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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 calls for the limitation “wherein the sub-door is configured to enable the user to see the display device through the panel assembly and the storage space through the panel assembly and the opening while the lighting device is turned on” (last paragraph); which limitation is indefinite for the following reasons:
The limitation is a run-on phrase that lacks appropriate punctuation. The scope of the limitation cannot be readily ascertained.
The limitation recites both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus (“while the lighting device is turned on”). It is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the apparatus or when one actually uses the apparatus (see MPEP 2173.05(p), In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 2-20 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20140232251 A1) in view of Awane (US 4706794 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Kim discloses a refrigerator comprising:
a cabinet #10 having a storage space #30;
a main door #50 configured to open and close the storage space and having an opening #51 (Fig. 2); and
a sub-door #70 configured to open and close the opening and having a panel assembly (Fig. 2; [0047] & [0054]),
Kim does not disclose a lighting device configured to illuminate the storage space.
By official notice, the examiner submits that using a lighting device configured to illuminate a storage space of a refrigerator is well known in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Kim with a lighting device configured to illuminate the storage space.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided clear visibility of the refrigerated space; thereby, allowing for easy food identification and better space organization.
Kim does not also disclose a display device is disposed within the opening and configured to display information to a user; wherein the sub-door is configured to enable a user to see the display device through the panel assembly and the storage space through the panel assembly and the opening while the lighting device is turned on.
In the same field of endeavor, Awane teaches a refrigerator (the unit of Awane uses a cooler unit #56 to cool commodities) comprising a main door #30 and a sub-door #16; wherein a display device #36 is disposed within the main door and configured to display information to a user (col. 3, L 45-68).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Kim with a display device is disposed within the opening and configured to display information to a user; in a similar manner as taught by Awane.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have allowed for the content of the refrigerator to be accessed without opening the door of the refrigerator; thereby, reducing energy consumption of the refrigerator.
Note: the limitation “wherein the sub-door is configured to enable a user to see the display device through the panel assembly and the storage space through the panel assembly and the opening while the lighting device is turned on” constitutes an intended use limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed invention. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114/Il.
Regarding claim 4:
Kim as modified discloses all the limitations, except for wherein a front surface of the display device is tilted rearward relative to the panel assembly.
Awane further teaches wherein a front surface of the display device is tilted rearward relative to the panel assembly (the keys of #36 are three-dimensional element. They comprise a surface that is tilted rearward relative to the panel assembly of #16).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Kim as modified with a front surface of the display device is tilted rearward relative to the panel assembly; in a similar manner as taught by Awane.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have allowed for the content of the refrigerator to be accessed without opening the door of the refrigerator; thereby, reducing energy consumption of the refrigerator.
Regarding claim 8:
Kim as modified discloses all the limitations.
Kim further discloses wherein the panel assembly includes a front panel, a rear panel spaced apart from a rear surface of the front panel, and a spacer provided between the front panel and the rear panel (see Fig. 2).
Kim as modified discloses wherein the display device is disposed at a rear of the rear panel (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9:
Kim as modified discloses all the limitations.
Kim further discloses one or more door baskets #53 that are coupled to the main door, the one or more door baskets being provided at least partially within the opening (Fig. 2; [0053]).
Regarding claim 10:
Kim as modified discloses all the limitations; except for wherein the display device is disposed below at least one of the one or more door baskets.
Nonetheless, providing the display device disposed below at least one of the one or more door baskets is recognized as a matter of rearrangement of parts. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative positioning and a device having the claimed relative position would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04- In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Kim as modified with the display device disposed below at least one of the one or more door baskets.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have facilitated access to the display device for service and repairs. Other benefits include facilitating reading from the display device.
Regarding claim 11:
Kim as modified discloses all the limitations; except for a sensor that is configured to detect an operation of the user, wherein at least one of the display device or the lighting device is configured to be activated in response to the sensor detecting the operation of the user.
By official notice, the examiner submits that using a sensor that detects an operation of a user to activate a light of a refrigerator is well known in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Kim as modified with a sensor that detects an operation of a user to activate the lighting device of the refrigerator.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have allowed the lighting device to be operated autonomously; thereby, improving the user experience of the refrigerator.
Regarding claim 12:
Kim as modified discloses all the limitations; except for a display configured to display a screen including a temperature of the storage space in response to the sensor detecting the operation of the user.
By official notice, the examiner submits that using a display to display a temperature of the storage space in response to the sensor detecting the operation of the user is well known in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Kim as modified with said claimed configuration.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have allowed a user to immediately verify if the refrigerator is operating within the safe zone so as to avoid commodities spoilage.
Regarding claim 13:
Kim as modified discloses all the limitations; except for the display device is configured to be inactivated when a preset time passes after the display device is activated.
Nonetheless, it is known to make a display dormant when not in use (official notice).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Kim as modified with the display device configured to be inactivated when a preset time passes after the display device is activated.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided power conservation and hardware longevity.
Regarding claim 20:
Kim further discloses a door handle #60 recessed from a lower side of the first door (see Fig. 2).
Kim as modified does not disclose wherein the door handle is disposed below the display device.
Nonetheless, providing the door handle disposed below the display device is recognized as a matter of rearrangement of parts. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative positioning and a device having the claimed relative position would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04- In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Kim as modified with the door handle disposed below the display device.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have facilitated access to the display device for service and repairs. Other benefits include facilitating reading from the display device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oh (US 20140139090 A1), Park (US 20140246970 A1), Deka (US 20160258670 A1), Lee (US 9046294 B2), Kim (US 20140132144 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights