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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 5,927,078 to Watanabe et al. (Watanabe).
In reference to claim 1, Watanabe teaches a refrigerator (FIG. 1-7) comprising a main body (5, FIG. 2) having a storage compartment (1, FIG. 1-7) therein; a cooling unit (10, FIG. 1-7) including a Peltier device (12, FIG. 1-7) having a cooling surface facing the storage compartment, and a radiation surface (cold and hot sides of Peltier device 12, FIG. 1-7, respectively), wherein the Peltier device (12, FIG. 1-7) is configured to transfer heat from the cooling surface to the radiation surface to cool the storage compartment when a current is supplied to the Peltier device (col 2, lines 8-18); and a radiation unit (21, FIG. 1-7) including a water jacket (13, FIG. 1-7) contacting the radiation surface (hot surface of 12, FIG. 6) to absorb heat radiated from the radiation surface into a coolant (40, FIG. 6) in the water jacket (FIG. 6), a radiator (17, FIG. 1-7; col 4, lines 57-62) in the main body (5, FIG. 1-7) and spaced apart from the cooling unit (10, FIG. 1-7) and configured to radiate heat absorbed by the coolant (40, FIG. 1-7) to an outside of the main body, and a coolant flow path (15, FIG. 1-7) configured to circulate the coolant between the water jacket (13, FIG. 1-7) and the radiator (17, FIG. 1-7).
In reference to claim 2, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches wherein the water jacket (13, FIG. 6) includes an internal space (39, FIG. 1-7) through which the coolant (40, FIG. 1-7) flows, and a heat transfer structure (35, FIG. 6) expanding a heat exchange area between the water jacket and the coolant in the internal space (FIG. 6).
In reference to claim 3, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches wherein the heat transfer structure (35, FIG. 6) includes a plurality of fins (nozzles 36 interpreted as fins, FIG. 6) protruding from an inner surface (32, FIG. 6) of the water jacket (13, FIG. 6) toward the internal space (39, FIG. 6).
In reference to claim 4, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 3 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches wherein the water jacket includes a water cooling block (33, FIG. 1-7) contacting the radiation surface of the Peltier device (12, FIG. 1-7) and a cover block (28, FIG. 1-7) coupled to the water cooling block to form the internal space therebetween, and the plurality of fins (36, FIG. 6) protrude from the water cooling block (33, FIG. 6) to the internal space.
In reference to claim 5, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 4 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches a sealing member (29, FIG. 6) between the water cooling block and the cover block, and pressed by protrusion end portions of the plurality of fins (35 as a portion of the water jacket 13, pressing on 29, FIG. 6).
In reference to claim 6, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches wherein the water jacket includes an inlet (30, FIG. 6) to introduce the coolant (40, FIG. 6) into the internal space, and an outlet (31, FIG. 6), above the inlet, to discharge the coolant from the internal space (FIG. 6).
In reference to claim 7, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches a cooling heat sink (11, FIG. 6) mounted on the cooling surface to exchange heat with air in the storage compartment (1, FIG. 3), wherein the water jacket (13, FIG. 1-7) is fixed to the cooling heat sink (11, FIG. 6) with the Peltier device (12, FIG. 3) therebetween; and a spacer (23, FIG. 6) between the water jacket (13, FIG. 6) and the cooling heat sink (11, FIG. 6), and surrounding the Peltier device (12, FIG. 6).
In reference to claim 9, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches wherein the cooling unit (10, FIG. 3) is above the radiator (17, FIG. 3).
In reference to claim 10, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches wherein the cooling unit (10, FIG. 3) includes a plurality of Peltier devices (12, FIG. 3).
In reference to claim 11, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 10 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches wherein the radiation unit includes a plurality of water jackets respectively corresponding to the plurality of Peltier devices (FIG. 3 and FIG. 6; for every Peltier device 12, there is a water jacket 13).
In reference to claim 12, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches wherein the coolant flow path connects the plurality of water jackets in parallel to the radiator (inherent in the structure of FIG. 1-7; since the freezing and defrosting occur at the same time; col 5, lines 33-36).
In reference to claim 13, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 10 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches wherein the plurality of Peltier devices (12, FIG. 3) are spaced apart from each other in an up/down direction (FIG. 1-7).
In reference to claim 14, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 10 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches a control unit (63, FIG. 7) configured to separately control currents flowing through the plurality of Peltier devices (12, FIG. 3).
In reference to claim 15, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 14 above, and Watanabe additionally teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to control the plurality of Peltier devices such that some Peltier devices among the plurality of Peltier devices operate in a defrosting mode and other Peltier devices among the plurality of Peltier devices operate in a cooling mode (col 5, lines 33-36).
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.
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) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe.
In reference to claim 8, Watanabe teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the coolant flows in a laminar state in the water jacket.
However, the Examiner takes the Official Notice of facts not in the record by relying on “common knowledge” of various heat transfer properties of water, when used as a coolant, needing to be supplied in a laminar flow to the heat exchanger to be obvious in order to provide predictable, smooth fluid flow producing a well-defined velocity and temperature, which, in turn, results in relatively easy optimization of the heat transfer process within the cooling system of a refrigerator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights