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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Jan. 2, 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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites “a support”, however, “a support” has been introduced in claim 11, and claim 18 depends indirectly from claim 11.
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) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0224193 A1) (“Jung”), in view of Wynne (US 6106449).
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 30 – 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 is silent with respect to a tube received in the through-hole and a curved portion provided at the through-hole and extending from at least one of the first plate or the tube, wherein the tube is configured not to be in contact with the support such that heat transfer through the support is reduced.
Wynne discloses a vacuum insulated panel wherein a tube – element 66 including tip portion 68 – is received in a through-hole and a curved portion – portion of element 48 - extends from area 44 which has been interpreted as corresponding to the first plate, the tube being coupled to area 44 (abstr., col. 3, lines 17-57, Fig. 3). The tube is used to evacuate air from the panel (col. 2, lines 5-50). 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 adiabatic body of Jung with a tube in the through-hole, the tube being coupled to the first plate, and a curved portion provided at the through-hole and extending from the first plate to evacuate air from the vacuum space. 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 35 (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 reference would function as intended, that is the heat transfer through the support would be reduced, the support additionally being in a form of lattice, thereby reducing heat transfer (Jung, 0043).
Regarding claim 12, Jung and Wynne 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 Wynne the curved portion – curved portion of element 48 - as disclosed in Wynne would not be in contact with the support, the support – element 30 - discussed above with respect to claim 11 (Jung, 0043, Figs. 3a and 3b).
As to claim 13, Jung and Wynne 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 Wynne the curved portion would be provided outside an edge of the support.
With respect to claim 14, Jung and Wynne teach the adiabatic body of claim 12. The curved portion as disclosed by Wynne includes a first section and a second section, the first section having a curvature radius less than that of the second section (Fig. 2), and the second section being provided at element 44 which corresponds to the first plate (Jung, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Jung and Wynne teach the adiabatic body of claim 14. Jung in Figs. 3a and 3b discloses a first plate including portions that are not supported by the support, thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in the adiabatic body of Jung and Wynne the second section of the curved portion would be provided on a portion of the first plate that is not supported by the support.
As to claim 16, Jung and Wynne teach the adiabatic body of claim 14. Wynne discloses the second section of the curved portion to seal the gap between the element 44 corresponding to the first plate and the tube (col. 3, lines 50-57, Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 17, Jung and Wynne teach the adiabatic body of claim 11. Wynne discloses the curved portion comprising a section in which the through-hole is defined (Fig. 3), and extends from element 44 corresponding to the first plate, in the first direction, corresponding to the first direction of the vacuum space of Jung.
Regarding claim 18, Jung and Wynne teach the adiabatic body of claim 17. Jung discloses a thickness of the support between the first plate and the second plate (Figs. 3a and 3b). Wynne discloses a length of the section of the curved portion in the first direction of the vacuum space (Fig. 3), which is greater than the thickness of the support between the first plate and the second plate of Jung.
As to claim 19, Jung and Wynne teach the adiabatic body of claim 12. Jung discloses the support includes an array including a plurality of bars (0043, Figs. 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 20, Jung and Wynne teach the adiabatic body of claim 12. Jung discloses the support includes an array including a plurality of bars, the plurality of bars include a first bar that is outermost in the array in a second direction different from the first direction, a second bar positioned adjacent to and inward in the array from the first bar in the second direction, and a third bar positioned adjacent to and inward in the array from the second bar in the second direction (0043, Fig. 4b), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the tube between the second bar and the third bar as changes in size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 1- 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, in view of Wynne, and further in view of Cur et al. (US 2013/0257257 A1) (“Cur”).
With respect to claim 1, Jung and Wynne teach the adiabatic body of claim 11. Wynne teaches the tube as discussed above. The references are silent with respect to the tube including 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 inner surfaces of the first plate and the second plate. 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 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 and Wynne in a configuration 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).
Regarding claim 2, Jung, Wynne 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 the tube made of metal and having 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 that a portion of the tube of Wynne has a degree of deformation resistance which is less than that of at least a portion of the support
As to claim 3, Jung, Wynne and Cur 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, Wynne and Cur 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 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 that a portion of the tube of Wynne comprises a material that is softer than the material included in at least a portion of the support.
Regarding claim 5, Jung, Wynne and Cur 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Jan. 2, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant argued Jung does not show any openings or passages to allow a tube without contacting the supporting unit 30 (p. 10 of the Remarks), and does not teach or suggest a tube coupled to the first plate wherein the tube is configured not to be in contact with the support such that heat transfer though the support is reduced.
The Examiner notes in the present Office Action support 30 in the embodiment Fig. 3b of Jung allows for a tube configured not to be in contact with the support such that the heat transfer through the support is reduced; additionally support plate 35 which is part of support 30 is provided in a form of lattice which reduces heat transfer (0043).
The Applicant argued if Jung was combined with Wynne the evacuation tube 66 of Wynne would extend externally from members 10, 20 in a direction away from supporting unit 30, and Wynne does not teach or suggest the tube configured not to be in contact with the support between the first plate and the second plate, such that heat transfer through the support is reduced (p. 11 of the Remarks). The Applicant also argued Wynne does not teach or suggest a curved portion provided at the through hole and extending from at least one of the first plate or the tube, but discloses an integral tubular portion 48 at peripheral heat seal 44 (p. 12 of the Remarks).
The Examiner notes, as shown in Fig. 3 of Wynne element 66 including tip portion 68 – is received in a through-hole and a curved portion – portion of element 48 - extends from area 44 which has been interpreted as corresponding to the first plate, the tube being coupled to area 44. The limitation “a curved portion” is a broad limitation.
The Applicant discussed Cur as not disclosing the tube not being in contact with the support, and that the heat transfer through the support is reduced. The Examiner notes these features were disclosed by the combination of Jung and Wynne, as discussed above. Applicant also stated that Cur does not teach a curved portion of claim 11. The Examiner notes curved portion is disclosed in Wynne as discussed above. The Examiner notes Cur was cited for the teaching of the tube having 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 inner surfaces of the first plate and the second plate; these features are discussed above, with respect to claim 1.
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