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 .
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
With respect to claim 10: The recitation “the first position” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S59-182077 U (Sharp) in view of JP 2008-032349 A (Urakubo).
With respect to claims 1 and 12: Sharp discloses a refrigerator, comprising: a removable refrigerator shelf assembly (Figs. 3-4), comprising: a base portion (bottom wall of container 11); a first side wall positioned opposite a second side wall (“both sides of the container” – one “side wall” shown in each of Figs. 3-4), wherein the first side wall and the second side wall are connected to the base portion, and wherein the first side wall comprises: a handle attachment portion (portion forming support hole 14) extending from an uppermost edge of the first side wall toward the base portion (said “handle attachment portion” extends from the “uppermost edge” above hole 14, down toward the “base portion”, and ends at locking step 15); a raised portion (locking step 15 and the body of support lever 13 below the locking step 15), wherein the raised portion is positioned below the handle attachment portion and below the uppermost edge of the first side wall (Figs. 3-4), wherein a thickness of the raised portion is greater than a thickness of the handle attachment portion (by virtue of locking step 15 being and/or forming a step); and a handle assembly (rotating bar 16) rotatably coupled to the handle attachment portion (bar 16 is mounted to support hole 14), and wherein the handle assembly is positionable to rest on the raised portion on the outer side of the first sidewall (Fig. 3 and “maintained at a horizontal state by locking step 15”).
Sharp states that Figs. 3-4 show cross-sectional views towards the side of the container 11. Based on the dashed phantom lines in Figs. 3-4, the locking step 15 is on the inside of the support lever 13. Ergo, rotating bar 16 extends between inner surfaces of the two support levers 13 that are on the left and right sides on the container 11.
Sharp Figs. 3-4 does not meet the raised portion “on an outer side of the first side wall” as claimed. Sharp does not disclose “wherein the handle assembly extends from an outer surface of the first side wall to an outer surface of the second side wall” as claimed.
Urakubo shows it is known in the art for a rotating handle 22 to be attached on the outer surfaces of side walls of a container (case 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharp’s support levers 13 to have the locking step 15 and attachment of rotating bar 16 on the outer sides thereof, rather than on the inner sides thereof, as an obvious variation of location of the attachment of bar 16 and the step 15.
Such a modification results in the locking step 15 and the body of support lever 13 beneath the locking step 15 “on an outer side of the first side wall” as claimed. The modification results in bar 16 which “extends from an outer surface of the first side wall to an outer surface of the second side wall” as claimed.
Sharp does not disclose “a recessed portion positioned below the raised portion, wherein a thickness of the recessed portion is less than the thickness of the raised portion; and wherein a refrigerator shelf support is positioned at least partially adjacent to the recessed portion and underneath the raised portion when the removable refrigerator shelf assembly is mounted on the refrigerator shelf support” as claimed.
Sharp Figs. 3-4 shows the container 11 is “laid on shelf step 12a” of the door. Urakubo discloses both side walls of the case 13 having grooves 21b for attaching case 13 to the door 10. The door 10 has support walls 10a, 10b that have protrusions 10d, 10e that are received in the grooves 21b.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharp’s support levers 13 to include grooves 21b beneath the locking steps 15, and to modify Sharp’s door to include support walls 10a, 10b and protrusions 10d, 10e, in order to more securely mount the container 11 to the door. The protrusions 10d, 10e mounted in the grooves 21b is more secure than container 11 simply being set on the shelf step 12a.
Such a modification meets, as claimed, a recessed portion (groove 21b) positioned below the raised portion (beneath step 15), wherein a thickness of the recessed portion is less than the thickness of the raised portion (the groove 21b is recessed into support lever 13); and wherein a refrigerator shelf support (protrusion 10d, 10e) is positioned at least partially adjacent to the recessed portion (as in Urakubo Fig. 7) and underneath the raised portion (protrusion 10d, 10e is beneath step 15 when mounted in groove 21b) when the removable refrigerator shelf assembly is mounted on the refrigerator shelf support.
With respect to claims 2 and 13: Sharp, as modified, does not disclose “wherein the handle assembly and the raised portion form a planar region parallel to the outer surface of the first side wall” as claimed.
Urakubo Fig. 10 shows the arm portion 22a of the handle 22 and a raised portion of storage portion 212 forming an almost planar region parallel to the outer surface of the side wall.
See Sharp Figs. 3-4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arms of Sharp’s rotating bar 16 and locking step 15 to have the same thickness, to thereby have the rotating bar 16 retained in the horizontal position on the locking step 15 as disclosed by Sharp. Further, this prevents the arms of the rotating bar 16 from protruding beyond the sides of the container 11.
In such a modification, the body of support lever 13 beneath the locking step 15 forms a planar region with the arm of the rotating bar 16. This meets, as claimed, wherein the handle assembly (the arm of bar 16) and the raised portion (body of support lever 13 beneath step 15) form a planar region parallel to the outer surface of the first side wall.
With respect to claims 3 and 14: Sharp, as modified, meets wherein the raised portion comprises a ridge (locking step 15) extending a length along a bottom of the handle attachment portion.
With respect to claim 15: Sharp, as modified, meets wherein the handle assembly is positioned to rest on the ridge of the raised portion when the removable refrigerator shelf assembly is in a first position (Sharp Fig. 3) for storage of the removable refrigerator shelf assembly.
The claim limitation “for storage of the removable refrigerator shelf assembly” denotes an intended use of the “first position”. From MPEP § 707.07(f):
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Sharp’s container 11 is capable of being stored in the position of Fig. 3, and therefore meets “for storage of the removable refrigerator shelf assembly” as claimed.
With respect to claims 5 and 16: Sharp, as modified, meets wherein the handle assembly is positioned perpendicular to the base portion when the removable refrigerator shelf assembly is in a second position (Sharp Fig. 4) for holding the removable refrigerator shelf assembly.
The claim limitation “for holding the removable refrigerator shelf assembly” denotes an intended use of the “second position”. From MPEP § 707.07(f):
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Fujitsu’s container 11 is capable of being held in the position of Fig. 4 (and is even shown with a hand holding the rotating bar 16), and therefore meets “for holding the removable refrigerator shelf assembly” as claimed.
With respect to claims 11 and 19: Sharp, as modified, meets wherein the removable refrigerator shelf assembly further comprises a third side wall and a fourth side wall (Figs. 3-4: front and rear walls of container 11), wherein the third side wall and the fourth side wall are connected to the base portion (Figs. 3-4), wherein the third side wall is positioned opposite to the fourth side wall (Figs. 3-4), and wherein the third side wall and the fourth side wall extend from the first side wall to the second side wall (the front and rear walls of container 11 are connected to the left and right walls of container 11).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S59-182077 U (Sharp) in view of JP 2008-032349 A (Urakubo) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 2903850 Y (Zou).
With respect to claim 6: Sharp, as modified, meets further comprising the refrigerator shelf support (Urakubo’s projection 10d, 10e).
Sharp, as modified, does not meet “wherein the refrigerator shelf support comprises: a base configured to support the removable refrigerator shelf assembly when mounted thereon; a raised edge around a perimeter of the base configured to at least partially retain the removable refrigerator shelf assembly; and a mounting portion comprising a cutout for connecting the refrigerator shelf support to an interior surface of the refrigerator” as claimed.
Urakubo shows both side walls of the case 13 having grooves 21b for attaching case 13 to the door 10. The door 10 has support walls 10a, 10b that have protrusions 10d, 10e that are received in the grooves 21b.
Zou Fig. 1 shows a refrigerator door lining 1 including two not-numbered vertical walls having blocks 2 thereon, analogously to Urakubo’s vertical walls 10a, 10b and protrusions 10d, 10e. Zou discloses a base 3 which receives storage boxes 4. The “Description” of Zou states that base 3 has slots in two sides thereof, and the blocks 2 of the door lining 1 are inserted in the slots of the base 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharp’s door to have Zou’s blocks 2 instead of the protrusions 10d, 10e, to mount Zou’s base 3 to the added blocks 2, and to modify Sharp’s container 11 to mount to the added base 3, as an obvious variation of the mounting means between the refrigerator door and the container 11.
Such a modification meets, as claimed, wherein the refrigerator shelf support comprises: a base (bottom, horizontal wall portion of base 3) configured to support the removable refrigerator shelf assembly when mounted thereon (similarly to Zou Fig. 1 showing storage boxes 4 on base 3); a raised edge around a perimeter of the base configured to at least partially retain the removable refrigerator shelf assembly (Zou Fig. 1: not-numbered edge around the perimeter of base 3 and receiving the bottom portions of the storage boxes 4); and a mounting portion (side portion of base 3) comprising a cutout (the slots in the side portions of base 3) for connecting the refrigerator shelf support to an interior surface of the refrigerator (to blocks 2, as added to the interior of the door).
With respect to claim 7: Sharp, as modified, meets wherein the refrigerator shelf support (base 3) is positioned on a refrigerator door assembly (Sharp’s modified door ).
With respect to claim 8: Sharp, as modified, meets wherein the mounting portion of the refrigerator shelf support (the side portion of base 3) is positioned at least partially adjacent to the recessed portion (the side of base 3 is at least partially adjacent to crevice 9 of container 5) and underneath the raised portion of the removable refrigerator shelf assembly (the side of base 3 is underneath the step 15) when the removable refrigerator shelf assembly is positioned on the base of the refrigerator shelf support.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S59-182077 U (Sharp) in view of JP 2008-032349 A (Urakubo) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0018593 A1 (Scalf).
With respect to claim 6: Sharp, as modified, meets further comprising the refrigerator shelf support (Urakubo’s projection 10d, 10e).
Sharp, as modified, does not meet “wherein the refrigerator shelf support comprises: a base configured to support the removable refrigerator shelf assembly when mounted thereon; a raised edge around a perimeter of the base configured to at least partially retain the removable refrigerator shelf assembly; and a mounting portion comprising a cutout for connecting the refrigerator shelf support to an interior surface of the refrigerator” as claimed.
Urakubo shows both side walls of the case 13 having grooves 21b for attaching case 13 to the door 10. The door 10 has support walls 10a, 10b that have protrusions 10d, 10e that are received in the grooves 21b.
Scalf discloses an adjustable supporting arrangement for a bin 20a that is analogous and/or functionally-equivalent to Sharp’s container 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharp’s door to have Scalf’s adjustable supporting arrangement, and to modify Sharp’s container 11 to mount to the adjustable supporting arrangement, in order to add the provision of vertical adjustability to the container 11.
Such a modification meets, as claimed, wherein the refrigerator shelf support comprises: a base (bottom, horizontal wall portion of carriage 20b) configured to support the removable refrigerator shelf assembly when mounted thereon (similarly to Scalf Fig. 3); a raised edge around a perimeter of the base configured to at least partially retain the removable refrigerator shelf assembly (Scalf Fig. 4: not-numbered edge around the perimeter of carriage 20b and receiving the bottom portion of the bin 20a); and a mounting portion (portion including lateral receptacle 22a) comprising a cutout (receptacle 22a itself and/or top end 22b of opening 22 and/or bottom end 22c of opening 22) for connecting the refrigerator shelf support to an interior surface of the refrigerator (as in Scalf Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 7: Sharp, as modified, meets wherein the refrigerator shelf support (Scalf’s supporting arrangement) is positioned on a refrigerator door assembly (Sharp’s modified door ).
With respect to claim 8: Sharp, as modified, meets wherein the mounting portion of the refrigerator shelf support (portion including lateral receptacle 22a) is positioned at least partially adjacent to the recessed portion (portion including lateral receptacle 22a is at least partially adjacent to crevice 9 of container 5) and underneath the raised portion of the removable refrigerator shelf assembly (portion including lateral receptacle 22a is underneath the step 15) when the removable refrigerator shelf assembly is positioned on the base of the refrigerator shelf support.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S59-182077 U (Sharp) in view of JP 2008-032349 A (Urakubo) as applied to claims 5 and 16 above, and further in view of CN 2311178 Y (Luo) and US 2008/02173242 A1 (Cinque).
With respect to claims 9-10 and 17-18: Sharp, as modified, does not meet “wherein the handle attachment portion comprises a first notch configured to lock the handle assembly in the second position” as recited in claims 9 and 17 and/or “wherein the handle attachment portion comprises a second notch configured to lock the handle assembly in a third position, wherein the handle assembly is positioned between the first position and the second position when in the third position” as recited in claims 10 and 18.
Luo discloses a handle 1 having rotating shafts 11 with two trenches (notches) 12 defined therein. The trenches 12 interact with a grip 21 of a spring 22 that is a component of base 2, to thereby lock the handle 1 in two desired positions.
In the paragraph immediately preceding the claims, the description of Luo states the embodiment shown in the figures is only preferred. Modifications, changes, or equivalent transformations are within the scope of Luo’s invention.
Further, it has been held that the reversal and/or rearrangement of the essential working parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2114.04.
It is obvious to use a combination of at least one trench 12 and at least one grip 21 to retain a handle in a desired position. It is obvious to use multiples of the trench 12 and/or grip 21 in order to provide retention in more than one desired position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharp’s support hole 14 to have two of Luo’s trenches 12, and to modify the arm of Sharp’s rotating bar 16 to have a spring 22 and grip 21 therein, in order to retain Sharp’s “handle”/bar 16 in two desired positions similarly to Luo’s invention.
It is obvious for a first trench 12 to be arranged such that bar 16 is held in the position of Fujitsu Fig. 4. This meets “wherein the handle attachment portion comprises a first notch configured to lock the handle assembly in the second position” as recited in claims 9 and 17.
Cinque shows it is known in the art for handles 130, 230 to be positioned at an angle between vertical and horizontal. Cinque [0006] describes the handle of a cooler used for carrying thereof.
It is obvious for a second trench 12 to be arranged such that board 15 is held somewhere between the positions of Sharp Figs. 3 and 4, similarly to the handles 130, 230 of Cinque. This meets “wherein the handle attachment portion comprises a second notch configured to lock the handle assembly in a third position, wherein the handle assembly is positioned between the first position and the second position when in the third position” as recited in claims 10 and 18.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S59-182077 U (Sharp) in view of JP 2008-032349 A (Urakubo) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of KR 2017-0084592 A (Kim).
With respect to claim 20: Sharp, as modified, does not meet “wherein a second handle assembly is rotatably coupled to the handle attachment portion” as claimed.
Kim Figs. 1-2 show a refrigerator that comprising a grip portion 200 that includes two independently movable grip portions 200a, 200b. The translation of Kim describes the two pieces 200a, 200b as “preferable”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sharp’s container 11 to have Kim’s grip portions 200a, 200b, instead of bar 16, because Kim shows it is known in the refrigerator art to provide such a container with two-piece handle.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed 09 September 2026 are rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action, as the arguments are drawn to grounds of rejection which are no longer relied upon. The latest claim amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, 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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights