DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on June 06, 2025 & November 26, 20256, were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference characters “12” & “42” are labeled in the drawings, but are not included in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “refrigerating compartment”, “a small convertible compartment” and “a full convertible compartment” [Claims 12-13] must be clearly shown and/or labeled in the drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3-5 & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In Claim 3, use of the phrase “a first fan” line 2, is unclear and confusing as presently set forth since the claimed subject matter already establishes “a first air supply fan” and therefore it is unclear if the “first fan” is a new and distinct feature, or if it is meant to be a reference back to the previously established first air supply fan. Likewise, in Claim 12, the limitations relating to the refrigerating, small convertible and full convertible compartments is unclear and confusing as presently set forth since the claimed subject matter already establishes “a freezing compartment”, and a “non-freezing compartment’ and therefore it is unclear if these other compartments are new and distinct features, or if they are meant to be a reference back to one of the previously established compartments. Appropriate correction / clarification is required. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cur et al., [US 8,720,222] in view of Vijayan et al., [US 11,079,160]. Cur teaches of a refrigerating and freezing apparatus (fig. 11), comprising: a cabinet (2) defining therein a freezing compartment (36), at least one non-freezing compartment (34), and a first cooling chamber and a second cooling chamber for cooling air flowing therethrough (viewed as the chambers that define a space below and behind each compartment for receipt of the cooling systems – fig. 11); wherein the freezing compartment has a freezing storage environment (below freezing temperature environment), and the non-freezing compartment has a refrigerating storage environment (above freezing temperature compartment); a first air supply fan (32) configured to drive a first air flow cooled through the first cooling chamber toward the freezing compartment; and a second air supply fan (32) configured to drive a second air flow cooled through the second cooling chamber toward the at least one non-freezing compartment; wherein the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber are arranged side by side in a transverse direction at a bottom of the cabinet (shown in fig. 11), the first air supply fan is vertically arranged at a lower rear portion of the freezing compartment (lower (32)), and the second air supply fan is vertically arranged at a rear side in the second cooling chamber (opposing lower (32)). Cur teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus as outlined above, but does not show the second air supply fan as being vertically arranged. As to this configuration, Vijayan is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of employing multiple fans (232, 234) within a cooling chamber (220) of a refrigeration appliance (100), where one of the fans (232) is vertically mounted while the other fans (234) is horizontally mounted. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Cur so as to reorient the fan in a horizontal position along the rear side of the cooling chamber in view of Vijayan’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which the forced air flow could be redirected in a manner that is most conducive to air flow along the top most extent of the cooling chamber as dictated by the needs and/or designs of an end product. Regarding Claim 2, as modified, the apparatus further comprising: an inherent freezing air duct assembly arranged at a rear side of the freezing compartment (would be along the rear side of (36) for instance) and configured to deliver the first air flow to the freezing compartment; and wherein the first air supply fan is vertically arranged at a bottom of the freezing air duct assembly (the first air supply fan at the bottom of the duct assembly is not depicted, but would be similar in design to the non-freezing compartment which is shown). Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the at least one non-freezing compartment comprises a refrigerating compartment (disclosed) having a refrigerating storage environment, and the freezing compartment is located at a first side in the transverse direction of the cabinet (fig. 11), and the refrigerating compartment is located at a second side in the transverse direction of the cabinet adjacent to the freezing compartment (shown). The prior art discloses applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus, but does not show additional compartments relating to the non-freezing compartment (i.e., compartments within a compartment). However, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate additional compartments within the non-freezing compartment, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art – and further compartmentalization of a space is well known within the refrigerator appliance art. As such, this “inventive feature” lacks an inventive step and therefore does not constitute patentable subject matter. Regarding Claim 13, as modified, the combined prior art encompass the basic apparatus, but do not specify temperature ranges or locations among the various compartments. Regarding temperature ranges, Cur already defines two compartments with different temperatures and therefore the position is taken it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to encompass several temperature ranges among separate compartments as dependent upon the needs or preferences of a user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As to the placement of compartments within the cabinet, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locations by which the various compartments are arranged, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and therefore will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cur et al., and ViJayan et al., and further in view of Loudermilk et al., [US 9,341,402]. The combined prior art teach applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus as previously outlined; but does not show the inclusion of a volute (i.e., a scroll) with inlet and outlet openings as prescribed by applicant. As to these features, Loudermilk is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a fan assembly (46) including an impeller (68), and a scroll (volute) chamber (70) within a housing (28), where the assembly defines both an air inlet opening forward and an air outlet opening upward (note fig. 3) – it is noted that the direction of the openings can vary depending upon the viewed orientation of the device and upon the actual mounting of the device within a chamber (i.e., either horizontal or vertical mounting position). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cur’s fan assembly in view of a fan assembly as taught by Loudermilk, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing air flow means that is more forceful (i.e., an impeller moving air flow vs a propeller moving air flow) and in a manner where air into the assembly is forced out of the assembly along a different direction which may be an advantage when space is tight within a chamber. Regarding Claim 4, as modified, the first volute can be sealingly connected with a bottom of the freezing air duct assembly (as would be the case when substituting out the propeller fan assembly). Regarding Claim 5, as modified, a drain port (viewed as any of the gapped areas – fig. 3 of Loudermilk) is formed at a bottom of the first volute; and a lower rear portion of the first volute extends forward and downward to form a water-guiding inclined surface (there are many inclined surfaces relating to the housing of Loudermilk). Depending upon the orientation of the impeller assembly when mounted, both a port and inclined surface would be available since the housing defines these features.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cur et al., and ViJayan et al., and further in view of CN 212778123. Cur teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus as previously outlined; including a first evaporator (16) horizontally arranged in the first cooling chamber (the first evaporator at the bottom of the first cooling chamber is not depicted, but would be similar in design to the non-freezing evaporator which is shown); but does not show the evaporator as being inclined upward as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, CN`123 is cited as an evidence reference for the known showing of an evaporator (200) being mounted within a cooling chamber and being inclined upward front a front to a rear in an analogous art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cur’s evaporator inclination in view of CN`123’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an inclined evaporator that would be better suited for allowing air to move through the chamber, especially when the bottom cabinet wall is angled in order to minimize sharp air flow angles. As modified, an upward inclination angle of the first evaporator, a height of the first air supply fan, and a distance between the first evaporator and the first air supply fan can be set such that the first air flow flowing out from the first evaporator directly flows toward a central region of the first air supply fan. Regarding Claim 7, as modified, the upward inclination angle of the first evaporator is any angle value in a range of 20-30 (CN`123 notes a 3-45 degree range is possible, which constitutes values within the stated range parameter). Regarding Claim 8, as modified, again Cur teaches of a second evaporator (16) horizontally arranged in the second cooling chamber; wherein the second air supply fan is arranged at a rear side of the second evaporator; but does not show the fan as being inclined upward from front to rear. As to this aspect, CN`123 is again cited as an evidence reference for the known showing of an air supply fan (145) being mounted within a cooling chamber and being inclined upward from front to rear in an analogous art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cur’s fan inclination in view of CN`123’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an inclined fan that would be better suited for allowing air to move through the chamber, especially when the bottom cabinet wall is angled in order to better direct air flow from the evaporator to the duct assembly.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cur et al., ViJayan et al., and CN 212778123 and further in view of Hanson [US 3,599,442]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus as previously outlined; but does not show the inclusion of a second evaporator cover plate arranged over the second evaporator along with a second insulation foam as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Hanson is cited as an evidence reference for the known showing of an evaporator (24) within a refrigerator cabinet (note fig. 3) and an evaporator cover plate (193) arranged above the evaporator for separating a cooling chamber (153) from a non-freezing compartment (142) adjacently located above the cooling chamber; and an insulation foam (195) attached to a lower surface of the evaporator cover plate in an analogous art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art device by including a cover plate with insulation in view of Hanson’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a physical barrier means by which the chamber and compartment are separated along with an aspect of thermal separation in order to better regulate the temperature within the non-freezing compartment. As modified, the second air supply fan would have an air inlet facing the second insulation foam, and a certain distance is maintained between a front end of the second air supply fan and the second evaporator, and between an upper surface of the second air supply fan where the air inlet is located and the insulation foam, to form an air suction space. Regarding Claim 10, as modified, the prior art teaches the second supply fan and the second evaporator as being adjacent to each other a certain distance; but does not specific a range of 18-25mm. However, the position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of personal preference to vary the shape or size of an element or to vary the distances between elements depending upon the needs and/or preferences of a final product design, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or configuration of components. A change of this degree is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cur et al., and ViJayan et al., and CN 212778123 and further in view of Loudermilk et al., [US 9,341,402]. The combined prior art teach applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus as previously outlined, including a non-freezing air duct assembly (along the rear of the cabinet and in the space around (24) for instance); but does not show the inclusion of a second volute (i.e., a scroll) with inlet and outlet openings relating to the non-freezing air duct assembly as prescribed by applicant. As to these features, Loudermilk is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a fan assembly (46) including an impeller (68), and a scroll (volute) chamber (70) within a housing (28), where the assembly defines both an air inlet opening forward and an air outlet opening upward (note fig. 3) – it is noted that the direction of the openings can vary depending upon the viewed orientation of the device and upon the actual mounting of the device within a chamber (i.e., either horizontal or vertical mounting position). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cur’s fan assembly within the air duct assembly in view of a fan assembly as taught by Loudermilk, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing air flow means that is more forceful (i.e., an impeller moving air flow vs a propeller moving air flow) and in a manner where air into the assembly is forced out of the assembly along a different direction which may be an advantage when space is tight within a chamber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various refrigerator assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOH
September 30, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
