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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/6/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: at least reference character 14. See 00062. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because reference character 12 points to an outer surface and reference character 13 points to an inner surface in contrast to 00062. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detrick et al. (US5271240) in view of Regimand et al. (US2003/0209071).
Regarding Claim 1, Detrick teaches a refrigerator [fig 1] comprising:
a storage compartment [10, 12; col 2, lines 37-48];
a door [16, 18] configured to open or close the storage compartment [col 2, lines 37-48]; and
an airtight box including a storage container [84] to store food therein and a case [at 82] to receive the storage container [col 3, line 25-col 4, line 24; figs 8 &9]; wherein the airtight box comprises: a vacuum device [90] configured to draw in air from the interior of the storage container to lower an internal pressure of the storage container [col 3, line 25-col 4, line 24; figs 6 & 7].
Detrick does not explicitly teach wherein the airtight box comprises: a sealing member to be provided between the storage container and the case so that while the sealing member is provided between the storage container and the case, the sealing member is configured to seal an interior of the storage container;
and the storage container comprises a vacuum portion having a volume which is changeable in response to the internal pressure of the storage container.
However, Regimand teaches an evacuation/sealing device [fig 1A] wherein an airtight box [12] comprises a sealing member [16] to be provided between the storage container [25] and the case [13] so that while the sealing member is provided between the storage container and the case, the sealing member is configured to seal an interior of the storage container [0096; fig 1A & 1B] and the storage container [25] comprises a vacuum portion having a volume which is changeable in response to the internal pressure of the storage container [0096-0099; See also fig 9] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a process that produces a sealed product [0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Detrick to have wherein the airtight box comprises: a sealing member to be provided between the storage container and the case so that while the sealing member is provided between the storage container and the case, the sealing member is configured to seal an interior of the storage container and the storage container [6] comprises a vacuum portion having a volume which is changeable in response to the internal pressure of the storage container in view of the teachings of Regimand where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a process that produces a sealed product.
Regarding Claim 2, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Regimand teaches wherein the vacuum portion comprises a diaphragm [see at least bag 25 at fig 2] deformable in response to the internal pressure of the storage container [0096-0099].
Regarding Claim 3, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 above and Detrick teaches wherein the diaphragm is a first diaphragm [at 84] configured to receive the food [col 3, line 25-col 4, line 24; figs 8 &9], and the vacuum portion comprises a second diaphragm [at 86] configured to cover an upper portion of the first diaphragm, and the food is stored between the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm [col 3, line 25-col 4, line 24; figs 8 &9].
Regarding Claim 11, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Regimand teaches wherein the airtight box further comprises an inflatable member [25] attached to an inner upper surface of the case [at 16] to allow the volume to increase in response to operation of the vacuum device [0096-0099; figs 1-3].
Regarding Claim 12, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 11 above and Detrick teaches wherein the vacuum device [30] is arranged on an outside of the case [60] to draw in air from inside the case, and the storage container [72] comprises a ventilation hole [at least the open top] formed to communicate with the interior of the case to allow the vacuum device to draw in air from inside the storage container [col 3, line 25-col 4, line 24; figs 2 & 6].
Regarding Claim 13, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 above and Detrick teaches wherein the case [60] comprises a front opening for entry and exit of the storage container and a flange around the front opening [See fig 6], the storage container comprises a front panel formed to cover the front opening of the case, and a sealing member [76] is arranged on the flange to seal the airtight box [col 3, line 25-col 4, line 24; fig 6].
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detrick et al. (US5271240) and Regimand et al. (US2003/0209071) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Misumi (JPH08168526A).
Regarding Claim 6, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 above and Regimand teaches wherein the storage container comprises an edge portion [at 16] surrounding an upper opening, and the sealing member [16] is a first sealing member on the edge portion [0096-0099; figs 1 & 2]. Detrick does not explicitly teach where the airtight box comprises a second sealing member on the case to seal the storage container.
However, Misumi teaches a sealed container [0001] having where the airtight sealed container comprises a first sealing member and a second sealing member [51, 52] on the container to seal the container [0028-0031; fig 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a sealed container which exhibits excellent airtightness [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Detrick to have where the airtight box comprises a second sealing member on the case to seal the storage container in view of the teachings of Misumi where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a sealed container which exhibits excellent airtightness.
Regarding Claim 7, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 above and Regimand teaches wherein the diaphragm is a first diaphragm configured to receive the food, the first diaphragm being fitted and coupled between the first sealing member and the edge portion, and the vacuum portion comprises a second diaphragm that is fitted and coupled between the second sealing member and an inner upper surface of the case [see Regimand at 0096-0096; figs 1-3; and Misumi at 0028; fig 2].
See also MPEP 2141.03 where "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detrick et al. (US5271240), Regimand et al. (US2003/0209071) and Misumi (JPH08168526A) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN10976465A).
Regarding Claim 8, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 above and Detrick teaches wherein the storage container [72] comprises a rail configured to be inserted into and removed from the case, and the case comprises a guide rail configured to correspond to the rail to guide the rail [col 3, line 25-col 4, line 24; figs 8 &9].
Detrick does not teach where at a rear end, the rail is higher than a front end of the rail to allow the storage container to rise in response to insertion of the storage container into the case.
However, Wang teaches a refrigerator drawer assembly [0001] where at a rear end [at 322], a rail [3] is higher than a front end [at 323] of the rail to allow a drawer [2] to rise in response to insertion of the drawer into a case [0048; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide wherein the cover plate automatically rises and separates from the drawer as the drawer is pulled out, so as to avoid noise caused by collision between the cover plate and the drawer, thereby improving the user experience [0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Detrick to have where at a rear end, the rail is higher than a front end of the rail to allow the storage container to rise in response to insertion of the storage container into the case in view of the teachings of Wang where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide wherein the cover plate automatically rises and separates from the drawer as the drawer is pulled out, so as to avoid noise caused by collision between the cover plate and the drawer, thereby improving the user experience.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detrick et al. (US5271240) and Regimand et al. (US2003/0209071) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xuan (CN204214187U).
Regarding Claim 4, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the vacuum portion comprises a check valve connected to the vacuum device to maintain an internal pressure of the vacuum device.
However, Xuan teaches a refrigerator compartment [0002] where a vacuum portion [at least vacuuming device at fig 1] comprises a check valve [12] connected to a vacuum device [8] to maintain an internal pressure of the vacuum device [0016; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a structure that prevents air backflow [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Detrick to have wherein the vacuum portion comprises a check valve connected to the vacuum device to maintain an internal pressure of the vacuum device in view of the teachings of Xuan where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a structure that prevents air backflow.
Regarding Claim 5, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above and Xuan teaches wherein a real wall of the storage container comprises a rear coupling groove [at least the hole structure in body 1 that encompasses the check valve], and the check valve is connected to the vacuum device through the rear coupling groove [0016; fig 1].
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detrick et al. (US5271240) and Regimand et al. (US2003/0209071) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shuiwang (CN215522134U).
Regarding Claim 9, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Detrick teaches wherein the storage container comprises a front panel [74] formed to cover a front opening of the case [60], and the front panel comprises a handle [78], and the vacuum portion comprises a check valve [42; col 3, line 25-col 4, line 24; fig 6].
Detrick does not teach where the check valve is configured to be opened by the handle.
However, Shuiwang teaches vacuum storage equipment having a drawer [0001; 0002; fig 1] where a check valve [3] is configured to be opened by a handle [2; 0024-0027; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a valve structure that can simultaneously complete the venting operation and pull out the drawer [0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Detrick to have where the check valve is configured to be opened by the handle in view of the teachings of Shuiwang where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a valve structure that can simultaneously complete the venting operation and pull out the drawer.
Regarding Claim 10, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 above and Shuiwang teaches wherein the storage container comprises an interlocking pin [5] configured to press the check valve [3] in response to rotation of the handle [2; 0024-0027].
Regarding Claim 14, Detrick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 14 above and Shuiwang teaches wherein a front panel [6] of a storage container [0006] comprises a handle [2] that is rotatable, and an air passage [12] configured to communicate an outside with the vacuum portion, and the front panel of the storage container comprises an opening/closing device [3] coupled with the handle to open or close the air passage [0024-0027].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhou (CN108895748A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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, Jerry Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights