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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 22 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 9 and 13 – 23 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “the additional component is provided at least a portion of a peripheral region of the insulating body” (ll. 2 – 3 of the claim). The examiner notes the amendment submitted 22 April 2026 deletes a second “at” following “provided at” which the examiner observes to be necessary. Notably, “provided at” as recited in the claim describes a location, and “at least a portion” describes how much of that location should be considered. Without the second “at”, the claim reads as a proviso or qualifying statement where additional description of the portion of the peripheral region recited in claim 8 would need to be added. Accordingly, the examiner recommends restoring claim 8 to its previous reading.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “a support provided between first plate and the second plate” (l. 2 of the claim). In the amendment submitted 22 April 2026, the examiner notes “the” was deleted between “between” and “first plate”, which the examiner recommends restoring.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 – 9 and 13 – 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is directed to a vacuum adiabatic body comprising, in relevant part, a case, wherein “the case includes a component extending in a height direction (Y-axis) of the vacuum space and an extension line of the component does not pass through [a] hinge shaft, the extension line of the component being a line that extends in the height direction according to the component” (last four lines of the claim).
The metes and bounds of the phrase “according to the component” are ambiguous in that it cannot be clearly determined whether the extension is based on what the component is or if it is a feature of the component independent of considerations with respect to other components.
The examiner respectfully requests clarification regarding this phrase and, as necessary, correction of the claim.
Regarding claims 2 – 9 and 21, each of claims 2 – 9 and 21 depends, directly or indirectly, on claim 1. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, claims 2 – 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a vacuum adiabatic body comprising, in relevant part, a case, wherein “the case includes a component extending in a height direction (Y-axis) of the vacuum space and an extension line of the component does not pass through [a] hinge shaft, the extension line of the component being a line that extends in the height direction according to the component” (last four lines of the claim).
The metes and bounds of the phrase “according to the component” are ambiguous in that it cannot be clearly determined whether the extension is based on what the component is or if it is a feature of the component independent of considerations with respect to other components.
The examiner respectfully requests clarification regarding this phrase and, as necessary, correction of the claim.
Regarding claims 14 – 19 and 22, each of claims 14 – 19 and 22 depends, directly or indirectly, on claim 13. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, claims 14 – 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 13.
Regarding claim 20, claim 13 is directed to a vacuum adiabatic body comprising, in relevant part, a case, wherein “the case includes a component extending in a height direction (Y-axis) of the vacuum space and an extension line of the component is perpendicular to a radial direction of a circle generated while [a] hinge rotates about [a] shaft of the hinge, the extension line of the component being a line that extends in the height direction according to the component” (last five lines of the claim).
The metes and bounds of the phrase “according to the component” are ambiguous in that it cannot be clearly determined whether the extension is based on what the component is or if it is a feature of the component independent of considerations with respect to other components.
The examiner respectfully requests clarification regarding this phrase and, as necessary, correction of the claim.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 depends directly on claim 20. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 9 and 13 – 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In the Amendment filed 22 April 2026, Applicant’s arguments (starting on p. 10 thereof) assert the claims are patentable over Ishibashi (JP 2017-161107 A, and a machine translation thereof provided with the Office Action mailed 28 January 2026) and Kang (WO 2019/194604 A1, and US 2021/0102741 A1 as an English language equivalent) fail to teach, at least in part, the vacuum adiabatic body being hinged by a hinge and the shaft of the hinge supporting a load of the vacuum adiabatic body. The examiner adopts Applicant’s reasons as related to such load supporting to withdrawn the previous rejections based on Ishibashi and Kang.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights