DETAILED ACTION
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) 5-9 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon (US patent application publication 2018/0003428).
Regarding claim 5, Kwon discloses a refrigeration appliance, comprising: a door (20) having a front door panel (21); a dispenser (30) having a dispensing cavity (301) disposed in said door; a mounting portion (Fig. 3) having a first receiving portion (31) disposed along a side of said dispensing cavity and a second receiving portion (311) in communication with said first receiving portion on a side of said first receiving portion away from said dispensing cavity, said first receiving portion being open towards a front of said door, and said second receiving portion being disposed behind said front door panel and covered by said front door panel (Fig. 3); and a display unit (40) having a first part disposed in said first receiving portion (Fig. 3) and exposed to said front of said door and a second part (425) disposed in said second receiving portion and disposed behind said front door panel.
Regarding claim 6, Kwon discloses a refrigeration appliance wherein said display unit includes: a display panel having a display portion (411) and/or an operation portion (412) and is disposed only in said first part of said first part and said second part; and/or a printed circuit board at least partially disposed in said second receiving portion; and/or a support having one part disposed in said first receiving portion and another part disposed in said second receiving portion.
Regarding claim 7, Kwon discloses a refrigeration appliance wherein: said display unit has a touch film, said touch film has a sensing portion (46) disposed in said first part and a connection portion extending from said first part to said second part to be connected to said printed circuit board disposed behind said support; and/or said printed circuit board has a plurality of light-emitting elements disposed in said first part; and/or said display unit contains a connection terminal configured for connecting to a connector disposed in said door, and said connection terminal is disposed in said second part; and/or said support has a display frame disposed in said first receiving portion and a hidden frame disposed in said second receiving portion, a thickness of said display frame is greater than a thickness of said hidden frame, and a step is formed on front surfaces of said display frame and said hidden frame; and/or along a direction perpendicular to said display panel, a projection area of said support is larger than a projection area of said display panel; and/or a thickness of said first part is greater than a thickness of said second part; and/or said first part has a front surface which is substantially flush with a front surface of said door, and a spacing exists between said second part and said front surface of said door.
Regarding claim 8, Kwon discloses a refrigeration appliance wherein: said first part is adapted for insertion into said first receiving portion along a direction parallel to a front surface of said display unit (Figs. 3-4); and/or said second part is adapted for insertion into said second receiving portion along the direction parallel to said front surface of said display unit.
Regarding claim 9, Kwon discloses a refrigeration appliance further comprising: a first guide mechanism (311) configured to guide said display unit for insertion into said second receiving portion is disposed between said first part and an inner wall of said first receiving portion (Figs. 3 & 4); and/or a second guide mechanism configured to guide said display unit for insertion into said second receiving portion is disposed between said second part and an inner wall of said second receiving portion.
Regarding claim 11, Kwon discloses a refrigeration appliance further comprising: a first limiting structure (walls of 30, see Fig. 3) configured to limit movement of said first part along at least one direction is disposed between said first part and an inner wall of said first receiving portion; and/or a second limiting structure (walls of 30, see Fig. 3) configured to limit movement of said second part along at least one direction is disposed between said second part and an inner wall of said second receiving portion.
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon.
Regarding claim 14, Kwon discloses the refrigeration appliance as claimed. Kwon does not disclose a refrigeration appliance wherein a ratio of said projection area of said support to said projection area of said display panel ranges from 1.1 to 2. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Kwon wherein a ratio of said projection area of said support to said projection area of said display panel ranges from 1.1 to 2, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and would have yielded a predictable result. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 are allowed.
Claims 10, 12 & 13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/1/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Kwon does not teach a second receiving portion located behind and covered by the front door panel, the examiner disagrees. Kwon teaches mounting grooves 311 which are a second receiving portion that is located behind and covered by the front door panel as shown in Fig. 3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-7624. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Dan 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.
/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
