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 .
Claims Status
The present application has four (4) pending claims as indicated by the PPH Petition dated 03/12/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claims 1 and 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims fail to define the range of degree that the term “substantially” covers/entails.
By virtue of dependency, claims 2 and 4 are also rejected.
Claims 1-4 are rejected to because of the following: claims 1, 3, and 4 contain content in quotation marks or parenthesis. It is unclear if the content in the quotation marks or parenthesis is intended to be included or excluded from the claim, thus rendering metes and bounds sought by the claim indefinite. Applicant is encouraged to replace any acronyms in the claims with the corresponding terms written out in full throughout the claims and to delete all content in quotation marks or parenthesis from the claims.
By virtue of dependency, claims 2 and 4 are also rejected.
Regarding claims 3-4, the phrase "-type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "frame" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "frame" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
By virtue of dependency, claims 2 and 4 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 109210846 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Wang.”
Regarding Claim 1: Wang teaches a refrigeration unit (Figure 1, entire table 1, including 221, 222, 223, 224, 232, see Figure 5), including: a drawers housing structure (12/122) to accommodate two or more drawers (132) positioned, within said housing structure (see Figures 3A and 5), at a substantially similar height to each other and over the same plane (see Figures 3A and 5); a transparent (11 can be glass, page 3 of machine translation), substantially flat, top surface to collectively cover top openings (see Figures 1-3A) of said drawers (132) when positioned within said housing structure (12/122) or frame, while enabling a top view through said transparent surface (functional limitation), of items stored in said drawers (functional limitation, intended use); and wherein said refrigeration unit (221, 222, 223, 224, 232, see Figure 5) is integral with an ‘island’ kitchen structure (1 and 2, see Figure 2), having: a bottom section (base 22, see Figure 4A) housing a compressor (221) of said refrigeration unit (221, 222, 223, 224, 232, see Figure 5); and a top section (1, 21, 23) including said drawers (132), said drawers housing structure (12/122), said transparent (11, glass), substantially flat, top surface (see Figure 2), and evaporator coils (coiling portions of 232, see Figure 5, 232 is in 21) of said refrigeration unit (section of 232 is in 21).
Regarding Claim 2: Wang further teaches wherein at least some of said evaporator coils (coiling portions of 232) are positioned between said drawers (storage chamber 13 having drawers 132) at a substantially vertical orientation (see Figure 5, 232 is provided between chambers 13 and drawers 132, all structure has orientation in all three dimensions).
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kin et al. (JP 2004085188 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as "Kin," in view of Wang et al. (CN 109210846 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Wang,” and Evans (2,162,945).
Regarding Claim 1: Kin teaches a refrigeration unit (1, 30), including: two or more chambers (11) positioned, within a housing structure (10 and 20); a transparent (40 is a see through window, pages 3 and 6 of machine translation), substantially flat, top surface (40), while enabling a top view through said transparent surface (functional limitation), of items stored in said chambers (functional limitation, intended use); and wherein said refrigeration unit (1, 30) is integral with an ‘island’ kitchen structure (10, 20, 40, pages 3 and 6 of machine translation), having: a bottom section housing a compressor (65) of said refrigeration unit (30); and a top section including said chambers (10, 20 having chambers 11), said housing structure, said transparent (40 is a see through window), substantially flat, top surface (40, see through window, pages 3 and 6 of machine translation); and an evaporator (63).
Kin fails to teach a drawers housing structure to accommodate two or more drawers positioned, within said housing structure; at a substantially similar height to each other and over the same plane; the evaporator has coils and that the top section including the evaporator coils of said refrigeration unit.
Wang teaches a refrigeration unit (Figure 1, entire table 1, including 221, 222, 223, 224, 232, see Figure 5), including: a drawers housing structure (12/122) to accommodate two or more drawers (132) positioned, within said housing structure (see Figures 3A and 5), at a substantially similar height to each other and over the same plane (see Figures 3A and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a drawers housing structure to accommodate two or more drawers positioned, within said housing structure; at a substantially similar height to each other and over the same plane to the structure of Kin as taught by Wang in order to advantageously provide additional sections and the ability to slide out items from the storage space (see pages 3-4 of machine translation of Wang).
Evans teaches an evaporator has coils (page 2, lines 1-27) and a top section including the evaporator coils of a refrigeration unit (19 is the machine compartment, evaporator is in 29 above it see Figures 1 and 4, page 2, lines 1-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the evaporator has coils and that the top section including the evaporator coils of said refrigeration unit to the structure of Kin modified supra as taught by Evans in order to advantageously provide a central location to provide cooling to the compartments containing food stuffs (see Evans page 2, lines 28-54).
Regarding Claim 2: Kin modified supra fails to teach wherein at least some of said evaporator coils are positioned between said drawers at a substantially vertical orientation.
Evans teaches evaporator coils (34 into 36 and 37 into 26 for the gasified refrigerant, page 2 lines 1-27) are positioned between sections at a substantially vertical orientation (see Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein at least some of said evaporator coils are positioned between said drawers at a substantially vertical orientation to the structure of Kin modified supra as taught by Evans in order to advantageously provide a central location to provide cooling to the compartments containing food stuffs (see Evans page 2, lines 28-54).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109210846 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Wang,” in view of Heo et al. (KR 20180001856 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Heo.”
Regarding Claim 3: Wang teaches a refrigeration unit (Figure 1, entire table 1, including 221, 222, 223, 224, 232, see Figure 5), including: a drawers housing structure (12/122) to accommodate two or more drawers (132) positioned, within said housing structure (see Figures 3A and 5), at a substantially similar height to each other and over the same plane (see Figures 3A and 5); a transparent (11 can be glass, page 3 of machine translation), substantially flat, top surface to collectively cover top openings (see Figures 1-3A) of said drawers (132) when positioned within said housing structure (12/122) or frame, while enabling a top view through said transparent surface (functional limitation), of items stored in said drawers (functional limitation, intended use).
Wang fails to teach wherein said top surface of said refrigeration unit includes one or more “smart glass’ type surfaces, enabling the shifting/changing of said top surface from being transparent to being opaque and vice versa.
Heo teaches “smart glass’ type surfaces, enabling a shifting/changing of a top surface from being transparent to being opaque and vice versa (see abstract, 100, via light panel 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein said top surface of said refrigeration unit includes one or more “smart glass’ type surfaces, enabling the shifting/changing of said top surface from being transparent to being opaque and vice versa to the structure of Wang as taught by Heo in order to advantageously provide sensitive illumination (see abstract, Heo).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109210846 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Wang,” in view of Heo et al. (KR 20180001856 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Heo,” as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gooden (EP 2778585 A2).
Regarding Claim 4: Wang modified supra fails to teach wherein each of said drawers includes a Light Emitting Diode (LED) and the turning on of one or more of said LEDs, shifts at least part of said one or more ‘smart glass’ type surfaces from opaque to transparent state.
Gooden teaches drawers (paragraph [0011]) includes a Light Emitting Diode (LED, 60, paragraph [0014]) and the turning on of one or more of said LEDs (paragraph [0014]), shifts at least part of said one or more surfaces from dark to illuminated state (paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein each of said drawers includes a Light Emitting Diode (LED) and the turning on of one or more of said LEDs, shifts at least part of said one or more ‘smart glass’ type surfaces from opaque to transparent state to the structure of Wang modified supra as taught by Gooden in order to advantageously provide lighting within the drawers of a refrigerator to illuminate the interior space (see Gooden, abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Table Refrigerator (KR 200454903 Y1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763