DETAILED 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/23/2026 and 03/31/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
Cooling part in at least claim 1
Evaporator air input part in at least claim 1
Air transfer part in at least claim 1
Support part in at least claim 12
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.
A review of the specification show that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A cooling part appears to be described as an inner rear wall, an inner upper wall, and inner lower wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall in at least ¶ 0066 of the specification.
An evaporator air input part appears to be described as part of an air feeding channel in at least ¶ 0093 of the specification.
An air transfer part appears to be described as at least a front face and a rear face, being described as a fan housing in at least ¶ 0092 of the specification.
-
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “support part” in line 3 of the claim. The term “part,” being a non-structural term that is a substitute for the term "means," invokes a claim interpretation under the guise of 35 USC § 112(f), which requires a reliance on the corresponding disclosure to provide the limits on the structure, material or act that performs the claimed function. The disclosure must show with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed. Possession is shown by describing the claimed invention with all limitations. Here, the support part, including its function, is discussed in ¶ 0080, wherein the specification only describes the function of the support part as providing separation of the air channel into at least two compartments. However, the corresponding structure that is capable of performing the claimed function (i.e. supporting) of the part is not provided in the specification. A mere restatement of the function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function, is a failure to provide adequate written description for a § 112(f) limitation claim interpretation. Because the specification fails to provide an adequate description of a structure for the support part, the boundary of claim is not clearly defined. A claim without clearly defined boundaries is rendered indefinite. Therefore, the claim, and all claims depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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.
Claim 12 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.
The limitation “support part” in Claim12 render the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not understand the scope of the claimed invention when read in light of the specification. The lack of disclosure regarding the limitation "support part” as called for in dependent claim 12 creates such an inconsistency between the claims and the description that it prevents a skilled artisan from understanding the scope of the independent claims (MPEP § 2173.03). The specification describes the function of the support part as providing separation of the air channel, however it does not sufficiently describe what structure is fulfilling the claimed function. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be broadly interpreted as any means to separate the air channel (i.e. supporting), as described in ¶ 0080 of the specification. Therefore the claim, and all claims depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al. (US 20250003674 A1, hereinafter “Longo”), and further in view of Park et al. (US 20240263868 A1, hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding Claim 1, Longo teaches a cooling device [20] [Figs. 1-4], comprising:
a cooling part [at least cabinet 21; ¶ 0022];
an inner rear wall disposed in said cooling part [at least liner 23 defines space for the storage areas 24 and 25 in cabinet 21; ¶ 0022];
air distribution openings [at least 110, 106a, 106b; Fig. 3; ¶ 0033-0034] disposed in said inner rear wall [cover 88 forms an air circulation system 90, disposed on a back wall of the cooling part];
at least one air channel [air ducts 91] through which cold air passes and being suitable for being connected to a rear side of said inner rear wall which does not face said cooling part in a manner covering at least one of said air distribution openings [¶ 0034; Fig. 3; ducts 91 are configured to provide airflow from the evaporator towards the plurality of air distribution openings from a rear-side of the compartment], said at least one air channel having an air channel front surface [Fig. 3; the surface of ducts 91 surrounding the distribution openings], said at least one air channel having at least one air passage gap formed therein and configured to correspond to said at least one air distribution opening at said at least one air channel [Figs. 3-4; apparent from inspection of Fig. 4 that air-circulation system 90 necessarily comprises gaps to form respective air distribution openings];
at least one evaporator [not shown] having at least one evaporator air input part [¶ 0032-0033; air-circulation system 90 conveys air across an evaporator (necessarily comprising an evaporator input) via at least air path 96 to provide cooled for food storage areas];
at least one fan;
at least one air transfer part [98] connected to said at least one air channel [Fig. 3; apparent from inspection] and provides transfer of the cold air [¶ 0034; air path 96 stems from common path 98, wherein the air path receives cooled air flowing through the evaporator], the cold air being formed by said at least one evaporator [¶ 0034] and transported by means of said at least one fan, to said at least one air channel [Fig. 3; apparent from inspection 98 connects to branches to ducts 91];
at least one air feeding channel;
at least one air feeding opening positioned at said inner rear wall and adapted for passing air, which exists in said cooling part, to said at least one evaporator air input part which exists in said evaporator, by means of said at least one air feeding channel; and
at least one air channel surface extension disposed at said air channel front surface in order to allow passage of different amounts of the cold air [¶ 0034-0036; Fig. 3; Longo discloses that one or more fins (similar to surface extensions) for directing air may be supported within the opening of the vent 106a, wherein the configurations of the vents 106 and 110 are modifiable, such that having dedicated vents for specific compartments defining openings for said compartments provides a more even and efficient cooling spread for cooling food items; also see ¶ 0039-0040] [Alternatively, portions of member 50 may also be considered to be surface extension; as it also limits the size of the air flowing through 106; see Fig. 4], by at least two said air distribution openings which are equivalent to each other, from said at least one air channel to said cooling part [¶ 0041; the multiple vents 106a and 106b may be the same or similar to each other].
Longo does not explicitly disclose at least one fan; cold air being transported by the at least one fan, at least one air feeding channel; and at least one air feeding opening positioned at said inner rear wall and adapted for passing air, which exists in said cooling part, to said at least one evaporator air input part which exists in said evaporator, by means of said at least one air feeding channel.
However, Park teaches a refrigerator [100] [Fig. 4] comprising an inner case [120] to be cooled, as well as a first grille assembly [210] configured to provide a cooled airflow to the case, wherein the space behind the grille comprises a cooling source [310] (evaporator) and a fan [201], such that the fan induces an airflow [¶ 0094, 0097, 0117]. Cooling source 310 is disposed within the rear space of the grille assembly and is provided in an air feeding channel, as the airflow arrows indicate airflow through the channel containing the cooling source [at least Fig. 14; ¶ 0097]. The air feeding channel is further configured to receive airflow within the case 120 at an opening at the bottom of the rear grille, as indicated by the airflow arrows at the rear bottom of the container providing airflow towards 310 [Fig. 14; apparent from inspection; ¶ 0155]. Park therefore teaches that the claimed evaporator, fan, and channel configuration are known in the art, and that said configuration is known to be utilized to maintain the internal air of a refrigerator within a set temperature range, thus enabling the temperature control system to provide a cooled airflow [¶ 0004]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the fan, the air feeding channel, and the air feeding opening as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the fan, the air feeding channel, and the air feeding opening would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. the disclosed evaporator, fan, and channel configuration are known in the art, and said configuration is known to be utilized to maintain the internal air of a refrigerator within a set temperature range, thus enabling the temperature control system to provide a cooled airflow [¶ 0004].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Longo to have at least one fan; cold air being transported by the at least one fan, at least one air feeding channel; and at least one air feeding opening positioned at said inner rear wall and adapted for passing air, which exists in said cooling part, to said at least one evaporator air input part which exists in said evaporator, by means of said at least one air feeding channel, in view of the teachings of Park, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. the disclosed evaporator, fan, and channel configuration are known in the art, and said configuration is known to be utilized to maintain the internal air of a refrigerator within a set temperature range, thus enabling the temperature control system to provide a cooled airflow.
Regarding Claim 2, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 1 above and Longo teaches wherein:
said cooling part having an inner upper wall [Figs. 1-3; apparent from inspection cabinet 21 comprises an inner upper wall, at least top portion of 88]; and
at least one of said air distribution openings is disposed in said inner rear wall in a manner corresponding to a lower side of said inner upper wall of said cooling part [Fig. 3; apparent from inspection at least openings 110 comprise a plurality of opening spanning from the top to the bottom of the surface 88, such that at least one of which may be considered to be corresponding to a lower side of the upper wall].
Regarding Claim 3, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 1 above and Long further teaches comprising a plate-shaped separation unit [at least bins 54] disposed in said cooling part [¶ 0027; bins may be removably supported such to receive respective airflow from the plurality of openings 106a, 106b], wherein at least one of said air distribution openings is disposed in said cooling part in a removable manner [¶ 0034; cover 88 is disposed against the back wall to cooperate with liner 23] and positioned to said inner rear wall in a manner corresponding to a lower side of said plate-shaped separation unit which is suitable for providing formation of a cooling compartment in said cooling part [Figs. 3-4; apparent from inspection that portions 124 and 132, corresponding to at least 106a and 160b, are provided at varying levels above and below the possible plurality of bins 54, such that different compartments may receive different amounts of airflow for cooling].
Regarding Claim 4, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 2 above and Longo teaches wherein said at least one air passage gap and said air distribution openings have a same size as each other [Fig. 4; ¶ 0035, 0038-0039 apparent from inspection outer panel 112, having an opening 116, being the same size as adjacent opening 106a] and which are suitable for providing cold air passage from said at least one air channel to said cooling part [Fig. 4; apparent from inspection of airflow arrows flowing through 106a and 116 with a common central axis].
Furthermore, and alternatively, Longo discloses that fluid guides with different shapes or sizes are known in the art, and a single system may have multiple differently sized guides, such as different tapered angles, different cross-section shapes, different heights, etc., wherein the size of the guide is known to limit the flow of cooled air from an evaporator, and thus provide target airflow for specific, modifiable compartments [¶ 0034, 0039-0043]. Thus the shape or size of a fluid guide (or air passage gap) is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is system with uniform cooling to respective compartments.
Therefore, while Longo is already considered to teach all of the limitations above, the general condition of the claim is also disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the at least one air passage gap and said air distribution openings have a same size as each other in order to achieve a more uniform distribution of cooling air to differently sized compartments.
Regarding Claim 5, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 2 above and while Longo teaches air passage gaps suitable for providing cold air passage from said at least one air channel to said cooling part [Fig. 4; apparent from inspection of airflow arrows flowing through 106a and 116 with a common central axis], Longo does not explicitly teach wherein said at least one air passage gap is configured to be bigger, in a height direction, than said air distribution openings.
However, Longo discloses that fluid guides with different shapes or sizes are known in the art, and a single system may have multiple differently sized guides, such as different tapered angles, different cross-section shapes, different heights, etc., wherein the size of the guide is known to limit the flow of cooled air from an evaporator, and thus provide target airflow for specific, modifiable compartments [¶ 0034, 0039-0043]. Thus the shape or size of a fluid guide (or air passage gap) is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is system with uniform cooling to respective compartments.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein said at least one air passage gap is configured to be bigger, in a height direction, than said air distribution openings in order to achieve a more uniform distribution of cooling air to differently sized compartments.
Regarding Claim 6, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 3 above and Longo teaches wherein said at least one air channel surface extension connects to said air channel front surface [Fig. 4; ¶ 0036; vent 106a may receive a vent plate 121 that supports the seal 120, defining an opening of 116], and is disposed in said at least one air channel [¶ 0036; vent plate 121 may connect to the inside of 106a], in a manner partially closing said at least one air passage gap in a height direction and provides that said at least one air passage gap is smaller than said air distribution openings in a manner providing partial cold air passage from said at least one air channel to said cooling part [Fig. 4; apparent from inspection that plate 121 forms into the opening 106a on the perimeter, thereby also partially reducing the air passage cross-section of 106a].
Regarding Claim 7, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 3 above and Longo teaches wherein said at least one air channel surface extension is produced as a one-piece part with said air channel front surface in a manner partially closing said at least one air passage gap in a height direction [¶ 0036; Longo discloses that one or more fins for directing air may be supported within the opening of the vent 106a, the providing that they may be formed as a one-piece part] and provides that said at least one air passage gap is smaller than said air distribution openings [Fig. 4; ¶ 0039-0040; at least 124 and/or 118 may also be provided as smaller than upstream pathways] in a manner providing partial cold air passage from said at least one air channel to said cooling part [Fig. 4; apparent from inspection of airflow arrows flowing through 106a and 116 with a common central axis].
Regarding Claim 8, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 2 above and Longo teaches wherein said at least one air channel is one of at least two air channels [Fig. 3; ¶ 0034; air path 96 may branch into first and second branches 92 and 94], which are attached to said rear side of said inner rear wall [¶ 0034; part of cover 88 attached to the back wall], which does not face said cooling part [channels 92 and 94 are on the back side of 88 relative to the compartment], in an orthogonal manner to said inner upper wall [¶ 0034; the portions are branched from each other] such that said at least two air channels cover said air distribution openings and are parallel to each other such that there is a distance in between in a width direction [See Fig. 3; apparent from inspection the channels run parallel].
Regarding Claim 9, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 4 above and Longo teaches wherein the cooling device has at least two said air distribution openings positioned in a manner corresponding to said lower side of said inner upper wall and in a parallel manner to said inner upper wall [Fig. 4; apparent from inspection the system comprises a plurality of distribution openings (at least 110, 106a, 106b) disposed in parallel in the width direction, as well as having openings corresponding to upper and lower portions], where each of said at least two air distribution openings is positioned to said inner rear wall in a manner corresponding to said at least one air channel [¶ 0034; cover 88 is disposed at the back of the compartment].
Regarding Claim 10, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 5,
further comprising a plate-shaped separation unit [at least bins 54] disposed in said cooling part and forming or defining a cooling compartment [¶ 0027; bins may be removably supported such to receive respective airflow from the plurality of openings 106a, 106b]; and
wherein the cooling device has at least two said air distribution openings attached to said cooling part in a removable manner and positioned to said inner rear wall in a manner [¶ 0034; cover 88 is disposed against the back wall to cooperate with liner 23] corresponding to said at least one air channel, in a parallel manner to said plate-shaped separation unit and in a manner corresponding to said lower side of said plate-shaped separation unit for providing formation of said cooling compartment [Figs. 3-4; apparent from inspection that portions 124 and 132, corresponding to at least 106a and 160b, are provided at varying levels above and below the possible plurality of bins 54, such that different compartments may receive different amounts of airflow for cooling].
Regarding Claim 11, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 1 above and Longo teaches wherein said at least one air channel is formed by a single compartment that is suitable for a transfer of the cold air [¶ 0034; the air channel is formed by cooperation of the cover 88 and the linger 23 of compartment 24].
Regarding Claim 12, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 1 above and Longo teaches
wherein said at least one air channel has an air channel rear surface [¶ 0034; air paths 96 are formed between cover 88 and the liner 23, wherein liner 23 may be considered the air channel rear surface]; and
further comprising at least one support part which provides separation of said at least one air channel into at least two compartments [Fig. 3; common path 98 branches to paths 92 and 94, wherein the extruded portion of 88 separating said paths is interpreted to be the claimed support part] and configured between said air channel front surface and said air channel rear surface in a manner preventing deterioration of a form of said at least one air channel and in a manner orthogonal to said air channel front surface and said air channel rear surface [¶ 0034; channels 98, 92 and 94 are formed from the space defined between liner 23 and cover 88, wherein the support part is extrude from a back side of cover 88 to form the channels].
Regarding Claim 13, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 1 above and Longo further teaches comprising at least one air distribution grid [at least 114, 118 and/or 124] disposed in at least one of said air distribution openings and which provides distribution of the cold air, which passes to said cooling part through said at least air channel [Fig. 4; ¶ 0034-0035, 0038, 0040; inner panel 114, disposed at an end of the distribution opening, provides a distribution of cold air to its respective compartment based on its relative size and shape, from the air channel].
Regarding Claim 14, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 13 above and Longo teaches wherein said air distribution grid contains at least one inclined guiding part which provides the cold air [Fig. 4; ¶ 0038-0040; channel 124 provides air to inner panel 114 via openings 118, such that channel 124 may be a tapered edge, such that its cross-section limits the distribution of cooling air through the grid to the associated compartment], which comes from said at least one air channel, to be distributed to said cooling part [¶ 0034-0036; Figs. 3-4; air to the grid is provided via common channel path 98].
Regarding Claim 15, Longo, as modified, teaches the cooling device according to claim 13 above and Longo teaches wherein said air distribution grid contains at least one flat guiding part which provides the cold air, which comes from said at least one air channel, to be distributed to said cooling part [Figs. 3-4¶ 0040; Longo discloses that channel 124 may be a constant cross-sectional taper along its length, thus providing a flat guiding part, wherein air to the grid is provided via common channel path 98].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights