www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/547,130
`
`08/21/2019
`
`Tatsuya KAWASAKI
`
`20296.0130USW1
`
`4380
`
`HAY
`
`M
`
`TLER
`
`HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON P.C.
`45 South Seventh Street
`Suite 2700
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1683
`
`BAUER,CASSEY D
`
`3763
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/17/2021
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`PTOMail @hsml.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-13 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected.
`(1 Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`C} Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20210512
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/547, 130
`KAWASAK etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`CASSEY D BAUER
`3763
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 4/13/2021.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/547,130
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined underthe
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`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 betweenthe 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 obviousnessor
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0168048to
`
`Sexton et al., hereinafter referred to as Sexton, in view of US 2009/0113920 to Baeet al.,
`
`hereinafter referred to as Bae andin further view of US 2013/0042641 to Ryuet al., hereinafter
`
`referred to as Ryu.
`
`In reference to claims 1 and 5, Sexton as modified by Bae and Ryu discloses the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/547,130
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 3
`
`Sexton figure 7 discloses a refrigerator (wine cellar with respect to claim 5) (20),
`
`the refrigerator of Sexton is considered a wine cellar in thatit is capable of cooling and
`
`accommodating wine therein, comprising:
`
`a lower storage compartment (V2);
`
`an upper storage compartment (V1) located above the lower storage
`
`compartment in the refrigerator (wine cellar), see figure 7;
`
`a cooling compartment (see annotated reference below for the examiner’s
`
`definition of the claimed cooling compartment) located closer to a back surface (28) of
`
`the refrigerator (wine cellar) than the lower storage compartment and the upper storage
`
`compartment;
`
`a cooler (96) disposedin the cooling compartment;
`
`a wall surface unit (see annotated reference for the examiner’s definition of the
`
`claimed wall surface unit) that partitions an inside of the refrigerator (wine cellar) into the
`
`cooling compartment and a set of the lower storage compartment and the upper storage
`
`compartment, the wall surface unit having a first surface facing the cooling compartment,
`
`a second surface facing the lower storage compartment, and a third surface facing the
`
`upper storage compartment;
`
`a cooling fan (142);
`
`a damperdevice (108) disposedon the first surface of the wall surface unit, the
`
`damper device having at least a first opening portion for supplying the cool air to the
`
`lower storage compartment, and a second opening portion for supplying the cool air to
`
`the upper storage compartment (see annotated references below);
`
`a first blow-off port (126) that is formed in the second surface of the wall surface
`
`unit, the first blow-off port being configured to supply cool air to the lower storage
`
`compartment;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/547,130
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 4
`
`a second blow-off port (102) that is formed in the third surface of the wall surface
`
`unit, the second blow-off port being configured to supply cool air to the upper storage
`
`compartment;
`
`a first discharge air passage (seefigure 1)that is formedin the wall surface unit,
`
`the first discharge air passage allowing the first opening portion and the first blow-off port
`
`to communicate with each other; and
`
`a second discharge air passage (98) that is formed in the wall surface unit, the
`
`second discharge air passage allowing the second opening portion and the first blow-off
`
`port to communicate with each other.
`
` e
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SSve
`
`iy
`
`
`
`
`
`320
`120
`428
`
`} t
`=I
`=
`
`13g Yan014
`f
`*
`t
`$
`f I22
`122
`r22
`t22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/547,130
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 5
`
`Va.
`
`|&
`
`4,
`
`\
`
`
`ULLLLLSILIL
`
` orto
`
`
`Agatas
`
`errsMensttBetstp
`
`
`
`ibe,Mae
`
`Sexton fails to explicitly disclose the cooling fan (142) disposed on the first
`
`surface of the wall surface unit, the cooling fan being configured to supply cool air
`
`generated by the coolerin a circumferential direction , nor the first opening portion and
`
`the second opening portion being disposed adjacently to each other.
`
`Bae teachesthatin the art of refrigerators, thatit is a known method to provide a
`
`cooling fan (232) for providing cooling air to multiple compartments of a refrigerator,
`
`suchthat the cooling fan disposed on the interior surface of a wall surface unit (see
`
`figure 4a, wall surfaceillustrated generally at 140), the cooling fan being configured to
`
`supply cool air generated by the cooler in a circumferential direction, see figure 3B. This
`
`is strong evidence that modifying Sexton as claimed would produce predictable results
`
`(e.g. supply air from the evaporator to multiple compartments of a refrigerator).
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinaryskill in the art at the time
`
`the invention wasfiled, to modify Sexton by Bae such that the cooling fan (142) was
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/547,130
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 6
`
`disposedon the first surface of the wall surface unit, the cooling fan being configured to
`
`supply cool air generated by the cooler in a circumferential direction, since all claimed
`
`elements were knownin the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have
`
`modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changesin their respective
`
`functions and the combination would haveyielded a predictable result of supplying cold
`
`air from the cooler to the multiple compartmentsof the refrigerator.
`
`Ryu teachesthatin the art of controlling the supply of cold air to an upper(13)
`
`and lower(14) refrigeration compartment, it is a known method to provide a damper
`
`apparatus (80, 81, and 34 collectively comprise the damper apparatus), see figure 6,
`
`having a first opening portion (opening corresponding to the damperas described in
`
`[0092]) which controls the flow of air to lower refrigeration compartment(14) via opening
`
`and closing air path (71) [0088-0089] and a second opening portion (85) which controls
`
`the flow of cold air to upper refrigeration compartment (13) via opening and closing air
`
`path (72). Ryu teachesthat thesefirst and second opening portions are disposed
`
`adjacent eachother, see figure 6. This is strong evidence that modifying Sexton as
`
`claimed would producepredictable result (e.g. control the discharge of air to the first and
`
`second refrigerating compartments). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention wasfiled, to modify Sexton by
`
`Ryu suchthat the first opening portion and the second opening portion being disposed
`
`adjacently to each other, since all claimed elements were knownin the art, and one
`
`having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known
`
`methods with no changesin their respective functions and the combination would have
`
`yielded a predictable result of controlling the flow of cold air to the upper and lower
`
`refrigerating compartments.
`
`In reference to claims 2 and 6, Sexton as modified by Bae and Ryu discloses the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/547,130
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 7
`
`Sexton discloses the damperdevice (108) is disposed abovethe cooling fan
`
`(142), see figure 7.
`
`In reference to claims 3 and 7, Sexton as modified by Bae and Ryu discloses the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`Sexton fails to disclose the damper device (108) and the cooling fan (142) are
`
`covered byanintegrally formed case.
`
`Bae also teachesthatin the art of supplying air to multiple compartments of a
`
`refrigerator, that it is a known method to provide a damper device (216) and a cooling
`
`fan (230) suchthat they are covered by an integrally formed case (200, see annotated
`
`reference below for the examiner’s definition of the integrally formed case highlighted in
`
`grey whichis alsoillustrated in figure 4a).
`
`“e,
`
`“aig
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/547,130
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 8
`
`This is strong evidence that modifying Sexton as claimed would produce
`
`predictable result (e.g. provide an enclosure for the fan and damper). Bae teachesthat
`
`this method simplifies ducts and reduces the space occupied by ducting [0060] and
`
`[0076]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time the invention wasfiled, to modify Sexton by Bae suchthat disclose the damper
`
`device (108) and the cooling fan (142) are covered by an integrally formed casein order
`
`to advantageously simplify and reduce the space occupied by ducting.
`
`In reference to claims 4 and 8, Sexton as modified by Bae and Ryu discloses the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`Sexton fails to disclose a portion of the integrally formed case which covers an
`
`outer periphery of the cooling fan is formed in an Archimedean spiral form. However Bae
`
`teachesthat in the art of refrigerator fan housings, that it is known to form the housing
`
`(230) with a scroll in an Archimedean spiral form, see figures 4a-4c. Accordingly,it
`
`would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`wasfiled, to modify Sexton by Bae suchthat a portion of the integrally formed case
`
`which covers an outer periphery of the cooling fan is formed in an Archimedeanspiral
`
`form since all claimed elements were knownin the art, and one having ordinary skill in
`
`the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes
`
`in their respective functions and the combination would haveyielded a predictable result
`
`of reducing noise produced bythe fan.
`
`In reference to claim 9, Sexton as modified by Bae and Ryu discloses the claimed invention.
`
`Sexton discloses a door (40) which covers both the lower storage compartment
`
`and the upperstorage compartment, seefigure 2.
`
`In reference to claims 12 and 13, Sexton as modified by Bae and Ryudiscloses the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/547,130
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 9
`
`Although Ryudisclosesthe first and second opening portions arranged
`
`adjacently in a vertical direction, Ryu does not disclose the openings arranged in a
`
`horizontal direction. However, Applicant has not disclosed anycriticality for the claimed
`
`arrangement. Further, it has been held that, “when a patent simply arranged old
`
`elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and
`
`yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is
`
`obvious.” Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976). Since rearranging openings
`
`from a vertical orientation to a horizontal orientation would not perform differently than
`
`the prior art, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skHl in the art at the time
`
`the invention was mace to arrange the first opening partion and the second opening
`
`portion: are arranged side-by-side in a horizontal direction in a damper frame body since
`
`it has been held that arranging old elements to perform the same function it had been
`
`known to perform which yields no more than one would expectfrom such
`
`an arrangementis an obvious combination.
`
`Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sexton, Bae,
`
`and Ryu as applied supra, and in further view of US 2009/0173101 to Hynes.
`
`In reference to claim 10, Sexton and Bae and Ryu as modified by Hynesdiscloses the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`Sexton as modified supra fails to disclose a glass plate unit which allows a user
`
`to visually recognize an inside of the lower storage compartment and aninside of the
`
`upper storage compartment without opening the door.
`
`Hynes teachesthatin the art of refrigerator cabinets, that it is known to provide
`
`the door (134) with a glass pane (140) which allows a useerto visually recognize an
`
`inside of two refrigerated compartments without opening the door, see figure 6. Hynes
`
`teachesthat glass allows a user to see into the compartments without opening the door
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/547,130
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 10
`
`[0025]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time the invention wasfiled, to modify Sexton by Hynes suchthat a glass plate unit
`
`which allows a userto visually recognize aninside of the lower storage compartment
`
`and an inside of the upper storage compartment without opening the door.
`
`In reference to claim 11, Sexton and Bae and Ryu as modified by Hynes discloses the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`Sexton as modified supra fails to disclose an operation portion which allows a
`
`userto perform setting of a temperature of the lower storage compartment and setting of
`
`a temperature of the upper storage compartment is mounted on the door.
`
`Hynes teachesthat in the art of refrigerated cabinets, that it is a known method to
`
`provide an operation portion (138) which allows a user to perform setting of a
`
`temperature of two compartments mounted on a door (134). Hynes teachesthat this
`
`allows control of the temperature of the two compartments without opening the door
`
`[0037]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time the invention wasfiled, to modify Sexton by Hynes such that an operation
`
`portion which allows a user to perform setting of a temperature of the lower storage
`
`compartment andsetting of a temperature of the upper storage compartment is mounted
`
`on the door since all claimed elements were knownin the art, and one having ordinary
`
`skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no
`
`changesin their respective functions and the combination would have yielded a
`
`predictable result of allowing a userto control the temperature of both compartments
`
`without opening the door.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant’s arguments, filed April 13, 2021, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1
`
`and 5 under 35 USC 103 over Sexton and Bae, that none of the cited prior art teaches a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/547,130
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 11
`
`damper having first and second opening portions that are disposed adjacent each other have
`
`been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
`
`However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ryu as
`
`applied supra.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presentedin 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 ofthis final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after
`
`the end of the THREE-MONTH shortenedstatutory period, then the shortened statutory period
`
`will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this
`
`final action.
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whosetelephone number is (571)270-7113. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached on Mon; Tues; Thurs; Fri; 9-7PM Pacific Time.
`
`Examinerinterviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing
`
`using a USPTO supplied web-basedcollaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is
`
`encouraged to use the USPTO AutomatedInterview Request (AIR)at
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/547,130
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 12
`
`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 numberfor 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 CustomerService Representative or access to
`
`the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`/CASSEY D BAUER/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
`
`