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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/02/2025 was filed after the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation of “unit that that connects” (claim 1, line 7) is believed to be --unit that connects--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Windrich (US 10,080,446).
Regarding claim 1, Windrich discloses a refrigerator comprising:
a cabinet (1) that defines a storage compartment;
a first door (3) configured to open and close at least a portion of the storage compartment, the first door having a tube through hole (refer to opening 21 as can be seen from fig.4);
a first door hinge unit (including upper pin 13) that connects the first door to the cabinet;
a second door (5) connected to the first door (3);
a second door hinge unit (including lower pin 11) that connects the second door to the first door (refer to fig. 4); and
a supply tube (electrical cable 17) withdrawn from the tube through hole (refer to opening 21 as can be seen from fig.4) of the first door (3) and inserted in the second door (5).
Regarding claim 2, Windrich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Windrich discloses wherein the tube through hole (refer to opening 21 as can be seen from fig.4) is defined in a lower side of a front surface (9) of the first door (refer to the surface as viewed from fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Windrich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Windrich discloses wherein the first door (3) comprises a guide groove (refer to bushing 23) that is recessed in the front surface (9) of the first door (as viewed from fig. 4) and to guide the supply tube withdrawn from the tube through hole (refer to fig. 4), and wherein the tube through hole (21) is defined in the guide groove (23).
Regarding claim 9, Windrich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Windrich discloses wherein the second door hinge unit comprises: a hinge bracket (6) coupled to the first door (3); and a hinge shaft (11) extended from the hinge bracket, and wherein the supply tube (17) is inserted into the hinge shaft (refer to fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Windrich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Windrich discloses a folding prevention member (refer to bushing 23, which helps avoid twisting of the supply tube) configured to surround an outer circumferential surface of the supply tube withdraw from the tube through hole (refer to fig.4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windrich (US 10,080,446) and Kang (US 2013/0047656).
Regarding claim 20, Windrich meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Windrich discloses the second door, but fails to explicitly disclose a dispenser, and the supply tube being connected to the dispenser.
However, Kang teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide a refrigerator door (11) including a dispenser (14), in order for water stored in a storage compartment to be extracted, without having to open the door of the refrigerator (refer to fig. 7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Windrich by providing a dispenser as taught by Kang, and the supply tube being connected to the dispenser (since they are connected to the same door), in order for a user to extract water stored, without having to open the door of the refrigerator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 11-13 and 15-19 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ANA M VAZQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights