DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 21, 2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “fastening member” [Claim 4] must be clearly shown / depicted / labeled within the drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In Claim 1, line 3, the phrase “the inner rear” does not have a proper antecedent basis; and in lines 4 & 8-9, the phrase “the front surface” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 2, line 4, the phrase “the front lower region” does not have a proper antecedent basis; in line 5, the limitations of “the extension rib” & “the front bent part” [singular] are unclear and confusing as presently set forth since it is not known whether these are new and distinct limitations, or if they are in fact a reference back to the previously established “extension ribs” & “front bent parts” [plural] limitations; and in line 7, the phrase “the bottom” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 3, line 2, the phrase “the side region” does not have a proper antecedent basis; and in line 4, the phrase “the rear surface” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 4, line 2, the phrase “the upper region” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 5, line 2, the phrase “the central regions” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 8, line 5, the phrase “the upper, lower, and both side surfaces” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 13, line 2, the phrase “the rear surface” does not have a proper antecedent basis; and in line 6, the phrase “the inner rear surface” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo [US 2017/0191728]. Seo teaches of a refrigerator (1) comprising: a cabinet (10) including one or more storage chambers (12, 13); a cold air duct (300) disposed at the inner rear of the storage chamber; and a lighting assembly (100) disposed at a front surface of the cold air duct (fig. 2), wherein the lighting assembly includes a light guiding assembly (120), a bezel part (110) surrounding the periphery of the light guiding assembly, and one or more light source modules (140) irradiating light to the light guiding assembly, and wherein the bezel part is fastened to the cold air duct to fix the lighting assembly to a front surface of the cold air duct (figs. 3-4).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7 & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., [US 2023/0243571]. Park teaches of a refrigerator (1) comprising: a cabinet (2) including one or more storage chambers (51, 52); a cold air duct (300) disposed at the inner rear of the storage chamber; and a lighting assembly (360) disposed at a side surface of the cold air duct (figs. 6 & 9), wherein the lighting assembly includes a light guiding assembly (363), a bezel part (361) surrounding the periphery of the light guiding assembly, and one or more light source modules (362) irradiating light to the light guiding assembly, and wherein the bezel part is fastened to the cold air duct to fix the lighting assembly to a side surface of the cold air duct (fig. 9). Park teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed refrigerator as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the lighting assembly as being positioned along a front surface of the cold air duct. As to this aspect, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the lighting assembly in relation to the air duct {along a side vs along a front for instance}, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and therefore will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). Regarding Claim 2, as modified, the bezel part includes one or more downwardly extending extension ribs (361a + 379) at its lower region; the cold air duct has one or more front bent parts (378) disposed at a side lower region thereof to protrude forward and be bent upward so that the extension rib is inserted into the front bent part (via 379); and the front bent part supports the bottom of the lighting assembly. Again, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the duct bent parts, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and therefore will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Regarding Claim 4, as modified, the bezel part has one or more fastening hole parts (361a) disposed at the upper region thereof to protrude rearward; the cold air duct has one or more fastening bosses (378) disposed at a surface thereof to correspond to the fastening hole parts; and the fastening boss and the fastening hole part are fixed to each other by a fastening member (379) inserted from the rear to the front. Park teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed refrigerator as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the fastening bosses on the on the bezel part or the fastening hole parts on the cold duct (Park shows these components being reversed). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the arrangement of mating components (i.e., swapping the placement of the bosses & hole parts), with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and therefore will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with the steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious expedient.). Regarding Claim 5, as modified, the refrigerator further comprising a cover member (364) disposed along a surface of the lighting assembly and penetrating through central regions of the lighting assembly and the cold air duct to fix the lighting assembly to the cold air duct (fig. 6). Regarding Claim 7, as modified, the cover member is detachably coupled to the cold air duct in a hook coupling manner (via (364) and (361a)+(378) due to intervening (361) interconnection). Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the cover member presses the light guiding assembly rearward (direction can vary depending upon viewed orientation for instance). Regarding Claim 13, as modified, the cold air duct has one or more bush fastening parts (viewed as the main body of (398) for instance) disposed at the rear surface thereof to protrude rearward; the cabinet is provided with one or more fastening through holes (receiving hole along (399) for instance) disposed at a rear surface thereof to correspond to the bush fastening parts; and the cold air duct is fixed to the inner rear surface of the cabinet by a fastening bush (viewed as the head / tip of (398) for instance) being inserted from the rear to the front so as to pass through the fastening through hole and being fastened to the bush fastening part (fig. 9).
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 10 & 20 of co-pending Application No. 19/169,209 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed features are accounted for and represented within the reference application as noted: a refrigerator (refrigerator) comprising: a cabinet (cabinet) including one or more storage chambers (storage chambers); a cold air duct (cold air duct – cl.20) disposed at the inner rear of the storage chamber; and a lighting assembly (lighting assembly) disposed at a front surface of the cold air duct (the duct is disposed on a rear surface of the lighting assembly – cl.20), wherein the lighting assembly includes a light guiding assembly (light guiding assembly), a bezel part (plurality of bezel parts) surrounding the periphery of the light guiding assembly, and one or more light source modules (light source modules) irradiating light to the light guiding assembly, and wherein the bezel part is fastened to the cold air duct to fix the lighting assembly to a front surface of the cold air duct (as readily apparent).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6 & 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various refrigerators with duct and/or lighting assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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. 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.
JOH
June 18, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights