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 .
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 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,140,369. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the overlap in scope between the patented claims and the claims in this application renders obvious claims 16-20 of this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, the recitation “each link” should be “each said link”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11,459,810 B1 (Smith).
With respect to claim 16: Smith discloses a refrigerator comprising: a cabinet (body 200) that defines a storage space (not numbered in Fig. 3A, includes walls 300 and 302; “enclosed space” @ col. 4, lines 19-30); a door (door 102) configured to rotate relative to the cabinet and to open and close at least a portion of the storage space; a hinge bracket (body section 308) fixed to a front surface (front face 304) of the cabinet (Fig. 3A and col. 4, lines 38-48); and a link module (bottom hinge 204, exclusive of body section 308) coupled to the hinge bracket along a rotation axis of the door and configured to rotate the door relative to the cabinet, the link module being fixed to a top surface of the door or a bottom surface of the door (door section 210 mounts to bottom surface 206 of door 102 @ col. 4, lines 38-48, Fig. 3A, and Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-13, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2754982 A1 (Buosi).
With respect to claim 1: Buosi discloses a multi-joint link hinge comprising: a hinge bracket (mounting base 21) comprising: a base portion (walls 21a, 21d) that defines a plurality of screw coupling holes (not-numbered in Figs. 3-8) at a vertical surface of the base portion, and a plurality of side portions (walls 21b, 21c) that extend from the base portion in a horizontal direction and are spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction; a link module comprising a plurality of links (at least arms 24, 25; and link members 26a, 26b, 27a, 27b) that are coupled to the plurality of side portions along an axis that extends in the vertical direction (axis defined by vertically aligned pins 33, 34), the plurality of links being disposed between the plurality of side portions; and a door bracket (base plate 22, 23) coupled to the link module.
With respect to claim 2: Buosi discloses wherein the link module comprises: an upper link module (at least arm 24; and links 26a, 26b) coupled to the hinge bracket and configured to rotate about a rotation shaft (pins 33, 34); and a lower link module (at least arm 25; and links 27a, 27b) disposed vertically below the upper link module and configured to rotate about the rotation shaft independent of the upper link module.
With respect to claim 11: Buosi discloses a multi-joint link hinge comprising: a hinge bracket (mounting base 21) comprising: a base portion (wall 21a) that defines a plurality of screw coupling holes (not-numbered in Figs. 3-8) at a vertical surface of the base portion, and a support portion (walls 21b, 21c) that protrudes from the vertical surface and extends in a horizontal direction; a link module comprising a plurality of links (at least arms 24, 25; and link members 26a, 26b, 27a, 27b), each link being coupled to a top surface of the support portion or a bottom surface of the support portion; and a door bracket (base plate 22, 23) coupled to the plurality of links.
With respect to claim 12: Buosi discloses wherein the hinge bracket further comprises a shielding portion (wall 21d) that is disposed at an end of the support portion and covers a side surface of the hinge bracket.
With respect to claim 13: Buosi discloses wherein the link module comprises: an upper link module (at least arm 24; and links 26a, 26b) coupled to the hinge bracket and configured to rotate about a rotation shaft (pins 33, 34); and a lower link module (at least arm 25; and links 27a, 27b) disposed vertically below the upper link module and configured to rotate about the rotation shaft independent of the upper link module.
With respect to claim 16: Buosi discloses a refrigerator (refrigerating appliance 1) comprising: a cabinet (body 2) that defines a storage space (compartment 9, 10); a door (door 12) configured to rotate relative to the cabinet and to open and close at least a portion of the storage space; a hinge bracket (mounting base 21) fixed to a front surface of the cabinet (front face 5a; see [0051]); and a link module (hinge module 30, 31) coupled to the hinge bracket along a rotation axis of the door and configured to rotate the door relative to the cabinet, the link module being fixed to a top surface of the door or a bottom surface of the door ([0058]-[0059]).
With respect to claim 17: Buosi discloses a refrigerator (refrigerating appliance 1) comprising: a cabinet (body 2) that defines an upper storage space (compartment 9) and a lower storage space (compartment 10) disposed vertically below the upper storage space; a barrier (divider 5) that partitions the upper storage space and the lower storage space from each other; an upper door (door 12) configured to rotate relative to the cabinet and to open and close the upper storage space; a lower door (door 13) configured to rotate relative to the cabinet and to open and close the lower storage space; a hinge bracket (mounting base 21) fixed to a front surface of the barrier (front surface 5a; see [0051]); an upper link module (at least arm 24; and links 26a, 26b) coupled to the hinge bracket along a rotation axis of the upper door and configured to rotate the upper door relative to the cabinet, the upper link module being fixed to a bottom surface of the upper door (lower edge 12b; see [0058]); and a lower link module (at least arm 25; and links 27a, 27b) coupled to the hinge bracket along a rotation axis of the lower door and configured to rotate the lower door relative to the cabinet, the lower link module being fixed to a top surface of the lower door (upper edge 13a; see [0059]).
With respect to claim 20: Buosi discloses wherein the hinge bracket comprises: a base portion (main wall 21a) that defines a plurality of screw coupling holes (not-numbered in Figs. 3-8) at a vertical surface of the base portion; and a support portion (wall 21b and/or wall 21c) that protrudes from the vertical surface and extends in a horizontal direction (Figs. 3-8).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 8-9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2754982 A1 (Buosi) as applied to claims 2 and 17 above, and further in view of US 11,661,781 B2 (Kikuchi).
With respect to claim 3: Buosi does not disclose “a supporter that is disposed between the upper link module and the lower link module, the supporter being configured to be in contact with the upper link module or the lower link module based on operation of the upper link module or the lower link module” as recited in claim 3.
Kikuchi discloses a refrigerator 100 including a hinge 5 for an upper door 3 and a lower door 4. The hinge 5 includes upper and lower multi-axis hinges 5B, 5C on a common body-side member 51, analogously to Buosi’s configuration.
In the embodiment of Kikuchi Figs. 1-7, each multi-axis hinge 5B, 5C includes an identical first shaft member P1 (col. 5, lines 4-16). In the alternative embodiment of Figs. 8a-8b, a common shaft member P1 connects the multi-axis hinges 5B, 5C. Such shaft member P1 is “a rotation shaft” as claimed. A supporter (not-numbered, see the annotated image below) is between the hinges 5B, 5C.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Comparing the figures of Kikuchi and Buosi, Kikuchi’s shaft member P1 is functionally equivalent to Buosi’s first and second pivotal pins 33, 34. In Buosi’s figures, the pivotal pins 33, 34 are separate, identical members on hinging elements 30, 31 – similarly to the configuration of shaft members P1 in Kikuchi Figs. 1-7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Buosi to have a common shaft member and supporter, replacing Buosi’s separate pivotal pins 33 and 34, because Kikuchi shows that is a known alternative and/or equivalent in the art.
With respect to claim 8: By making the same modifications as in the rejection of claim 3 above, the “supporter” of claim 3 meets the “spacer” of claim 8. Said “supporter”/”spacer” meets a spacer that is disposed inside the hinge bracket and penetrated by the rotation shaft, the spacer maintaining a fixed interval between the upper link module and the lower link module.
With respect to claim 9: Buosi, as modified, meets wherein the plurality of links of the lower link module comprise: a lower main link (arm 25) that is coupled to the hinge bracket and faces a bottom surface of the upper link module; a first lower sub link (link 27a) that is coupled to each of a first side of the lower main link and a first side of the door bracket; a second lower sub link (link 27b) that is coupled to each of a second side of the lower main link and a second side of the door bracket; and a lower connection link (not numbered, see the annotated image below) that is coupled to the first side of the lower main link and the second lower sub link.
PNG
media_image2.png
650
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 18: Buosi does not disclose “a supporter disposed vertically above the lower link module and configured to support the upper link module in a state in which the lower door is closed” as recited in claim 18.
Kikuchi discloses a refrigerator 100 including a hinge 5 for an upper door 3 and a lower door 4. The hinge 5 includes upper and lower multi-axis hinges 5B, 5C on a common body-side member 51, analogously to Buosi’s configuration.
In the embodiment of Kikuchi Figs. 1-7, each multi-axis hinge 5B, 5C includes an identical first shaft member P1 (col. 5, lines 4-16). In the alternative embodiment of Figs. 8a-8b, a common shaft member P1 connects the multi-axis hinges 5B, 5C. Such shaft member P1 is “a rotation shaft” as claimed. A supporter (not-numbered, see the annotated image below) is between the hinges 5B, 5C.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Comparing the figures of Kikuchi and Buosi, Kikuchi’s shaft member P1 is functionally equivalent to Buosi’s first and second pivotal pins 33, 34. In Buosi’s figures, the pivotal pins 33, 34 are separate, identical members on hinging elements 30, 31 – similarly to the configuration of shaft members P1 in Kikuchi Figs. 1-7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Buosi to have a common shaft member and supporter, replacing Buosi’s separate pivotal pins 33 and 34, because Kikuchi shows that is a known alternative and/or equivalent in the art.
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2754982 A1 (Buosi) as applied to claims 2 and 17 above, and further in view of US 2010/0127514 A1 (Nilsson).
With respect to claim 3: Buosi does not disclose “a supporter that is disposed between the upper link module and the lower link module, the supporter being configured to be in contact with the upper link module or the lower link module based on operation of the upper link module or the lower link module” as recited in claim 3.
Nilsson discloses a door-locking device that holds a refrigerator door closed. A ball 7 in a lubrication reservoir 8 of a panel 5 contacts a plate 3 attached to the door adjacent to the hinge thereof. A user pulls on the door to overcome the holding force of the ball 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Buosi’s hinge 20 to include Nilsson’s door-locking device, in order to hold Buosi’s door 12 and/or 13 in the closed position.
See Buosi Figs. 3-4. It is obvious to put Nilsson’s panel 5 and ball 7 on Buosi’s mounting base 21, to thereby engage the hinging element 30 in the closed position of door 12.
Such panel 5 and ball 7 on Buosi’s mounting base 21 meets “a supporter that is disposed between the upper link module and the lower link module, the supporter being configured to be in contact with the upper link module or the lower link module based on operation of the upper link module or the lower link module” as recited in claim 3.
With respect to claim 9: Buosi, as modified, meets wherein the plurality of links of the lower link module comprise: a lower main link (arm 25) that is coupled to the hinge bracket and faces a bottom surface of the upper link module; a first lower sub link (link 27a) that is coupled to each of a first side of the lower main link and a first side of the door bracket; a second lower sub link (link 27b) that is coupled to each of a second side of the lower main link and a second side of the door bracket; and a lower connection link (not numbered, see the annotated image below) that is coupled to the first side of the lower main link and the second lower sub link.
PNG
media_image2.png
650
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 18: Buosi does not disclose “a supporter disposed vertically above the lower link module and configured to support the upper link module in a state in which the lower door is closed” as recited in claim 18.
Nilsson discloses a door-locking device that holds a refrigerator door closed. A ball 7 in a lubrication reservoir 8 of a panel 5 contacts a plate 3 attached to the door adjacent to the hinge thereof. A user pulls on the door to overcome the holding force of the ball 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Buosi’s hinge 20 to include Nilsson’s door-locking device, in order to hold Buosi’s door 12 and/or 13 in the closed position.
See Buosi Figs. 3-4. It is obvious to put Nilsson’s panel 5 and ball 7 on Buosi’s mounting base 21, to thereby engage the hinging element 30 in the closed position of door 12.
Such panel 5 and ball 7 on Buosi’s mounting base 21 meets “a supporter disposed vertically above the lower link module and configured to support the upper link module in a state in which the lower door is closed” as recited in claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 10, 14-15, and 19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637