DETAILED ACTION1
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim 12 is objected to because of a grammatical informality. Claim 12 is missing the word ‘a’ prior to the word thermal. Appropriate correction is required.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-8, 11-14, & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006 064288 to Hoshizaki in view of JP 2011 163639 to Panasonic.
Claim 1 recites a method of manufacturing a refrigerator. Hoshizaki relates to a refrigerator with a glass door, and by extension, the existence of methods of fabricating a door having the illustrated structures. See Hoshizaki [0001] and Figs. 1-2. Figures 1-2 of Hoshizaki show a formed panel assembly [that has]… a front panel (40) made of glass…a rear panel (42) spaced apart from the front panel and made of glass and…at least one spacer (38) arranged between…configured to seal an inner space between the front panel and the rear panel. See Hoshizaki [0009]-[0010]. Trulaske further shows this panel coupl[ed]…with a frame assembly (26, 28) to form an interim door (20). Figures 1-2 of Hoshizaki also show that the frame assembly includes: an upper frame configured to provide an upper surface, a lower frame configured to provide a lower surface, a side frame configured to provide a side surface, and a rear frame configured to provide a rear surface. The rear frame in particular being the portion of the back plate (28) that overlaps behind the rear side of the rear glass (42), shown in figure 1. Hoshizaki further teaches that this frame is filled with insulation foam (36). See Hoshizaki [0009] and Fig. 1.
Claim 1 recites orienting longitudinally the interim door to be in a direction of gravity and then injecting a foaming agent into an injection hole provided on an upper surface of the interim door…[to allow] the foaming agent to flow at least longitudinally in the direction of gravity into a foaming space formed between the panel assembly and the frame assembly. Figure 1 of Hoshizaki shows the recited foaming space and the presence of the foam, but does not discuss how the foam is injected. But one of ordinary skill would know that the foam must be introduced or injected in some manner, and would look to the prior art to find known methods for doing so. Panasonic relates to a technique for injecting insulation into the frame of an insulated fridge door. See Panasonic [0001] & [0006]. As such, it is highly analogous art. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, it would have been obvious to modify Hoshizaki to use the injection method of Panasonic.
Panasonic teaches an injection port (106) is placed an upper surface of the interim door. See Panasonic [0029]-[0033] and Fig. 3 (note that figure 3 is the overhead view). Panasonic further teaches injecting through this port with the door standing upright, such that the longitudinal[l direction of] the interim door [is] in a direction of gravity. See Panasonic [0038]. Panasonic then teaches injecting a foaming agent into an injection hole provided on an upper surface of the interim door…[to allow] the foaming agent to flow at least longitudinally in the direction of gravity into a foaming space formed between the panel assembly and the frame assembly. See Panasonic [0035]-[0038].
Claim 1 also recites that the panel assembly [gets] fixed to the frame assembly based on a foaming press. In other words, the expanding foam presses the two elements together. Figure 1 of Hoshizaki shows that the interior foam directly impinges on both the front and rear glass panes along their edges. When introducing the foaming insulation of Panasonic, the resulting expansion of the foam on both sides would create opposing pressure on both sides of the glass. This in turn would create a pressure fit locking the foam to the glass to form a door (20) as recited.
Regarding claim 2, figure 1 of Hoshizaki shows the rear frame [has] an opening, and the rear panel of glass borders and cover[s] the opening. In other words, the two structures mate and seal. Claim 3 recites the interim door is formed by fixing the panel assembly to the frame assembly using a double-sided tape. Hoshizaki teaches that a wire element (48) runs from a heating element in the frame to the panel assembly. See Hoshizaki [0011] and Fig. 1. Hoshizaki teaches that this wire is taped to the glass panel. Id. This tape would need to be placed prior to the insulation or there would be no access. Thus, Hoshizaki teaches that part of the process of forming the interim door is connecting the panel and frame using tape. This lies within the broadest reasonable interpretation of fixing the two elements together. While the recited aluminum foil tape is not explicitly a double-sided tape. Examiner takes Official Notice that double sided tape exists. It would have been obvious to substitute double sided tape through portions that would benefit from adhesion on both sides because it is obvious to substitute known elements. See MPEP 2143(B).
Claim 4 recites the lower frame includes a sensor mounting portion to mount a sensor configured to detect a user approaching the panel assembly of the door. Claim 4 does not recite actually mounting the sensor, nor what dimensions such a sensor would be, or what such a mounting portion would structurally necessitate. As such, examiner arbitrarily designates that any region of the lower frame could be such a mounting portion because a sensor could later be taped to any flat surface.
Regarding claim 5, Hoshizaki teaches a heat bridge in the form of wire (48) that is connected to an extension of the front panel as shown in figure 1. Regarding claim 6, Hoshizaki further teaches installing a heating element (44) just adjacent to an opaque portion of the front panel and is therefore between the heat bridge and the opaque portion. Id. Regarding claim 7, Hishizaki teaches the panel is glass, but does not explicitly mention it being tempered glass. But it is examiner’s understanding that tempered glass is the standard material for fridge doors and that one of ordinary skill would infer this material. Hoshizaki also teaches that the door is designed to allow the inside to be seen. See Hoshizaki [0001]. As such, it is further inferred that it is colored or coated to have a prescribed light transmittance such that an inside of the cabinet is viewable when a light is turned on inside the refrigerator.
Claim 8 recites that a size of the front panel is greater than the rear panel such that the front panel includes an extension extending beyond an edge of the rear panel, and a heating element is provided on the extension. Hoshizaki does not teach such a size discrepancy, but does explicitly show a heating element adjacent an extending region of the front panel in figure 1. It would have been obvious to slightly reduce the size of the rear panel as a mere design choice, such a modification would not adversely affect the door of Hoshizaki in any way. Regarding claim 11, figure 1 of Hoshizaki shows the thermal insulator (36) is in contact with a rear surface of the rear panel, the side frame, and the rear frame (28).
Claim 12 recites that the spacer is made of aluminum or is [a] thermal protection spacer (TPS). Applicant does not explicitly define what a thermal protection spacer is, and a review of the art does not indicate that this is a term of art with a specific definition. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation is merely a spacer that acts to improve thermal insulation in some manner. The spacer in Hoshizaki is designed to prevent heat loss and may therefore be considered a TPS. Regarding claim 13, figure 2 of Hoshizaki shows a handle is provided on a first surface of the frame assembly, the first surface being the front surface. The foaming injection hole based on the proposed modification would be provided on a second surface of the frame assembly, specifically the top surface. Regarding claim 14, Panasonic teaches the inlet hole can be opened and closed. See Panasonic [0032]. The ability to close the hole necessitates some form of cover that is inferred to be present.
Claim 16 largely recites the same features as claim 1. These features are rejected using the same art and rationale. Claim 16 then further recites a second hole…spaced apart from the first hole and then injecting the foaming agent into both holes. Panasonic only teaches on injection hole. But MPEP 2144.04(VI) B states it is obvious to duplicate parts. In this case, it would have been obvious to have two injection holes to facilitate faster injection, or injection to both sides at the same time. As for the spacing, figure 2 of Panasonic shows seven spaced holes. In Panasonic the central inlet (106) is used for injection, while the remaining holes (107) are for air discharge from within the frame. But one could easily envision using two equidistantly spaced holes on opposite sides for injection. The act of covering is taught for the same reason as in claim 14.
Claim 17 recites the support portion comprises a frame having the upper, lower, first side and second side surfaces, and further includes a rear frame. Hoshizaki shows a frame having these portions in figures 1-2. Panasonic teaches the necessity of vent holes. The specific location of these vents holes is deemed to be a mere design choice and thus it would have been obvious to place them on the rear frame. Regarding claim 18, Panasonic shows a plurality of vent holes arranged in a line n figure 2. Panasonic does not explicitly teach these being placed on [a] gasket mounting groove having a gasket. But logically one would want a sealing gasket around intake and exit ports.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006 064288 to Hoshizaki in view of JP 2011 163639 to Panasonic, and further in view of U.S. 2010/0255225 to Cording.
Claim 9 recites the rear panel is low-e glass to shield heat loss caused by radiation. Hoshizaki does not teach using low-e-glass, but it would have been obvious do so in view of Cording. Cording teaches that using low-coatings on glass leads to substantial savings in commercial refrigerators. See Cording [0006]. It therefore would have been obvious to modify Hoshizaki to obtain this benefit.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006 064288 to Hoshizaki in view of JP 2011 163639 to Panasonic, and further in view of U.S. 2006/0103269 to Artwohl.
Claim 10 recites an intermediate panel provided between the front panel and the rear panel. Hoshizaki does not teach a three-panel door. But it would have been obvious to have one in view of Artwohl. Artwohl teaches that three panels doors are known in the refrigerator arts. See Artwohl [0018]. Artwohl teaches that a three panel door improves energy performance and reduces condensation. See Artwohl [0020] It would have been obvious to modify Hoshizaki to add a third panel to obtain these benefits. The additional panel would in turn necessitate a second spacer provided between the intermediate panel and the rear panel, and…a sealant provided outside the first and second spacers to operate properly.
Claims 1, 15-16, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of JP 2006 064288 to Hoshizaki and JP 2011 163639 to Panasonic.
Claim 15 recites the cabinet includes a freezing compartment disposed at a lower portion of the cabinet, a refrigerating compartment disposed at an upper portion of the cabinet, a left door and a right door configured to open or close the refrigerating chamber and wherein the right door includes a main door having an opening, and a sub door comprising the door having the panel assembly configured to open or close the opening. AAPA teaches the existence of fridge models having this configuration. See Paragraph [0004] of Applicant’s originally filed specification. AAPA fails to teach forming the show case panel in the manner recited in claim 1. But it would have been obvious to modify AAPA to fabricate this panel using the structures of Hoshizaki because it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). It likewise would have been obvious to use the insulation injection method and structures of Panasonic for the same reason. Id. This combination also teaches parent claim 1 by extension.
Claim 19 reciters the same features as claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons, which in turn rejects parent claim 16.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”
Prosecution Insights