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 submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are 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.
Claims 4, 6-9 and 12-15 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 2 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “mountable” which renders the scope of the claim unclear. The term “mountable” can be construed as the mere “ability to mount”, which appears to imply that anticipation or infringement may or may not require the actual mounting of the fan case. For examination purposes, the quoted phrase will be construed as –mounted—.
Claim 4 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “removably couplable” (in line 5), which renders the scope of the claim unclear. The term “couplable” can be construed as the mere “ability to couple”, which appears to imply that anticipation or infringement may or may not require the actual coupling of the second cover to a rear side of the first cover. For examination purposes, the quoted phrase will be construed as –removably coupled—.
Claim 6 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the duct” (in line 2), without proper antecedent basis. It is noted that claim 2 provides antecedence for a “duct”, but claim 6 does not depend on said claim For examination purposes, the claim will be construed as depending on claim 2.
The claim recites “couplable” (in line 5), which renders the scope of the claim unclear. The term “couplable” can be construed as the mere “ability to couple”, which appears to imply that anticipation or infringement may or may not require the actual coupling of the hook locking portion. For examination purposes, the quoted phrase will be construed as –coupled—.
Claim 8 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “movable” which renders the scope of the claim unclear. The term “movable” can be construed as the mere “ability to move”, which appears to imply that anticipation or infringement may or may not require the actual moving of the fixing rib. For examination purposes, the quoted phrase will be construed as –configured to be moved—.
The claim recites “pressable” (in line 3), which renders the scope of the claim unclear. The term “pressable” can be construed as the mere “ability to press”, which appears to imply that anticipation or infringement may or may not require the actual pressing of the hook protrusions. For examination purposes, the quoted phrase will be construed as –configured to be pressed—.
Claim 9 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “elastically deformable” which renders the scope of the claim unclear. The term “deformable” can be construed as the mere “ability to deform”, which appears to imply that anticipation or infringement may or may not require the actual deforming of the hook protrusions. Moreover, the term “elastically” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elastically” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A review of the specification appears to reiterate the claim term, without specifically providing a threshold elasticity value for what may be considered to anticipate or infringe on “elastically deformable”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that all materials posses at least some degree of elasticity or deformability. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –configured to be deformed—.
Claim 12 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “mountable” (in line 2), which renders the scope of the claim unclear. The term “mountable” can be construed as the mere “ability to mount”, which appears to imply that anticipation or infringement may or may not require the actual mounting of the drawer case. For examination purposes, the entire first limitation will instead be construed as –a drawer case that has an open front side, that is mounted in the storage compartment, and that forms the temperature control room in the storage compartment; and—.
Claim 13 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “removably couplable”, twice, (in lines 2 & 3), which renders the scope of the claim unclear. The term “couplable” can be construed as the mere “ability to couple”, which appears to imply that anticipation or infringement may or may not require the actual coupling of the side frames. For examination purposes, the two recitations will be construed as –removably coupled—.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20180187946 A1), herein Park.
As per claim 1, Park discloses a refrigerator (100) comprising:
an inner case (see fig. 1) that forms a storage compartment (30, 40);
a temperature control room (200) inside the storage compartment (at 40) and configured so that a temperature of the temperature control compartment is independent (via 53, 100, etc.) of a temperature of the storage compartment (see at least ¶ 59 and figs. 1, 2A & 3); and
a fan assembly (53 and related components) configured to cool (see at least ¶ 68) the temperature control room (200), including,
a fan case (53, per se) including an inlet (e.g., 533) configured to communicate with the storage compartment (40) and an outlet (531) configured to communicate with the temperature control room (200; see at least fig. 7), and
a fan (190) accommodated in the fan case (53) and configured to move air from inside the storage compartment (40) through the inlet (533) and to discharge air through the outlet (531) to the temperature control room (200) so that air from inside the storage compartment (40) is moved into the temperature control room (200; see at least fig. 7 and ¶ 70).
As per claim 2, Park discloses a duct (51, 52, 56, etc.) to guide air into the storage compartment (see at least fig. 3 and ¶ 64),
wherein the fan case (53, per se) is mountable on a front side of the duct (as shown in at least fig. 3).
As per claim 3, Park discloses a duct (51, 52, 56, etc.) to guide air into the storage compartment (see at least fig. 3 and ¶ 64),
wherein a space (see fig. 7) is configured between the inlet (533) of the fan case (53, per se) at a rear side of the fan case and a front side of the duct (51, 52, 56, etc.).
As per claim 4, Park discloses a duct (51, 52, 56, etc.) facing a rear wall of the inner case (see at least figs. 1, 2A and 7) and configured to guide air into the storage compartment (30, 40),
wherein the fan case (53) includes,
a first cover (532) that faces the temperature control room (200; see at least fig. 7), and
a second cover (120) removably coupled to a rear side of the first cover (532) with the fan (190) interposed therebetween (see at least figs. 7 & 13), and spaced apart from a front side of the duct (51, 52, 56, etc.).
As per claim 5, Park discloses wherein
the outlet (533) of the fan case (53) faces a rear side (see fig. 7) of the temperature control room (200).
As per claim 10, Park discloses wherein
the fan assembly (53, etc.) includes a fan connector (e.g., 132 and related components) to supply power to the fan (see at least ¶¶ 103 & 146), and
the duct (51, 52, 56, etc.) includes a connector hole (square space for 53 shown in fig. 4) on the front side of the duct so as to allow the fan connector (132, etc.) to be inserted into the connector hole (see at least figs. 3, 4 and 6).
As per claim 11, Park discloses wherein
the fan assembly (53, etc.) includes,
a temperature sensor (inside 54) configured to detect a temperature of the temperature control room (200; see at least ¶ 75), and
a sensor connector (e.g., as part of the control system) to supply power to the temperature sensor (inside 54; see at least ¶ 75), and
the duct (51, 52, 56, etc.) includes a connector hole (54, per se) on the front side of the duct so as to allow the sensor connector to be inserted into the connector hole (see at least fig. 5).
As per claim 12, Park discloses a drawer case (210) that has an open front side (see at least fig. 8), that is mounted in the storage compartment (40), and that forms the temperature control room (200) in the storage compartment (40); and
a drawer (220, 226) configured to be inserted into and withdrawn from the drawer case (210) through the open front side (as shown in fig. 8).
As per claim 13, Park discloses a first side frame (a first 15) that is removably coupled to the inner case (see at least figs. 2A-2B);
a second side frame (a second 15) that is removably coupled to the inner case (see at least figs. 2A-2B), and
wherein, with the drawer case (210) mounted in the storage compartment (40; see fig. 2A), the first side frame (first 15) is adjacent to a right surface of the drawer case (as shown in fig. 2A) and the second side frame (second 15) is adjacent to a left surface of the drawer case (see at least ¶¶ 81-82).
As per claim 14, Park discloses wherein
the drawer case (210) includes,
a first case protrusion (first 212) that protrudes from the right surface of the drawer case (see at least fig. 2A and 3), and
a second case protrusion (a second 212) that protrudes from the left surface of the drawer case (evident from at least ¶ 81), and
the first case protrusion (first 212) and the second case protrusion (second 212) are configured so that, with the drawer case (210) mounted in the storage compartment (see fig. 2A), the first case protrusion (first 212) interferes with the first side frame (first 15) and the second case protrusion (second 212) interferes with the second side frame (second 15) so that a movement of the drawer case (210) in the storage compartment is restricted (see at least the last sentence of ¶ 82).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 15 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 all1 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art, when taken as a whole, does not appear to reasonably anticipate nor render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as currently recited in at least claims 6 and 15.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jianying C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 Disclaimer: failure to include all the intervening limitations will result in a different claim scope, which may require a new grounds of rejection prior to a final determination of allowability.
Prosecution Insights