NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“sealing structure” in claims 1, 10, and 17. See paragraph 62-64 of the originally-filed specification for the corresponding structure disclosed.
“anti-toppling structure” in claim 4. See figure 10 and paragraph 66 of the originally-filed specification for the corresponding structure disclosed.
“stopping portion” in claim 5. See paragraph 68 of the originally-filed specification for the corresponding structure disclosed.
“first fixing structure” in claim 12. See paragraph 82 of the originally-filed specification for the corresponding structure disclosed.
“second fixing structure” in claim 12. See paragraph 85 of the originally-filed specification for the corresponding structure disclosed.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,282 (Reference Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 4 of Reference Patent (wherein claim 4 depends from independent claim 1)
An oxygen removal module used in a refrigerator, comprising:
[A] an electrolyte tank provided with a water inlet; and
[B] a water tank provided with a water outlet, and the water outlet is connected to the water inlet, such that water is supplemented to the electrolyte tank through the water tank,
[D] wherein the water tank is provided with a water feeding port, and a sealing structure capable of plugging the water feeding port is mounted on the water feeding port.
The oxygen removal module according to
claim 1 (An oxygen removal module used in a refrigerator, comprising:
[A] an electrolyte tank provided with a water inlet; and
[B] a water tank provided with a water outlet, and the water outlet is connected to the water inlet, such that water is supplemented to the electrolyte tank through the water tank;
[C] wherein a top portion of the electrolyte tank is provided with a pressure release valve.)
[D] wherein the water tank is provided with a water feeding port, and a sealing structure capable of plugging the water feeding port is mounted on the water feeding port.
The instant application includes features [A], [B], and [D] which are expressly described by the invention of the reference patent in claim 4 which includes features [A] and [B] from the recitations of claim 1 and [D] from the further recitations of claim 4. For this reason, the claimed inventions, while not the same, are not patentably distinct from one another.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,282 (Reference Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 10 of Instant Application
Claim 11 of Reference Patent (wherein claim 11 depends from independent claim 1)
A fresh-keeping device, comprising:
[E] a frame provided with an accommodating space, wherein one side of the frame is provided with an opening, a wall of the frame is provided with a vent hole, and the vent hole is communicated with the accommodating space;
[F] a drawer capable of accessing and containing in the accommodating space through the opening, to form a closed storage space with the frame; and
an oxygen removal module used in a refrigerator, comprising:
[A] an electrolyte tank provided with a water inlet; and
[B] a water tank provided with a water outlet, and the water outlet is connected to the water inlet, such that water is supplemented to the electrolyte tank through the water tank,
[D] wherein the water tank is provided with a water feeding port, and a sealing structure capable of plugging the water feeding port is mounted on the water feeding port,
[E] wherein the electrolyte tank is arranged at the vent hole, to consume oxygen inside the closed storage space through the oxygen removal module.
A fresh-keeping device, comprising:
[E] a frame provided with an accommodating space, wherein one side of the frame is provided with an opening, a wall of the frame is provided with a vent hole, and the vent hole is communicated with the accommodating space;
[F] a drawer capable of accessing and containing in the accommodating space through the opening, so as to form a closed storage space with the frame; and
the oxygen removal module according to claim 1 (An oxygen removal module used in a refrigerator, comprising:
[A] an electrolyte tank provided with a water inlet; and
[B] a water tank provided with a water outlet, and the water outlet is connected to the water inlet, such that water is supplemented to the electrolyte tank through the water tank;
[C] wherein a top portion of the electrolyte tank is provided with a pressure release valve.)
[D] wherein the water tank is provided with a water feeding port, and a sealing structure capable of plugging the water feeding port is mounted on the water feeding port.
[E] wherein the electrolyte tank is arranged at the vent hole, so as to consume oxygen inside the storage space through the oxygen removal module.
The instant application includes features [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F] which are expressly described by the invention of the reference patent in claim 11 which includes features [A] and [B] from the recitations of claim 1 and [D], [E], and [F] from the further recitations of claim 11. For this reason, the claimed inventions, while not the same, are not patentably distinct from one another.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,282 (Reference Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 11 of Instant Application(wherein claim 11 depends from claim 10, discussed above)
Claim 12 of Reference Patent (wherein claim 12 depends from claim 11, discussed above)
The fresh-keeping device according to claim 10 (features [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F], as previously indicated) ,
[G] wherein the frame comprises:
[Ga] an inner frame, wherein the accommodating space is arranged in the inner frame, the opening is arranged on one side of the inner frame, the vent hole is arranged in a side wall of the inner frame far away from the opening, and the water tank is arranged at an upper side wall of the inner frame; and
[Gb] an outer frame arranged on the inner frame, wherein the electrolyte tank is arranged between the inner frame and the outer frame.
The fresh-keeping device according to claim 11(features [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F], as previously indicated),
[G] wherein the frame comprises:
[Ga] an inner frame, wherein the accommodating space is arranged in the inner frame, the opening is arranged on one side of the inner frame, the vent hole is arranged in a side wall of the inner frame far away from the opening, and the water tank is arranged at an upper side wall of the inner frame; and
[Gb] an outer frame arranged on the inner frame, wherein the electrolyte tank is arranged between the inner frame and the outer frame.
The instant application includes the features of claim 10([A], [B], [D], [E], and [F]), in addition to [G], [Ga], and [Gb] which are expressly described by the invention of the reference patent in claim 12 which includes features [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F] from the recitations of claims 1 and 11, in addition to [G], [Ga], and [Gb] from the further recitations of claim 12. For this reason, the claimed inventions, while not the same, are not patentably distinct from one another.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,282 (Reference Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 12 of Instant Application(wherein claim 12 depends from claim 11, discussed above)
Claim 13 of Reference Patent (wherein claim 13 depends from claim 12, discussed above)
The fresh-keeping device according to claim 11 (features [A], [B], [D], [E], [F], [G], [Ga], and [Gb], as previously indicated),
[H] wherein the electrolyte tank is detachably arranged on the inner frame through a first fixing structure, and the water tank is detachably arranged on the inner frame through a second fixing structure.
The fresh-keeping device according to claim 12(features [A], [B], [D], [E], [F], [G], [Ga], and [Gb], as previously indicated),
[H] wherein the electrolyte tank is detachably arranged on the inner frame through a first fixing structure, and the water tank is detachably arranged on the inner frame through a second fixing structure.
The instant application includes the features of claim 11 ([A], [B], [D], [E], [F], [G], [Ga], and [Gb]), in addition to [H] which are expressly described by the invention of the reference patent in claim 13 which includes features [A], [B], [D], [E], [F], [G], [Ga], and [Gb] from the recitations of claims 1, 11, and 12, in addition to [H] from the further recitations of claim 13. For this reason, the claimed inventions, while not the same, are not patentably distinct from one another.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,282 (Reference Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 13 of Instant Application(wherein claim 13 depends from claim 12, discussed above)
Claim 14 of Reference Patent (wherein claim 14 depends from claim 13, discussed above)
The fresh-keeping device according to claim 12 (features [A], [B], [D], [E], [F], [G], [Ga], [Gb], and [H] as previously indicated),
[I] wherein the first fixing structure comprises:
[Ia] a first connecting column arranged on the side wall of the inner frame, wherein a first connecting hole is arranged in the first connecting column;
[Ib] a first stepped hole arranged at a corresponding position of the electrolyte tank, wherein the first connecting column passes through the first stepped hole; and
[Ic] a first fixed connecting member, wherein the first fixed connecting member passes through the first stepped hole and is threadedly connected to the first connecting hole.
The fresh-keeping device according to claim 13(features [A], [B], [D], [E], [F], [G], [Ga], [Gb], and [H] as previously indicated),
[I] wherein the first fixing structure comprises:
[Ia] a first connecting column arranged on the side wall of the inner frame, wherein a first connecting hole is arranged in the first connecting column;
[Ib] a first stepped hole arranged at a corresponding position of the electrolyte tank, wherein the first connecting column passes through the first stepped hole; and
[Ic] a first fixed connecting member, wherein the first fixed connecting member passes through the first stepped hole and is threadedly connected to the first connecting hole.
The instant application includes the features of claim 12 ([A], [B], [D], [E], [F], [G], [Ga], [Gb], and [H]), in addition to [I], [Ia], [Ib], and [Ic] which are expressly described by the invention of the reference patent in claim 14 which includes features [A], [B], [D], [E], [F], [G], [Ga], [Gb], and [H] from the recitations of claims 1, 11, 12, and 13 in addition to [I], [Ia], [Ib], and [Ic] from the further recitations of claim 14. For this reason, the claimed inventions, while not the same, are not patentably distinct from one another.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,282 (Reference Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 14 of Instant Application(wherein claim 14 depends from claim 12, discussed above)
Claim 15 of Reference Patent (wherein claim 15 depends from claim 13, discussed above)
The fresh-keeping device according to claim 12 (features [A], [B], [D], [E], [F], [G], [Ga], [Gb], and [H] as previously indicated),
[J] wherein the second fixing structure comprises:
[Ja] a second connecting column arranged on the upper side wall of the inner frame, wherein a second connecting hole is arranged in the second connecting column;
[Jb] a second stepped hole arranged at a corresponding position of the water tank, wherein the second connecting column passes through the second stepped hole; and
[Jc] a second fixed connecting member,
[Jd] wherein the second fixed connecting member passes through the second stepped hole and is threadedly connected to the second connecting hole.
The fresh-keeping device according to claim 13(features [A], [B], [D], [E], [F], [G], [Ga], [Gb], and [H] as previously indicated),
[J] wherein the second fixing structure comprises:
[Ja] a second connecting column arranged on the upper side wall of the inner frame, wherein a second connecting hole is arranged in the second connecting column;
[Jb] a second stepped hole arranged at a corresponding position of the water tank, wherein the second connecting column passes through the second stepped hole; and
[Jc] a second fixed connecting member,
[Jd] wherein the second fixed connecting member passes through the second stepped hole and is threadedly connected to the second connecting hole.
The instant application includes the features of claim 14 ([A], [B], [D], [E], [F], [G], [Ga], [Gb], and [H]), in addition to [J], [Ja], [Jb], [Jc], and [Jd] which are expressly described by the invention of the reference patent in claim 14 which includes features [A], [B], [D], [E], [F], [G], [Ga], [Gb], and [H] from the recitations of claims 1, 11, 12, and 13 in addition to [J], [Ja], [Jb], [Jc], and [Jd] from the further recitations of claim 15. For this reason, the claimed inventions, while not the same, are not patentably distinct from one another.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,282 (Reference Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 15 of Instant Application(wherein claim 15 depends from claim 10, discussed above)
Claim 16 of Reference Patent (wherein claim 16 depends from claim 11, discussed above)
The fresh-keeping device according to claim 10 (features [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F], as previously indicated),
[K] wherein a sealing strip is arranged between the opening and the drawer.
The fresh-keeping device according to claim 11(features [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F], as previously indicated),
[K] wherein a sealing strip is arranged between the opening and the drawer.
The instant application includes the features of claim 10 [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F]), in addition to [K] which are expressly described by the invention of the reference patent in claim 11 which includes features [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F] from the recitations of claims 1 and 11, in addition to [K] from the further recitations of claim 16. For this reason, the claimed inventions, while not the same, are not patentably distinct from one another.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,282 (Reference Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 16 of Instant Application(wherein claim 16 depends from claim 10, discussed above)
Claim 17 of Reference Patent (wherein claim 17 depends from claim 11, discussed above)
The fresh-keeping device according to claim 10 (features [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F], as previously indicated),
[L] wherein a plurality of vent holes are provided, and the plurality of vent holes are arranged on a side wall of the frame in an array.
The fresh-keeping device according to claim 11(features [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F], as previously indicated),
[L] wherein a plurality of vent holes are provided, and the plurality of vent holes are arranged on the side wall of the frame in an array.
The instant application includes the features of claim 10 [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F]), in addition to [L] which are expressly described by the invention of the reference patent in claim 11 which includes features [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F] from the recitations of claims 1 and 11, in addition to [L] from the further recitations of claim 17. For this reason, the claimed inventions, while not the same, are not patentably distinct from one another.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,282 (Reference Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 17 of Instant Application
Claim 18 of Reference Patent (wherein claim 18 depends from claims 1 and 11, discussed above)
A refrigerator, comprising: a fresh-keeping device, comprising:
[E] a frame provided with an accommodating space, wherein one side of the frame is provided with an opening, a wall of the frame is provided with a vent hole, and the vent hole is communicated with the accommodating space;
[F] a drawer capable of accessing and containing in the accommodating space through the opening, to form a closed storage space with the frame; and
an oxygen removal module used in a refrigerator, comprising:
[A] an electrolyte tank provided with a water inlet; and
[B] a water tank provided with a water outlet, and the water outlet is connected to the water inlet, such that water is supplemented to the electrolyte tank through the water tank,
[D] wherein the water tank is provided with a water feeding port, and a sealing structure capable of plugging the water feeding port is mounted on the water feeding port,
[E] wherein the electrolyte tank is arranged at the vent hole, to consume oxygen inside the closed storage space through the oxygen removal module.
A refrigerator, comprising the fresh-keeping device according to claim 11 (A fresh-keeping device, comprising:
[E] a frame provided with an accommodating space, wherein one side of the frame is provided with an opening, a wall of the frame is provided with a vent hole, and the vent hole is communicated with the accommodating space;
[F] a drawer capable of accessing and containing in the accommodating space through the opening, so as to form a closed storage space with the frame; and
the oxygen removal module according to claim 1 (An oxygen removal module used in a refrigerator, comprising:
[A] an electrolyte tank provided with a water inlet; and
[B] a water tank provided with a water outlet, and the water outlet is connected to the water inlet, such that water is supplemented to the electrolyte tank through the water tank;
[C] wherein a top portion of the electrolyte tank is provided with a pressure release valve.)
[D] wherein the water tank is provided with a water feeding port, and a sealing structure capable of plugging the water feeding port is mounted on the water feeding port.)
[E] wherein the electrolyte tank is arranged at the vent hole, so as to consume oxygen inside the storage space through the oxygen removal module.)
The instant application includes the features of claim 17 ([A], [B], [D], [E], and [F]) as applied in a refrigerator which are expressly described by the invention of the reference patent in claim 18 which includes features [A], [B], [D], [E], and [F] from the recitations of claims 1 and 11, in addition to being applied to a refrigerator as recited in claim 18. For this reason, the claimed inventions, while not the same, are not patentably distinct from one another.
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(s) 1, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KANESAKA (JP 2015017765 A – published 29 January, 2015; see English machine translation and foreign patent document).
As to claim 1, KANESAKA discloses an oxygen removal module (par. 29) used in a refrigerator(10; figure 1), comprising:
an electrolyte tank (76) provided with a water inlet(90); and
a water tank(100) provided with a water outlet(104), and the water outlet is connected to the water inlet (figure 7 and 10), such that water is supplemented to the electrolyte tank through the water tank (par. 37), wherein the water tank (100) is provided with a water feeding port (37 or 39; par. 27 and 49), and a sealing structure capable of plugging the water feeding port is mounted on the water feeding port (upper wall of the water tank, 100, which is mounted on the water feeding port, 37 or 39, as shown in figure 6 or 10, at least).
As to claim 10, KANESAKA discloses a fresh-keeping device, comprising:
a frame (62) provided with an accommodating space (space internal to the frame, 62), wherein one side of the frame (left side shown in figure 1 and 5) is provided with an opening (opening covered or uncovered by the door, 66; par. 14), a wall of the frame (rear wall) is provided with a vent hole (par. 30; figure 7; 80), and the vent hole is communicated with the accommodating space (par. 30);
a drawer (64; par. 14) capable of accessing and containing in the accommodating space through the opening (par. 14), so as to form a closed storage space with the frame (closed as shown in figure 1 and 5); and
an oxygen removal module (par. 29) used in a refrigerator(10; figure 1), comprising:
an electrolyte tank (76) provided with a water inlet(90); and
a water tank(100) provided with a water outlet(104), and the water outlet is connected to the water inlet (figure 7 and 10), such that water is supplemented to the electrolyte tank through the water tank (par. 37),
wherein the water tank (100) is provided with a water feeding port (37 or 39; par. 27 and 49), and a sealing structure capable of plugging the water feeding port is mounted on the water feeding port (upper wall of the water tank, 100, which is mounted on the water feeding port, 37 or 39, as shown in figure 6 or 10, at least),
wherein the electrolyte tank is arranged at the vent hole (figure 7; par. 30) , to consume oxygen inside the closed storage space through the oxygen removal module (par. 30).
As to claim 17, KANESAKA discloses a refrigerator (10), comprising:
a fresh-keeping device, comprising:
a frame (62) provided with an accommodating space (space internal to the frame, 62), wherein one side of the frame (left side shown in figure 1 and 5) is provided with an opening (opening covered or uncovered by the door, 66; par. 14), a wall of the frame (rear wall) is provided with a vent hole (par. 30; figure 7; 80), and the vent hole is communicated with the accommodating space (par. 30);
a drawer (64; par. 14) capable of accessing and containing in the accommodating space through the opening (par. 14), so as to form a closed storage space with the frame (closed as shown in figure 1 and 5); and
an oxygen removal module (par. 29) used in a refrigerator(10; figure 1), comprising:
an electrolyte tank (76) provided with a water inlet(90); and
a water tank(100) provided with a water outlet(104), and the water outlet is connected to the water inlet (figure 7 and 10), such that water is supplemented to the electrolyte tank through the water tank (par. 37), wherein the water tank (100) is provided with a water feeding port (37 or 39; par. 27 and 49), and a sealing structure capable of plugging the water feeding port is mounted on the water feeding port (upper wall of the water tank, 100, which is mounted on the water feeding port, 37 or 39, as shown in figure 6 or 10, at least), wherein the electrolyte tank is arranged at the vent hole (figure 7; par. 30) , to consume oxygen inside the closed storage space through the oxygen removal module (par. 30).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANESAKA (JP 2015017765 A – published 29 January, 2015; see English machine translation and foreign patent document), in view of WANG (CN 107782040 A – published 9 March, 2018; see English machine translation for citations).
As to claim 15, KANESAKA does not further disclose wherein a sealing strip is arranged between the opening and the drawer.
WANG, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a fresh-keeping device (par. 2). WANG teaches a drawer (500) which is capable of accessing and containing (par. 39) the accommodating space(space interior to 200) through the opening (260). More so, WANG teaches wherein a sealing strip (310) is arranged between the opening and the drawer (figure 1; par. 14 and 38). Particularly, the positioning of the sealing strip, as claimed, allow for sealing of the accommodating space (par. 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify KANESAKA, in view of the teachings of WANG, to provide the sealing strip, as claimed, for the purpose of sealing the accommodating space.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANESAKA (JP 2015017765 A – published 29 January, 2015; see English machine translation and foreign patent document).
As to claim 16, KANESAKA previously disclose wherein the system included the vent hole arranged on the side wall (see rejection of claim 11).
KANESAKA does not expressly disclose wherein a plurality of vent holes are provided, and the plurality of vent holes are arranged in an array.
However, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 -VI(B). Looking at the instant application, paragraph 92 recites the use of vent holes “can increase an oxygen transfer area between the accommodating space 411 and the oxygen removal module 100, thus improving an oxygen removal efficiency of the oxygen removal module 100”, but the specification does not provide evidence that a plurality of vent holes, over a singular vent hole, would necessarily result in any new of unexpected results. Particularly, in view of paragraph 78, the specification provides wherein a vent hole provides oxygen removal. As such, it is not found that the inclusion of a plurality of vent holes, over a singular vent hole, would result in any patentable significance as the same result is found in both of the configurations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify KANESAKA, as claimed, in view of legal precedent as the source of supporting rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 18-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 9/22/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights