DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 10, 14-16, 22, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “wherein each of a length of the first wing from the first end of the guide and a length of the second wing from the second end of the guide is greater than a distance from the first end toward the second end of the guide.” (line 27-30) introduces new matter as there is insufficient support in the disclosure for this limitation. The disclosed and elected invention does describe a distance W2 (see Fig. 14) but never limits a length of the wings (130) to be limited to being greater than this length. The drawings make no limitation on the size of the wings relative to W2 and therefore the recitation is new matter.
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, 2, 6-8, 10, 14-16, 22, 25, 26 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.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “wherein each of a length of the first wing from the first end of the guide and a length of the second wing from the second end of the guide is greater than a distance from the first end toward the second end of the guide.” (line 27-30) is indefinite since the recitation of a length fails to define where the length is measured to and from. Rather the recitation only mentions one “from the first end” or “from the second end” and therefore it is unclear what length must be considered for this recitation.
Claim Interpretation
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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, 2, 6-8, 14-16, 22, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2013/0111942) in view of Yoshida (JP H09324877) and Mills (US 2010/0251653).
In regard to claim 1, Jung teaches a vacuum adiabatic body (1, see all figures and full description, refrigerator with vacuum insulation) comprising:
a first plate (110);
a second plate (120);
a vacuum space (130) provided between the first plate (110) and the second plate (120);
a pipeline (210, 220) at least partially provided in the vacuum space (130)(para. 108, 118, 20);
a support (see identified structure below) including:
a post (150; para. 91) that is configured to maintain a distance (para. 91 “distance”) in a first direction (perpendicular to surface of first and second plates) between the first (110) and second plates (120),
a first support plate (160);
a second support plate (170).
Jung does not appear to explicitly teach a spacer coupled to the post, wherein the post and the spacer are configured to restrict a movement of the pipeline (210, 220) in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the spacer comprises a guide configured to surround at least a portion of the pipeline (210, 220) so as to restrict a movement of the pipeline (210, 220) in at least one of the first or the second directions and at least one wing extending from the guide and integrally formed with the guide, the at least one wing having an insertion hole, wherein the guide includes a recess groove into which the pipeline is inserted, and a first end and a second end to define the recess groove, wherein the at least one wing includes a first wing to extend from the first end of the guide in the second direction and a second wing to extend from the second end of theguide in a direction opposite to the second direction, each of the first wing and the second wing having a plate shape, and each of a length of the first wing from the first end of the guide and a length of the second wing from the second end of the guide is greater than a distance from the first end toward the second end of the guide, the post comprising a first bar and a second bar coupled to the first bar, the first support plate (160) connected to the first bar; the second support plate (170) connected to the second bar; wherein an end portion of the first bar passes through the insertion hole of the at least one wing and is at least partially surrounded by an end portion of the second bar.
However, guides are routine and ordinary as taught by Yoshida. Yoshida teaches a spacer (40; see whole disclosure) coupled to a post (20); wherein the spacer (40) comprises a guide (semi-circular portion of 40) configured to surround at least a portion of a pipeline (P) so as to restrict a movement of the pipeline (P), the spacer (40) comprising at least one wing (portions of 40 near 30), extending from the guide (semi-circular portion of 40), the at least one wing (portions of 40 near 30) having an insertion hole (see opening 41); wherein the guide (semi-circular portion of 40) includes a recess groove (space for P) into which the pipeline (P) is inserted, and a first end (left end of semi-circle) and a second end (right end of semi-circle) to define the recess groove (space for P), wherein the at least one wing (portions of 40 near 30) includes a first wing (left portion of 40 near 30) to extend from the first end (left end of semi-circle) of the guide (semi-circular portion of 40) in a second direction (to the left direction) and a second wing (right portion of 40 near 30) to extend from the second end (right end of semi-circle) of the guide (semi-circular portion of 40) in a direction opposite to the second direction (to the right, which is opposite of the left), each of the first wing (left portion of 40 near 30) and the second wing (right portion of 40 near 30) having a plate shape (Fig. 2, 3, page 3 see band), and
wherein the first wing (left portion of 40 near 30) and the second wing (right portion of 40 near 30) are each longer (see Fig. 4, wings are longer than space for P between identified ends) than a distance from the first end (left end of semi-circle) to the second end (right end of semi-circle).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Jung with the pipeline spacer and guide of Yoshida for the purpose of providing securement and proper spacing of the pipeline (210, 220) of Jung with a structure that is inexpensive and easy to make and for the purpose of increasing the utility of the posts.
Further, Mills teaches providing a vacuum space (122, para. 27) with a post (104) comprising a first bar (114, 112 from 108) and a second bar (top two 112 from 124) coupled to the first bar (114, 112 from 108); a first support plate (108) connected to the first bar (114, 112 from 108); the second support plate (124) connected to the second bar (top two 112 from 124); wherein an end portion (118) of the first bar (114, 112 from 108) passes through an insertion hole (hole in 120; para. 24) of at least one wing (extending portion of 120) and the end portion (118) is at least partially surrounded by an end portion (part of top two 112 around 118) of the second bar (top two 112), the first bar (114, 112 from 108) and the second bar (112 from 124) provide improved separation and spacing for metal structures, including MLI in the vacuum space (para. 24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the post (150) of Jung to be formed from a first bar and a second bar, as described by Mills above, for the purpose of providing reduced conductive heat exchange through the posts and to further provide a suspension structure for the spacer of Yoshida.
It is noted that the modification described results in a restriction of movement of the pipeline (210, 220) in a second direction (parallel with the plane of the first and second plates) and note that the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (perpendicular to surface of first and second plates) and mounts the spacer of Yoshida via the end portion of the first bar of Mills so as to easily mount the spacer of Yoshida in the vacuum space.
In regard to claim 2, Jung, as modified, teaches that the spacer (Yoshida -40b) is positioned to prevent direct contact between the pipeline (Jung-210, 220) and the post (Jung 150 modified by Mills). It does not appear that Yoshida explicitly teaches that the spacer is made from a metal material. However, official notice is taken that metal is routine and ordinary material for making pipe supports for the purpose of employing a material that is strong. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the spacer from metal for the purpose of providing a strong spacer.
In regard to claim 6, Jung, as modified, teaches that the end portion (Mills-118) of the first bar (Mills-114, 112 from 108) extends from a part (Mills-114 of 114, 112 from 108) of the first bar (Mills-114, 112 from 108) that is connected to the first support plate (of Jung-160), the part (Mills-114) of the first bar (Mills-114, 112 from 108) includes a first coupling surface (Mills-portion of 112 under 118 which 120 rests on; note this is the location of the retained spacer of Yoshida) to support the at least one wing (portions of 40b near 30 of Yoshida), and the second bar (top two 112 from 124) includes a second coupling surface (bottom surface of top two 112) to support the at least one wing (Yoshida -portions of 40b near 3), and wherein a portion (at least left end-Yoshida) of the at least one wing (portions of 40b near 30 of Yoshida) is supported by the part (Mills -114) of the first bar (114, 112 from 108) and the second bar (top two 112 from 124) between the first coupling surface (Mills-portion of 112 under 118 which 120 rests on) and the second coupling surface (bottom surface of top two 112).
In regard to claim 7, Jung, as modified, teaches that the guide (Yoshida - semi-circular portion of 40) surrounds only a portion (lower portion) of the pipeline (Jung-210, 220).
In regard to claim 8, Jung, as modified, teaches that the pipeline (210, 220) is spaced apart from the first plate (110) and the second plate (120) by the post (150 as modified) and the spacer (Yoshida -40b).
In regard to claim 14, Jung, as modified, teaches most claim limitations, including that the pipeline (210, 220) includes an inlet pipe (to 40) and an outlet pipe (from 40) that are heat exchanged with each other (para. 116, 117, 137), but does not appear to explicitly teach a heat resistance sheet configured to reduce a heat transfer between the first plate (110) and the second plate (120). However, providing MLI is routine and ordinary for vacuum spaces as taught by Mills (para. 25). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vacuum space of Jung with MLI as taught by Mills for the purpose of improving the performance of the vacuum insulation assembly.
In regard to claim 15, Jung, as modified, teaches a refrigerator (para. 21, 57 “refrigerator”’) comprising: a main body (1) configured to provide an internal space (storage compartments) to store items (para. 58, 6), the main body (1) includes the vacuum adiabatic body (1) according to claim 1 (see modification above);
a door (4, 5) provided to open or close the main body (1) to allow access to internal space (storage compartments) from an external space (outside of refrigerator);
a compressor (10) configured to compress a refrigerant (para. 67 “refrigerant’);
a condenser (20) configured to condense the compressed refrigerant (para. 67);
an expansion device (30)configured to expand the condensed refrigerant (para. 67);
an evaporator (40) configured to evaporate the expanded refrigerant to dissipate heat (para. 67);
the pipeline (210, 220) having an outlet pipe (from 40) through which a refrigerant is discharged from the evaporator (40) and an inlet pipe (to 40) through which the refrigerant is introduced into the evaporator (40) (see fig. 1).
In regard to claim 16, Jung, as modified, teaches that the spacer (Yoshida - 40) is provided between the pipeline (210, 220) and the post (Jung 150 modified by Mills) to prevent direct contact between the pipeline (Jung-210, 220) and the post (Jung 150 modified by Mills). It does not appear that Yoshida explicitly teaches that the spacer is made from a metal material. However, official notice is taken that metal is routine and ordinary material for making pipe supports for the purpose of employing a material that is strong. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the spacer from metal for the purpose of providing a strong spacer.
In regard to claim 22, Jung, as modified, teaches that the first bar (Mills 114, 112 from 108) extends in the first direction (from bottom to top, from 160 to 170 in Jung) from the first support plate (Jung-160) that supports the first plate (Jung-110), and wherein the second bar (Mills top two 112 from 124) extends in a third direction (Jung-from top to bottom, from 170 to 160) from the second support plate (170) that supports the second plate (120), and the third direction (from 170 to 160) is opposite to the first direction (from 160 to 170).
In regard to claim 25, Jung, as modified, teaches the end portion (Mills-118) of the first bar (Mills-114, 112 from 108) protrudes from the first coupling surface (Mills-portion of 112 under 118 which 120 rests on; note this is the location of the retained spacer of Yoshida) of the first bar (Mills-114, 112 from 108).
In regard to claim 26, Jung, as modified, teaches that a part (Mills-see part around 118) of the end portion (Mills-part of top two 112 around 118) of the second bar (Mills-top two 112 from 124) that at least partially surrounds the end portion (Mills-118) of the first bar (Mills-114, 112 from 108) is recessed from the second coupling surface (Mills-bottom surface of top two 112)) of the second bar (Mills-top two 112 from 124).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2013/0111942) in view of Mills (US 2010/0251653), Yoshida (JP H09324877), and either of Pate (US 4225103) or Logsdon (US 3684223).
Jung, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach an inner surface of the guide includes a protrusion configured to contact the pipeline (210, 220). However, providing a protrusion on guides or clamps is routine and ordinary as taught by Pate. Pate teaches an inner surface of a guide (clamp 8) having a plurality of protrusions (16) configured to contact a pipeline (72). Alternatively, Logsdon teaches an inner surface of a guide (clamp 10) having a plurality of protrusions (22, 24) configured to contact a pipeline (pipe, column 3, line 25). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the guide surface with protrusions for the purpose of providing securement and providing a minimum of thermal transfer between the clamp and the pipelines (Pate - column 2, line 60-63 or Logsdon - column 4, line 21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive as the prior art fully teaches the amended limitations as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in 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 of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record on the 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571) 272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights