UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/892,146
`
`02/08/2018
`
`Yoshihiro TAKAHASHI
`
`092122-0057
`
`4447
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`THE MCDERMOTT BUILDING
`500 NORTH CAPITAL STREET, NW.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20001
`
`MENDOZA-WILKENFE ERIK
`
`3763
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/02/2019
`
`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):
`
`ipdoeketmwe @ mwe. com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/892,146
`Examiner
`ERIK MENDOZA-WILKENFE
`
`Applicant(s)
`TAKAHASHI et al.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`3763
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from 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, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 2/08/2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] 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 Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—11 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible 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 PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)D accepted or b)l:] 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):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)D All
`
`b)I:I Some**
`
`c)CI None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in 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) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190726
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
`
`Priority
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element in a claim for a combination may be
`expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of
`structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing
`a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
`such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`4.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the
`
`description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is invoked.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 3
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the
`
`following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute
`
`for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-
`
`structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed
`
`function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
`
`language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g.,
`
`“means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so
`
`that”; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim
`
`limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or
`
`acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim
`
`limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 4
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting
`
`sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are
`
`being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this
`
`application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise
`
`indicated in an Office action.
`
`5.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
`
`“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder
`
`that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform
`
`the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
`
`Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
`
`a.
`
`control unit in claim 1, line 17 which will be interpreted as being a
`
`controller in view of paragraph 0081 of Applicant’s specification.
`
`Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to
`
`cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the
`
`claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`lf applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
`
`(1) amend the
`
`claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 5
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the
`
`claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim |imitation(s) recite(s)
`
`sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`2.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`3.
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 6
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-6, 8, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2011/0023532) in view of Takasugi (US
`
`2010/0147017), Chae et al. (US 2004/0221605) and Rafalovich et al. (US 6,519,970)
`
`Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches an ultra-low temperature freezer (Fig. 1)
`
`comprising: an insulated case (Fig. 11, comprising 2A) defining a storage compartment
`
`(Fig. 11, comprising 21Ac and 21Ad) having an opening (front opening of outer box 2A
`
`in Fig. 11, see paragraph 0042; See Fig. 16 when door 3 and 7b are open) in a front
`
`face (Figs. 15A and 16, front face shown by 78 when 78 is closed);
`
`an insulated door (Fig. 11, 3A) configured to be able to open and close the
`
`opening;
`
`a first refrigeration unit (Fig. 6, 300), comprising configured such that a first
`
`compressor (Fig. 1, 301), a first condenser (Fig. 6, 304), and a first decompressor (Fig.
`
`6, 310) are mounted in machine chamber 4A, Fig. 11);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 7
`
`a second refrigeration unit (Fig. 6, 400) configured such that a second
`
`compressor (Fig. 6, 401), a second condenser (Fig. 6, 404), and a
`
`second decompressor (Fig. 6, 410) are mounted in machine room 4A in Fig. 11;
`
`a machinery compartment (Fig. 11, 4A) provided adjacent to the insulated case,
`
`the machinery compartment being configured to house the first refrigeration unit and the
`
`second refrigeration unit; and
`
`a control unit (Fig. 10, 32A) where a control circuit (paragraph 0044, “control
`
`portion”) is mounted (on door 3A, Fig. 10),
`
`Kobayashi does not teach wherein the opening is in an upper face of the insulated case,
`
`Furthermore, Kobayashi does not teach wherein the control unit being housed in the
`
`machinery compartment so as to be stacked in a vertical direction.
`
`Takasugi teaches an ultra-low temperature freezer (Fig. 1) comprising: an insulated
`
`case (Fig. 1, 2) defining a storage compartment (Fig. 2, 4) having an opening (opening
`
`of 4 at lied 15 in Fig. 2) in an upper face (at lid 15 in Fig. 2). Takasugi teaches a control
`
`unit (Fig. 5, 21) housed in a machinery compartment (Fig. 5, comprising 3 and 18) so as
`
`to be stacked in a vertical direction (bottom to top of the ultra-low temperature freezer,
`
`Fig. 5).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`Applicant’s filed invention to have modified the storage compartment of Kobayashi such
`
`that the face at the opening of the storage compartment faced upwards as taught by
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 8
`
`Takasugi in order to provide the predictable result of allowing a user to lay items to be
`
`cooled in a horizontal direction rather than a vertical direction as well as view all the
`
`items stored from above the items thereby not requiring the user to bend down to view
`
`items at lower elevations. Furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s filed invention to have further modified the
`
`control panel to be stacked in a vertical direction next to the storage compartment
`
`having an insulated door as taught by Takasugi in order to provide the predictable result
`
`of allowing the user to have the insulated door open and view the control panel
`
`simultaneously.
`
`Kobayashi does not teach wherein the control unit being is configured to be drawable
`
`independently of the first refrigeration unit and the second refrigeration unit.
`
`Kobayashi does not teach wherein the control unit being configured to be drawable
`
`independently of the first refrigeration unit and the second refrigeration unit.
`
`Chae teaches a control unit (Fig. 4, 13) is configured to be drawable (See paragraph
`
`0043, lines 1-6, “According to one aspect, the box accommodating part 7 is provided in a lower
`
`part of the main body 3, and a box supporting bracket 30 is provided in the box accommodating
`
`part 7, to support the electric component box 10, wherein the electric component box 10 is
`
`drawn in and out, being supported by the box supporting bracket 30. ’9 independently of any
`
`other moving parts of the refrigerator shown in Fig. 1.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`Applicant’s filed invention to have modified the combination of Kobayashi and Takasugi
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 9
`
`by modifying the control unit of the combination to be drawable as taught by Chae in
`
`order to provide the predictable result of being able to easily inspect electrical
`
`components within the control unit which are normally protected by the machine
`
`compartment as taught by Chae.
`
`Kobayashi does not teach wherein the first and second refrigeration units are mounted
`
`on a first mounting board and a second mounting board respectively, or wherein the first
`
`and second refrigeration units are independently drawable in a horizontal direction.
`
`Furthermore, Kobayashi does not teach wherein the first refrigeration unit is mounted on
`
`a first mounting board and the second refrigeration unit is mounted on a second
`
`mounting board.
`
`Rafalovich teaches a refrigeration unit (Fig. 4 comprising 164 and 166) of a refrigerator
`
`(Fig. 1) that is mounted on a mounting board (Fig. 4, 162) and is drawable in a
`
`horizontal direction (Fig. 4, along axis 250) to facilitate service and maintenance of the
`
`refrigeration unit (column 4, lines 62-67).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`Applicant’s filed invention to have modified each the first and second refrigeration units
`
`of Kobayashi to each be mounted on a mounting board that is drawable in a horizontal
`
`direction as taught by Rafalovich, wherein duplicating the mounting board for each the
`
`first and second refrigeration units is considered a duplication of parts, and has been
`
`upheld in view of In re Harza (274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378) where a duplication of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 10
`
`parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced,
`
`therefore by providing a mounting board taught by Rafalovich for each the first and
`
`second refrigeration units woul provide the predictable result of allowing a user to draw
`
`each the first and second refrigeration unit out from the machine compartment to
`
`provide service and maintenance of either one or both of the first and second
`
`refrigeration units taught by Kobayashi.
`
`Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kobayashi, Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich teach
`
`the ultra-low temperature freezer according to claim 1, however not yet taught is a
`
`control-unit-mounting board where the control unit is mounted, the control-unit-mounting
`
`board being integrally configured with the control unit, wherein the control-unit-mounting
`
`board including a main body portion including a mounting hole through which the control
`
`circuit is mounted, and a reinforcing plate mounted along a lateral direction of the main
`
`body portion.
`
`Chae teaches a control unit that is drawable in a horizontal direction as previously
`
`discussed in claim 1, and also teaches a control-unit-mounting board (Fig. 4, comprising
`
`18, 12 and vertical walls within 10) where the control unit is mounted, the control unit
`
`mounting board being integrally configured with the control unit (See Fig. 4, wherein 13
`
`is mounted to 12), wherein the control-unit-mounting board includes a main body portion
`
`(Fig. 4, 18 and vertical walls indicated in annotated Figure 1 by the Examiner) including
`
`a mounting hole (created by the vertical walls and wall 18 in annotated Figure 1 by the
`
`Examiner).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Home ”i: annoiated Fig 4‘ of Shae
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`Applicant’s filed invention to have combined Kobayashi, Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 12
`
`as discussed in claim 1, particularly wherein the control unit modified by Chae in claim 1
`
`is further modified to include the main body portion and mounting hole taught by Chae
`
`in order to provide the predictable result of creating a space where the delicate electrical
`
`components can be isolated and protected until service is required.
`
`Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kobayashi, Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich teach
`
`the ultra-low temperature freezer according to claim 1, and wherein Kobayashi teaches
`
`an arrangement (See Fig. 6, arrangement of 300) of the first compressor, the first
`
`condenser, and the first decompressor in the first refrigeration unit is identical to an
`
`arrangement (Fig. 6, arrangement of 400) of the second compressor, the second
`
`condenser, and the second decompressor in the second refrigeration unit.
`
`Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kobayashi, Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich teach
`
`the ultra-low temperature freezer according to claim 1, however Kobayashi does not
`
`teach wherein the first mounting board includes a pair of first extending portions
`
`provided to a pair of side-edge portions along a drawing-out direction of the
`
`first refrigeration unit, and the machinery compartment includes a pair of first rail
`
`members configured to guide the pair of first extending portions in the drawing out
`
`direction.
`
`The Examiner looks to Rafalovich who teaches the mounting board drawable in a
`
`horizontal direction as discussed in claim 1 and further teaches where the first mounting
`
`board includes a pair of first extending portions (Fig. 4, comprising 252 and 254)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 13
`
`provided to a pair of side-edge portions (Fig. 4 sides of plate 162 which each rails 252
`
`and 254 are located) along a drawing-out direction (Fig. 4, 150), Rafalovich implicitly
`
`teaching a pair of first rail members (part of the refrigerator frame which the pair of first
`
`extending portions 252 and 254 engage and slide on, see column 6, lines 44-46 “Base
`
`162 includes rails 252, 254 for sliding engagement with a refrigerator frame. ’3
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`Applicant’s filed invention to have modified Kobayashi in view of Rafalovich as
`
`discussed in claim 1, and to have provided the machine compartment of Kobayashi to
`
`includes a pair of first rail members in the form of a frame as taught by Rafalovich in
`
`order to provide the predictable result of guiding a pair of first extending portions of the
`
`first mounting board in order to provide the predictable result of guiding the first
`
`refrigeration unit when the first refrigeration unit is drawn from the machine
`
`compartment for service as taught by Rafalovich.
`
`Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kobayashi, Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich teach
`
`the ultra-low temperature freezer according to claim 4, and although Kobayashi does
`
`not teach wherein the second mounting board includes a pair of second extending
`
`portions provided to a pair of side-edge portions along a drawing-out direction of the
`
`second refrigeration unit, and the machinery compartment includes a pair of second rail
`
`members configured to guide the pair of second extending portions in the drawing-out
`
`direction it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`Applicant’s filed invention to have duplicated what Rafalovich teaches in claim 4 with
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 14
`
`regards to teaching where a first mounting board includes a pair of first extending
`
`portions (Fig. 4, comprising 252 and 254) provided to a pair of side-edge portions (Fig. 4
`
`sides of plate 162 which each rails 252 and 254 are located) along a drawing-out
`
`direction (Fig. 4, 150), Rafalovich implicitly teaching a pair of first rail members (part of
`
`the refrigerator frame which the pair of first extending portions 252 and 254 engage and
`
`slide on, see column 6, lines 44-46 “Base 162 includes rails 252, 254 for sliding engagement
`
`with a refrigerator frame.’), since duplicating parts has been upheld in view of In re Harza
`
`(274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378) that a duplication of parts has no patentable
`
`significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, therefore by duplicating
`
`parts taught by Rafalovich can be applied to a second refrigeration unit of a refrigerator
`
`providing the similar and predictable result to the first refrigeration unit of being able to
`
`draw the second refrigeration units from the machine compartment to service the
`
`second refrigeration unit.
`
`Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kobayashi, Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich teach
`
`the ultra-low temperature freezer according to claim 1, however Kobayashi does not
`
`teach wherein a first reinforcing portion is formed, on a lower surface side of the first
`
`mounting board, to extend along the drawing-out direction of the first refrigeration unit.
`
`Rafalovich taught the first mounting board as discussed in claim 1, Rafalovich further
`
`teaches wherein a first reinforcing portion (Fig. 4, 252 and 254) is formed on a lower
`
`surface (lover surface of 162 in Fig. 4) of the mounting board, to extend along the
`
`drawing-out direction (Fig. 4, 250) of the refrigeration unit.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 15
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined
`
`Kobayashi, Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich as discussed in claim 1 and to have
`
`modified the first mounting board of the combination to inclue a first reinforcing portion
`
`on a lower surface of the first mounting board as taught by Rafalovich in order to
`
`provide the predictable result of guiding the first refrigeration unit from the machine
`
`compartment when the first refrigeration unit is drawn out in the drawing-out direction for
`
`service.
`
`Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kobayashi, Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich teach
`
`the ultra-low temperature freezer according to claim 6, however Kobayashi does not
`
`teach wherein a second reinforcing portion is formed, on a lower surface side of the
`
`second mounting board, to extend along the drawing-out direction of the second
`
`refrigeration unit.
`
`Rafalovich taught the second mounting board as discussed in claim 1, Rafalovich
`
`further teaches wherein a second reinforcing portion (Fig. 4, 252 and 254) is formed on
`
`a lower surface (lover surface of 162 in Fig. 4) of the mounting board, to extend along
`
`the drawing-out direction (Fig. 4, 250) of the refrigeration unit.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined
`
`Kobayashi, Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich as discussed in claim 1 and to have
`
`modified the second mounting board of the combination to include a second reinforcing
`
`portion on a lower surface of the second mounting board as taught by Rafalovich in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 16
`
`order to provide the predictable result of guiding the second refrigeration unit from the
`
`machine compartment when the second refrigeration unit is drawn out in the drawing-
`
`out direction for service.
`
`Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kobayashi, Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich
`
`teach the ultra-low temperature freezer according to claim 6 however Kobayashi does
`
`not teach wherein the machinery compartment includes a first support member that
`
`provides support, from below, at the first reinforcing portion when the first refrigeration
`
`unit is drawn out in the drawing-out direction and a height of the first reinforcing portion
`
`is set to a height at which the first reinforcing portion contacts the first support member
`
`when the first refrigeration unit is drawn out.
`
`Rafalovich teaches wherein the machinery compartment includes a support member
`
`(frame of refrigerator which engages rails 252 and 254; see column 6, lines 44-48) that
`
`provides support from below (below mounting plate 162 in Fig. 3), at the reinforcing
`
`portion (Fig. 4. Comprising 252 and 254 as discussed in claim 6) and a height (height of
`
`the frame which engages rails 252 and 254; see column 6, lines 44-48) of the
`
`reinforcing portion is set to a height (a height which allows the rails 252 and 254 slide)
`
`at which the first reinforcing portion contacts the support member.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`Applicant’s filed invention to have combined Kobayashi and Rafalovich as previously
`
`discussed in claim 6, and to have further included a first support member within the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 17
`
`machinery compartment as taught by Rafalovich which are at a height that allow the
`
`reinforcing portions to be guided in and out of the machinery compartment for servicing
`
`the components of the first refrigeration unit.
`
`Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kobayashi, Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich
`
`teach the ultra-low temperature freezer according to claim 10, however Kobayashi does
`
`not teach wherein the machinery compartment includes a second support member that
`
`provides support, from below, at the second reinforcing portion when the second
`
`refrigeration unit is drawn out in the drawing-out direction, and a height of the second
`
`reinforcing portion is set to a height at which the second reinforcing portion contacts the
`
`second support member when the second refrigeration unit is drawn out.
`
`As discussed in claim 10, Rafalovich teaches wherein the machinery compartment
`
`includes a support member (frame of refrigerator which engages rails 252 and 254; see
`
`column 6, lines 44-48) that provides support from below (below mounting plate 162 in
`
`Fig. 3), at the reinforcing portion (Fig. 4. Comprising 252 and 254 as discussed in claim
`
`6) and a height (height of the frame which engages rails 252 and 254; see column 6,
`
`lines 44-48) of the reinforcing portion is set to a height (a height which allows the rails
`
`252 and 254 slide) at which the first reinforcing portion contacts the support member.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`Applicant’s filed invention to have combined Kobayashi and Rafalovich as previously
`
`discussed in claims 10, 6 and 1, and to have further included a second support member
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 18
`
`within the machinery compartment such as the support member taught by Rafalovich
`
`which are at a height that allow the second reinforcing portions to be guided in and out
`
`of the machinery compartment for servicing the components of the second refrigeration
`
`unit where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`Applicant’s filed invention to have duplicated the parts, including the first mounting
`
`board, the first support member and the first reinforcing portion and used them for the
`
`second refrigeration unit taught by Kobayashi since duplicating parts has been upheld in
`
`view of In re Harza (274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378) that a duplication of parts has no
`
`patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, therefore by
`
`duplicating parts taught by Rafalovich for the second refrigeration unit including a
`
`second mounting board, a second support member and a second reinforcing portion
`
`would provide the expected result of allowing a user to draw the second refrigeration
`
`unit in and out of the machinery compartment for providing service to the second
`
`refrigeration unit.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Kobayashi in view of Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich as applied to claims 6 and 8
`
`respectively, in further view of Gutner (US 3,365,261).
`
`Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kobayashi, Takasugi, Chae and Rafalovich teach
`
`the ultra-low temperature freezer according to claim 6, and however the combination
`
`does not teach wherein the first reinforcing portion is a plate member that is folded
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/892,146
`Art Unit: 3763
`
`Page 19
`
`along the drawing-out direction of the first refri