 of the cited co-pending application as modified by Son et al. In other words, Claims 1-2, 8-11, 13, 16, 19-21, 24 & 27 of the cited co-pending application as modified, fully encompasses the subject matter of Claims 1-17 in the instant application. For example, the claimed features of Claims 1 & 13 of the instant application are accounted for within Claim 1 of the co-pending application minus an angle acquisition unit that is configured to acquire a rotation angle of the linkage gear. Subsequently, the claimed features of Claims 2-4 of the instant application are accounted for within Claim 16 of the co-pending application; the claimed features of Claim 5 of the instant application is accounted for within Claim 19 of the co-pending application; the claimed features of Claim 6 of the instant application is accounted for within Claim 20 of the co-pending application; the claimed features of Claims 7-9 of the instant application are accounted for within Claim 21 of the co-pending application; the claimed features of Claims 10-12 of the instant application are accounted for within Claim 24 of the co-pending application; the claimed features of Claim 14 of the instant application is accounted for within Claims 8-10 of the co-pending application; the claimed features of Claims 15 & 16 of the instant application are accounted for within Claim 11 of the co-pending application; while the claimed features of Claim 17 of the instant application is accounted for within Claim 27 of the co-pending application. Co-pending application `596 teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed door opening and closing device as outlined above, but does not show the inclusion of an angle acquisition unit as prescribed by applicant. As to this feature, Son is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of an angle acquisition unit used in combination with a door opening and closing device on a refrigerator in an analogous art. As such, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the co-pending application `596 so as to include an angle acquisition unit in view of Son’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which an angle of the door(s) can be detected relative to the body of the refrigerator in order to assist in the opening and/or closing of the door(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as 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 refrigerator door opening / closing assisting devices.
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. 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
February 3, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637