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 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 1-15 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 1 recites “a rib elastically formed on at least one side of the drawer” which is a product-by-process claim limitation. MPEP 2133 (I) states “‘[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. It is unclear what is meant by “elastically formed” and the specification fails to disclose a definition for “elastically formed”, therefore the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the claim language “a rib elastically formed” will be read as an elastic rib. Note that all materials have some degree of elastic properties, and that neither the claim language nor the specification discloses a specific material or degree of elasticity required.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeppel (U.S. Pat. No. 20220049893) in view of Wang (U.S. Pat. No. 11530864).
With respect to claim 1, Goeppel discloses a refrigerator (Fig. 1, refrigeration appliance 1) comprising: a main body (housing 2); a storage compartment comprising a front side that is open inside the main body (accommodation space 10 has an open front side); a drawer (Fig. 2, food-holding tray 12) configured to be insertable and withdrawable within the storage compartment (Paragraph 0057, “food-holding tray 12 is… linearly slidable in this accommodation space 10”); and a guide rail (Figs. 4-5, guiding apparatus 35) configured to guide an insertion and withdrawal of the drawer (12) and comprising a catch portion (rear stop 41, front stop 42) configured to limit an insertion range and a withdrawal range of the drawer (Paragraph 0070, “stop 41 is a push-in stop”; Paragraph 0073, “stop 42 forms a pull-out stop for the food-holding tray 12”); wherein the drawer (12) comprises: a stopper (Figs. 7-10, delimiting walls 32, 34) provided on side walls of the drawer (Figs. 2-3 show delimiting walls 32, 34 are provided on lower region 17b of side wall 17) and configured to contact the catch portion to limit the insertion range and the withdrawal range of the drawer (Fig. 7 shows delimiting wall 34 abuts front stop 4; Fig. 10 shows delimiting wall 32 abuts rear stop 41), and a rib (Figs. 3 and 9, contact plateau 29) elastically formed on at least one of the sides of the drawer (contact plateau 29 is a part of guide rail 23 which is “constructed in one piece with the side wall 17” (Paragraph 0060). Further, the structure of contact plateau 29 is a thin, cantilevered structure that would have some degree of elasticity. As noted in the 112 rejection above, all materials have some degree of elastic properties, a specific material is not claimed, therefore the degree of elasticity is not relevant.) and configured to contact a protrusion (Figs. 7 and 9, downwardly projecting contact plateau 39a) provided on the guide rail (35) before the stopper contacts the catch portion (Fig. 9 shows that contact plateau 29 contacts downwardly projecting contact plateau 39a before either delimiting wall 32, 34 abuts their respective stops 41, 42).
Goeppel fails to disclose the protrusion is one of a plurality of protrusions.
Wang discloses a drawer guide having a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 8, sliding bulges 4011).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guiding apparatus of Goeppel such that it has an additional downwardly projecting contact plateau, such as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide stable and smooth movement between the drawer and the guide while maintaining reduced sliding friction resistance (Wang, Col. 7, lines 18-21) and to further reduce unwanted vertical movement/tilting of the drawer when being pulled out from the refrigerator. It is further noted that it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
With respect to claim 3, Goeppel in view of Wang discloses the limitation set forth. The combination (Goeppel) further discloses wherein, in a state in which the drawer (food-holding tray 12) is being inserted or withdrawn, the plurality of protrusions (downwardly projecting contact plateaus 39a) are configured to contact the rib (contact plateau 29) to cause the rib to elastically deform (As stated in the claim 1 rejection above, contact plateau 29 is a thin, cantilevered structure that would have some degree of elasticity and would therefore elastically deform to some degree when coming into contact with the solid body of a downwardly projecting contact plateau 39a. It is further noted that plastics are commonly used for refrigerator doors show elastic behavior under small forces).
The combination fails to disclose wherein the guide rail is integrally formed with side walls of the storage compartment.
Wang further discloses guide rail (Fig. 1, slideway 110) is integrally formed with side walls of a storage compartment (“a pair of slideways 110 with opposite openings disposed opposite to each other and extending in the depth direction may be formed in the compartment walls 11 on two transverse sides of the storage compartment 10”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guide rail of Goeppel in view of Wang such that they are integral to the side walls of the accommodation space, such as taught by Wang, in order to require fewer parts and therefore eliminate an extra step of assembly as well as lower hardware costs, and to further provide a cleaner appearance. It is further noted that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, Section IV (B).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeppel (U.S. Pat. No. 20220049893) in view of Wang (U.S. Pat. No. 11530864) in further view of Choi (KR20060022428).
With respect to claim 2, Goeppel in view of Wang discloses the limitation set forth. The combination (Goeppel) further discloses wherein the guide rail (guiding apparatus 35) is formed with a shelf (Figs. 5-6, plate 44) provided on a lower portion of the drawer (food-holding tray 12); and wherein, in a state in which the drawer (food-holding tray 12) is being inserted or withdrawn, the plurality of protrusions (downwardly projecting contact plateaus 39a) are configured to contact the rib (contact plateau 29) to cause the rib to elastically deform (As stated in the claim 1 rejection above, contact plateau 29 is a thin, cantilevered structure that would have some degree of elasticity and would therefore elastically deform to some degree when coming into contact with the solid body of a downwardly projecting contact plateau 39a. It is further noted that plastics are commonly used for refrigerator doors show elastic behavior under small forces).
The combination fails to disclose wherein the guide rail and shelf are integrally formed.
Choi discloses a guide rail (Fig. 4, pull-out rail 450) and shelf (bottom wall of auxiliary drawer 440) are integrally formed (Translated description, page 19, “The above-mentioned pull-out rail is integrally formed with the above-mentioned auxiliary drawer”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guide rails and plate of Goeppel in view of Wang such that they are one integral piece, such as taught by Choi, in order to require fewer parts and therefore eliminate an extra step of assembly as well as lower hardware costs, and to further provide a cleaner appearance. It is further noted that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, Section IV (B).
Claim 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeppel (U.S. Pat. No. 20220049893) in view of Wang (U.S. Pat. No. 11530864) in further view of Jang (U.S. Pat. No. 8882211).
With respect to claim 4, Goeppel in view of Wang discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Goeppel) further discloses wherein the rib (contact plateau 29) is provided on a rear side of the side walls of the drawer (Figs. 2-3, contact plateau 29 is provided on lower region 17b of sidewall 17 near back wall 18 of food-holding tray 12), and comprises: a damping portion provided in a grooved shape that is recessed downwardly (contact plateau 29 portion that contacts 39a extends horizontally and recesses downward forming grooves as shown in annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
403
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
The combination fails to disclose a reinforcing rib protruding upwardly from a center of the damping portion. However, it is noted that the guide rail 23 is constructed as a ribbed structure with hollow cavities, formed of several vertically oriented ribs.
Jang discloses a drawer guide rail with reinforcing ribs (Fig. 9, slide protrusion 80) protruding upwardly from the center of multiple contact points (see annotate Fig. 9 below, slide protrusions 80 comprises several vertical ribs 81 which protrude upwardly (vertically away from a horizontally extending surface) from a center of horizontal contact points, to reinforce portions of the slide that come into contact with slide groove 103).
PNG
media_image2.png
611
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guide rail of Goeppel in view of Wang such that the center of the contact plateau is vertically supported by a vertical rib, such as taught by Jang, in order to improve rigidity of the guide rails (Jang, Col. 7, lines 25-27) and prevent unwanted tilting of the drawer. It is further noted that mere duplication of essential working parts (vertical ribs of Goeppel) of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
With respect to claim 10, Goeppel in view of Wang discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Goeppel) further discloses wherein the rib (contact plateau 29) is provided on sides of a lower surface of the drawer at a rear side thereof (Figs. 2-3, contact plateau 29 is provided on a surface of lower region 17b of sidewall 17 near back wall 18 of food-holding tray 12), and comprises: a damping portion comprising a grooved shape that is recessed along a left-to-right direction toward the drawer (contact plateau 29 portion that contacts 39a extends horizontally and recesses in all three dimensions forming grooves that extend towards food-holding tray 12 as shown in annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
328
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
The combination fails to disclose a reinforcing rib. However, it is noted that the guide rail 23 is constructed as a ribbed structure with hollow cavities, formed of several vertically oriented ribs.
Jang discloses a drawer guide rail with reinforcing ribs (see annotate Fig. 9 below, slide protrusions 80 comprises several vertical ribs 81 to reinforce portions of the slide that come into contact with slide groove 103).
PNG
media_image2.png
611
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guide rail of Goeppel in view of Wang such that the contact plateau is supported by a vertical rib, such as taught by Jang, in order to improve rigidity of the guide rails (Jang, Col. 7, lines 25-27) and prevent unwanted tilting of the drawer. It is further noted that mere duplication of essential working parts (vertical ribs of Goeppel) of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 would be allowable for disclosing “wherein the plurality of protrusions comprise a first protrusion at a rear of the guide rail with respect to the center of the guide rail, and a second protrusion at a front of the guide rail with respect to the center of the guide rail.” Goeppel in view of Wang in further view of Jang discloses the guide rail having first and second protrusion (Goeppel, guiding apparatus 25 has downwardly projecting contact plateau 39a, modified by Wang to include an additional downwardly projecting contact plateau 39a). However, based on the configuration of Goeppel and Wang, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art further modify the position of the downwardly projecting contact plateaus 39a such that one is positioned on a rear end of the guiding apparatus and the other is positioned on a front end of the guiding apparatus, with respect to a center of the guiding apparatus.
Claims 6-9 would be allowable for depending from claim 5.
Claim 11 would be allowable for similar reasons as claim 5, and for further disclosing “wherein the plurality of protrusions protrude along the left-to-right direction from the guide rail toward the drawer and are configured to elastically deform the damping portion including being received in an inside of the damping portion and then being released from the inside of the damping portion based on movement of the drawer”. The damping portion of Goeppel’s rib (horizontally extending portion of the contact plateaus 29) is a solid cantilevered structure that is smaller than the protrusions (downwardly projecting contact plateaus 39a) and therefore incapable of receiving the protrusions in an inside of the damping portion. Based on the configuration, it would not be obvious to further modify the combination to include this feature as claimed.
Claims 12-15 would be allowable for depending from claim 11.
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 ELIZABETH IRENE ARTALEJO whose telephone number is (571)272-4292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
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.
/E.I.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights