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 .
This is the First Office action on the Merits from the examiner in charge of this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: (i) claim 1, line 16, “is another” should be “another”; (ii) claim 4, line 1, “wherein the mounting member that accommodates” should be “wherein the mounting member accommodates”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, line 14, “a mounting member disposed coupled” is improper in context, thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 3-11 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, a rejected claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "both side portions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 2-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0018403 to Park et al (hereinafter (Park) .
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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) 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USP 11047613 to Park et al (hereinafter Park).
Park discloses (Claim 12). A refrigerator 1 comprising: a cabinet 10 that defines a storage space; and a door 32 comprising a door body 40 configured to open and close at least a portion of the storage space and a panel assembly 110 detachably disposed at the door body, wherein the panel assembly 110 comprises: a panel 111 that defines a front surface of the door 32, and a panel holder 120,130,140 protruded toward the door body 40, wherein the door body 40 comprises (such as shown in Fig. 4): a door liner 60 defining a rear surface of the door body, a body plate 42 defining a front surface of the door body and disposed to face a rear surface of the panel assembly 110, a cap decoration 70,80 defining top and bottom surfaces of the door body, a side decoration 50 defining both left and right surfaces of the door body, an insulator 90 filled in an internal space defined by coupling the body plate, the door liner, the side decoration, the cap decoration, and a holder case 100 disposed inside the door body and coupled to an end of the panel holder inserted through a plate opening formed at the body plate, and wherein a portion of the holder case 100 is supported to the side decoration and an another portion of the holder case coupled to the body plate (Figs. 5-6); (Claim 13). The refrigerator of claim 12, wherein the side decoration 50 includes a supporting portion 44 protruding at a side surface to be coupled to a side end of the body plate, and wherein the supporting portion 44 is away from a front end of the side decoration, and the portion of the holder case is supported by the supporting portion; (Claim 14). The 105
refrigerator of claim 13, wherein the holder case 100 comprises: a case body that defines a front surface of the holder case 100 and is in contact with the body plate and the side decoration, the case body defining a holder accommodation portion 105 recessed into the case body; and a pair of case restriction portions 49 that protrude from an inside of the case body toward a back cover of the panel assembly 70, and wherein the pair of case restriction portions 106 are spaced apart from each other and receive a holder protrusion 132 of the panel holder 130 therebetween; (Claim 15). The refrigerator of claim 14, wherein the case body includes: a front surface support portion disposed to be stepped backward, and supported by the supporting portion of the side decoration, and a side surface support portion bent backward from an extending end of the front surface support portion, and supported by the side surface of the side decoration; (Claim 17). The refrigerator of claim 12, wherein the panel holder 130 is provided in plurality along both the left and right sides of the panel assembly 110, and wherein the holder case 100 is provided in plurality along both the left and right sides of the body plate as corresponding positions to the panel holder; (Claim 18). The refrigerator of claim 12, wherein the body plate 42 is made of a metal material, and wherein upper and lower ends of the body plate are connected with the cap decoration 70,80, both side ends of the body plate are connected with the cap decoration; (Claim 19). The refrigerator of claim 12, wherein the side decoration 46 is further protruded forward relative to the body plate 42 and is in contact with both side ends of the panel assembly 70 (Figs. 11 & 15).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12253297. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recites, at least, a refrigerator comprising: a cabinet that defines a storage space; and a door comprising a door body configured to open and close at least a portion of the storage space and a panel assembly detachably disposed at the door body, wherein the panel assembly comprises: a lighting device configured to output light, a panel that defines a front surface of the door and is configured to transmit the light with a set color, a light guide plate disposed rearward relative to the panel and configured to guide the light emitted from the lighting device, a back cover that defines a rear surface of the panel assembly and is configured to cover the light guide plate, a panel holder protruded toward the door body, and a mounting member disposed coupled on a back surface of the panel and configured to couple with both side ends of the light guide plate, and wherein a portion of the panel holder is coupled to the mounting member and is another portion of the panel holder is passed through the back cover to be coupled to the door body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and all show structures similar to various elements of applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH VAN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, DANIEL 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.
HVT
May 30, 2026
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights