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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on Sept. 24, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 11, 12, and 23 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites in lines 15-17 “a first connection plate installed close to a side of plate installed close to a side of the first plate, and a second plate…installed close to the second plate.” That recitation is not clear and difficult to understand.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the second connection plate” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the connection plate” in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear which connection plate is here being referred to.
Claim 23 recites “installed closed” in line 4. The claim is not clear
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-13, 17-19, 21, 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0224193 A1) (“Jung”), in view of Cur et al. (US 2013/0257257 A1) (“Cur”).
With respect to claim 11, Jung discloses a vacuum adiabatic body (abstr.), comprising a first plate – element 10, a second plate – element 20 – separated from the first plate in a first direction to provide a vacuum space – element 50 - between the first plate and the second plate, wherein the first plate comprises a wall defining the vacuum space (0037, Fig. 2), a support – element 31 – provided between the first plate and the second plate (0043, 0046, Figs. 3a and 3b), a through-hole – element 40 – provided at a portion of the first plate (0037, 0089, Fig. 7).
Jung discloses the support is provided to support one surface of the first plate and one surface of the second plate (0043, Fig. 3), wherein the support includes a plurality of bars, a first connection plate – element 35 - installed near a side of the first plate, and a second connection plate – element 35 – installed near the second plate, the first connection plate providing a grid (0043, 0089, Figs. 3 and 7).
Jung discloses the through-hole of the first plate is spaced from the first connection plate and the grid of the first connection plate, so that the curved portion is prevented from being in contact with the first connection plate or the bars (Fig. 7).
Jung is silent with respect to recitations relating to a tube received in a through-hole at a portion of the first plate. Cur discloses a vacuum insulated cabinet (abstr.) comprising a through-hole – element 80 – and a tube – elements 82 and 84 – received in the through-hole provided at a portion of the first plate, wherein the tube is coupled to the first plate (0041, 0042, Fig. 5), wherein an insertion end of the tube is placed between the two plates of the structure (0041, 0042, Fig. 5), the tube inserted to extract gas from a cavity volume (0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the body of Jung with a tube as disclosed in Cur in order to obtain vacuum in the vacuum space between the first plate and the second plate of Jung.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tube coupled to the first plate – element 10 of Jung (Fig. 3) would not be in contact with the support – element 31 (Jung, 0043, Fig. 3), and so it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the adiabatic body according to the references would function as intended, that is the heat transfer through the support would be reduced (Jung, 0043).
Regarding the tube being inserted deeper into the vacuum space than the first connection plate is installed Cur discloses the tube being inserted into the vacuum space (Fig. 5). Since in Jung the first connection plate includes a grid (Fig. 7), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert the tube deeper than the first connection plate in order to ensure a proper connection. Regarding a depth of inserting the tube into the vacuum space being greater than a depth of the curved portion at the through-hole, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the depth of inserting the tube to ensure a proper connection between the tube, the vacuum space and the first plate; changes in size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 12, Jung and Cur teach the adiabatic body of claim 11. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in the adiabatic body of Jung and Cur the curved portion – curved portion of element 40 - as disclosed in Jung would not be in contact with the support, the support – element 30 - discussed above with respect to claim 11 (Jung, 0043, Figs. 3a, 3b, 7).
As to claim 13, Jung and Cur teach the adiabatic body of claim 12. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in the adiabatic body of Jung and Cur the curved portion would be provided outside an edge of the support - Jung, Fig. 7.
With respect to claim 17, Jung and Cur teach the adiabatic body of claim 11. Jung discloses the curved portion comprises a section in which the through-hole is defined and extends from the first plate in the first direction of the vacuum space (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 18, Jung and Cur teach the body of claim 17. Jung discloses that a length of the section of the curved portion in the first direction of the vacuum space is greater than a thickness of the support provided between the first plate and the second plate (Fig. 7).
As to claim 19, Jung and Cur teach the adiabatic body of claim 11. Jung discloses the support includes the plurality of bars – elements 31 – arranged in an array (0043, Figs. 2, 3a and 3b). Jung discloses the through-hole provided at the corner of the adiabatic body (0089, Fig. 7), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tube received in the through-hole would be provided at the corner of the array.
With respect to claim 21, Jung discloses a vacuum adiabatic body (abstr.), comprising a first plate – element 10, a second plate – element 20 – separated from the first plate in a first direction to provide a vacuum space – element 50 - between the first plate and the second plate, wherein the first plate comprises a wall defining the vacuum space (0037, Fig. 2), a support – element 31 – provided between the first plate and the second plate (0043, 0046, Figs. 3a and 3b). Jung discloses a curved portion provided at the though-hole and extending from the first plate (Fig. 7). Jung discloses the support includes a first bar and a second bar, each of the first bar and the second bar having a portion extending in a direction in which the first plate and the second plate are connected to each other to support a gap between the first plate and the second plate (0043, Fig. 3), wherein the first bar and the second bar are spaced from each other to provide an array – Fig. 2 shows an array of support units 30 which include bars 31 - (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Figs. 4a and 4b)
Jung is silent with respect to a tube received in a through-hole provided at a portion of the first plate.
Cur discloses a vacuum insulated cabinet (abstr.) comprising a through-hole – element 80 – and a tube – elements 82 and 84 – received in the through-hole provided at a portion of the first plate, wherein the tube is coupled to the first plate (0041, 0042, Fig. 5), wherein an insertion end of the tube is placed between the two plates of the structure (0041, 0042, Fig. 5), the tube inserted to extract gas from a cavity volume (0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the body of Jung with a tube as disclosed in Cur in order to obtain vacuum in the vacuum space between the first plate and the second plate of Jung.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the tube in a gap between the first bar and the second bar – elements 31 (Jung, 0043, Fig. 3), the first bar being an outermost bar and the second bar being a bar adjacent to the first bar (0043, Figs. 2 and 3). Jung discloses a through-hole provided at the corner of the adiabatic body (0089, Fig. 7), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in that the tube would be disposed at the corner of the array.
Since in Jung the first connection plate includes a grid corresponding to the location of the individual bars (Fig. 7), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the tube at a center of the pitch of the first bar and the second bar. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a diameter of the tube must be less than the pitch of the first bar and the second bar, in order for the tube to be placed at the center of the pitch; changes in size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 23, Jung and Cur teach the adiabatic body of claim 21. Jung discloses the support including a connection plate including a portion connecting the first bar and the second bar to each other, wherein the connection plate includes a first connection plate installed close to a side of the first plate and a second connection plate installed close to the second plate – elements 35 (0043, Figs. 3a and 3b, 4b), wherein an insertion end of the tube is placed between the first connection plate and the second connection plate – opening 40 is placed between elements 35 (0089, Fig. 7) – although the second connection plate is not shown in Fig. 7, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would be present based on Figs. 4a and 4b.
With respect to claim 24, Jung and Cur teach the adiabatic body of claim 21. Jung discloses the support includes a connection plate – element 35 – including a portion connecting the first bar and the second bar to each other (0043, Figs. 3, 4a, 4b). Regarding the recitation “wherein the tube is inserted deeper into the vacuum space than the connection plate and wherein a depth of inserting the tube into the vacuum space is greater than a depth of the curved portion” – Cur discloses the tube being inserted into the vacuum space (Fig. 5). Since in Jung the first connection plate includes a grid (Fig. 7), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert the tube deeper than the first connection plate in order to ensure a proper connection. Regarding a depth of inserting the tube into the vacuum space being greater than a depth of the curved portion at the through-hole, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the depth of inserting the tube to ensure a proper connection between the tube, the vacuum space and the first plate; changes in size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 25, Jung and Cur teach the adiabatic body according to claim 11. Jung teaches an appliance (abstr., Fig. 1).
As to claim 26, Jung and Cur teach the adiabatic body according to claim 21. Jung teaches an appliance (abstr., Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 1, Jung and Cur teach the adiabatic body of claim 11. Cur discloses a vacuum insulated cabinet (abstr.), comprising a vacuum port – element 82 or 84 – corresponding to the tube of the instant invention, wherein the tube includes an inner section provided in the vacuum space between the first plate and the second plate, and an outer section extending outside of the first plate, a length of the inner section in the first direction being less than a distance in the first direction between the inner surfaces of the first plate and the second plate (0041, 0042, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tube in the adiabatic body of Jung according to the structure with respect to the first plate and the second plate as disclosed in Cur as such configuration is known in the art of vacuum insulation bodies. Changes in size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, in view of Cur, and further in view of Wynne (US 6106449).
Regarding claim 22, Jung and Cur teach the vacuum adiabatic body of claim 21. Cur discloses the tube includes a portion placed outside the vacuum space (Fig. 5), but the references are silent regarding the portion being thermally insulated by a heat adiabatic body (col. 3, lines 27-30, Fig. 2). Wynne discloses a vacuum insulated panel wherein a tube – element 66 – is received in a through-hole, and includes a portion placed outside the vacuum space, the portion being thermally insulated by a heat adiabatic body – element 51 (col. 3, lines 27-30, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to thermally insulate the portion of the tube outside the vacuum space with a heat adiabatic body, as it is known in the art of vacuum adiabatic bodies to thermally insulate portions of tubes outside the vacuum space.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, in view of Cur, and further in view of Wynne (US 6106449).
Regarding claim 2, Jung and Cur teach the adiabatic body of claim 1. Jung discloses the support formed of a material having a high compressing strength (0044), Wynne teaches a vacuum insulated panel (abstr.) comprising a tube made of metal and having a flattened tip portion (col. 3, lines 44-46, 59-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a portion of the tube of Cur having a degree of deformation resistance which is less than that of at least a portion of the support of Jung, as such configuration of properties is known in the art.
As to claim 3, Jung, Cur and Wynne teach the adiabatic body of claim 2. The claim defines the product by how the deformation resistance is formed, thus, the claim is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 3; the references teach the structure.
With respect to claim 4, Jung, Cur and Wynne teach the adiabatic body of claim 2. Jung discloses the support formed of a material having a high compressing strength (0044), Wynne teaches the tube made of a material that allowed to form a flattened tip portion (col. 3, lines 44-46, 59-62), thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a portion of the tube of Cur comprising a material that is softer than the material included in at least a portion of the support of Jung, as such arrangement is known in the art of vacuum insulation bodies.
Regarding claim 5, Jung, Cur and Wynne teach the adiabatic body of claim 2. Wynne discloses a portion of the tube having a thickness (Fig. 3) that is less than that of a portion of the support (Jung, Figs. 3a and 3b).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 14, 15, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and claims 11 and 12 from which claims 14-16 depend are amended to overcome rejections under 35 USC 112(b), as discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record fails to teach or suggest the vacuum adiabatic body according to claims 14, 15, and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Sept. 24, 2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the recent amendment 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 22-24 and 26 have been withdrawn.
The Applicant argued plate 35 of Jung contacting one of plate members 10 or 20 would not teach the configuration recited in claim 11. The Examiner notes claim 11 does not preclude plate 35 from contacting the first or second plate.
The Applicant argued that Jung does not teach a tube, but then argued that Jung only discusses a support structure with a tube (p. 14 of the Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Wynne have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on that reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the present rejection the Examiner undertook a different approach and Cur was used as a secondary reference.
The Applicant argued that Cur teaches that an inner end of vacuum port 82 contacts core cavity material and extends away from core cavity material, Cur not teaching the limitations relating to the structure of the adiabatic body as recited in claim 11. The Examiner notes in the present rejection Cur was cited for teaching a vacuum insulated cabinet (abstr.) comprising a through-hole – element 80 – and a tube – elements 82 and 84 – received in the through-hole provided at a portion of the first plate, wherein the tube is coupled to the first plate (0041, 0042, Fig. 5), wherein an insertion end of the tube is placed between the two plates of the structure (0041, 0042, Fig. 5), the tube inserted to extract gas from a cavity volume (0041), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 21 the Applicant has argued that the tube being placed at a center of the pitch of the first bar and the second bar and the diameter of the tube being less than the pitch of the first bar and the second bar provide benefits of improved mechanical reliability, the cited references not teaching or suggesting the combination of the newly added features.
The Applicant discussed the features presented by Jung and argued that Jung does not teach or suggest the exhaust port 40 and getter port 41 being provided on the first plate member at a corner of the plate member, so that the tube can be disposed at a corner of an array. The Examiner notes Jung discloses both ports provided at corners of the first plate (Fig. 7), suggesting that the tube should be disposed at a corner of the array of bars. Applicant argued Jung does not address disposing any type of tube to improve heat transfer and mechanical strength. The Examiner notes claim 21 does not recite any limitations relating to heat transfer and mechanical strength.
The Applicant argued that in Cur the vacuum cavity is filled with cavity material 72, thus, Cur cannot teach or suggest the tube being placed at a center of the pitch of the first bar and the second bar, and a diameter of the tube being less than the pitch of the first bar and the second bar. The Examiner notes the array of bars is disclosed in Jung. Cur was cited for the teaching of a tube disposed at the through-hole of a plate of a vacuum space, as discussed above. Since in Jung the first connection plate includes a grid corresponding to the location of the individual bars (Fig. 7), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the tube at a center of the pitch of the first bar and the second bar. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a diameter of the tube must be less than the pitch of the first bar and the second bar, in order for the tube to be placed at the center of the pitch; changes in size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights