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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-18, 21-24 are currently pending.
Claims 8, 10, and 19-20 are canceled.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 12/12/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1-2, 6, 13-15, 21, and 24 have been entered.
The Section 112(b) rejections of claims 6-7 and 9 have been withdrawn. However, new Section 112(b) rejections have been implemented in view of the amendments to claims 14-18 and 21-24.
The objection to claims 18 and 23-24 have been withdrawn in view of the new Section 112(b) rejection on claims 14-18 and 21-24.
The Section 103 rejections have been updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments.
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 14-18 and 21-24 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 14,
There is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation requiring the sheets in contact with “the sheet” as there is no previous recitation of “a sheet” or a delineation from the previously recited plurality of sheets. Is “the sheet” one of the “sheets” or a new sheet? For examination purposes, “the sheet” will be considered the support spacers are in contact with one of the sheets in the plurality of sheets.
Regarding claims 15-18 and 21-24,
Claims 16-18 and 21-24 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 14.
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) 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (WO 2020/004951 A1 with US 2021/0003341 A1 as the English equivalent).
Regarding claim 1,
Bae teaches a vacuum adiabatic body comprising: a first plate (10); a second plate (20) separated from the first plate in a first direction to provide a vacuum space between the first and second plates; a support (30) provided between the first plate and the second plate, wherein the support includes: a first support plate (35, the top plate), a second support plate (35, the bottom plate), a plurality of bars (31, spacers) protruding from the second support plate (35), a plurality of spacing members (340, couplers) protruding from the first support plate (35); wherein the spacers are coupled to the couplers; a radiation resistant sheet (32, a sheet) supported by at least one portion of the spacers and spaced apart from at least one of the first support plate and the second support plate (Bae: abstract; Fig. 8A, Fig. 20-21; par. 0058-0059, 0082, 0150-0161).
PNG
media_image1.png
295
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
435
315
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One of the spacers may include a first segment and a second segment, said second segment extends from the second support plate, the first segment extending from the second segment as the first segment is connected to and extends from said second segment, and a stepped region being provided between said first segment and the second segment (see circled portion below as any area or space with a stepped structure may be considered a region or a stepped region) (Bae; Figs. 21 and 26; par. 0150-0155, and 0178-179). A first surface of the radiation resistance sheet (32) may be considered seated on the stepped region (the clip area as circled in the stepped region below) when the spacer structure of Fig. 26 is utilized in combination with the clipped structure embodiment for the coupling (340) in Fig. 21, and wherein the second surface of the radiation resistance sheet is in contact with one of the couplers that is coupled to the spacer as shown in Fig. 21.
PNG
media_image3.png
457
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the various spacer structures into the coupler embodiments to configure the structural strength and shear stress as taught by Bae (Bae: par. 0150-0181).
The stepped region may be considered to have a plane parallel with the sheet as a single plane (or may extend through the cross section of the figures above and would intersect both the sheet and the stepped region in which said sheet may be considered to be seated on the plane as said plane extends through the entirety of the cross section of the above figures.
Regarding claim 2,
Bae teaches the vacuum adiabatic body required by claim 1. Bae further teaches a support area of a surface on which one of the stepped regions supports the radiation resistance sheet is different from a support area of a surface on which one of the couplers supports the radiation resistance sheet as an area may be any given region or section and the claims do not preclude the regions overlapping or being within respective regions. As such, the vertical surface of the coupler in the stepped region listed in the figures below may be considered a surface in a support area that is different than another support area on which one of the couplers supports the radiation resistance sheet (which may be the horizontal surface that touches said sheet).
PNG
media_image3.png
457
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6,
Bae teaches the vacuum adiabatic body required by claim 1.Bae further teaches a portion of the first section (the portion of the spacer inside the coupler as shown in Fig. 21) and coupled to a corresponding one of the couplers (340) as it extends into said coupler (Bae: Fig. 21; par. 0161-0167).
Regarding claim 7,
Bae teaches the vacuum adiabatic body required by claim 6. Bae further teaches several shape adjustments for the spacers (31), including a section of the first segment of the couplers being constant towards the second support plate and a width of a second segment of the couplers increases towards the second support plate that forms an entrance (the hook protrusions 342) (Bae: Figs. 20 and 21; par. 0160-0167).
PNG
media_image4.png
428
417
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9,
Bae teaches the vacuum adiabatic body required by claim 7. Bae further teaches the hook portion may be tapered and decrease towards the second plate and thus the ere may be an outer width of the coupler decreases towards the second support plate (Bae: Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 11,
Bae teaches the vacuum adiabatic body required by claim 1. Bae further teaches a width of the first segment decreases as a distance from the second segment increases as shown in the circled portion below (Bae: Fig. 26).
PNG
media_image5.png
446
392
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12,
Bae teaches the vacuum adiabatic body required by claim 1. Bae further teaches an outer width of the second segment decreases towards the first segment as shown in Fig. 26 above.
Regarding claim 13,
Bae teaches the vacuum adiabatic body required by claim 1. Bae further teaches the coupler (340) is only on the center of the radiation sheet as shown in Fig. 19 and thus there would be a spacer that supports the radiation resistant sheet (330) and another second spacer that does not support the radiation resistance sheet and wherein the radiation resistance sheet includes a hole to receive the second spacer such that the second spacer does not support the radiation resistance sheet (Bae: Fig. 19; par. 0157-0159).
Regarding claims 14-16,
Bae teaches a vacuum adiabatic body comprising: a first plate (10); a second plate (20) separated from the first plate in a first direction to provide a vacuum space between the first and second plates; a support (30) provided between the first plate and the second plate, wherein the support includes: a first support plate (35, the top plate), a second support plate (35, the bottom plate), a plurality of bars (31, spacers) protruding from the second support plate (35), a plurality of spacing members (340, couplers) protruding from the first support plate (35); wherein the spacers are coupled to the couplers; a radiation resistant sheet (32) supported by at least one portion of the spacers and spaced apart from at least one of the first support plate and the second support plate along a first direction (Bae: abstract; Fig. 8A, Fig. 20-21; par. 0058-0059, 0082, 0150-0161).
PNG
media_image1.png
295
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
435
315
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The plurality of spacers protruding form the second support plate may include those that support radiation resistance sheets with bar coupling part (345, unsupported spacers) and spacers that do not support (unsupported spacers) that do not support and extend through holes in the radiation resistance sheet as shown in Fig. 19 (Bae: Fig. 19; par. 0140-0160). As the spacers extend through the hole and the radiation sheets are fixed via slits on the side walls and the coupler (supported spacers), the unsupported spacers do not contact the radiation sheets (Bae: par. 0140-0160). As the spacers (bars) may extend through multiple radiation sheets and may be coupled in the same fashion to multiple radiation sheets, there would exist a first and second bar configured to support a first and second radiation resistance sheet, respectively, in which the sheets are spaced apart (Bae: par. 0140-0149).
The spacers may be shaped to include a first segment and a second segment, said second segment extends from the second support plate, the first segment extending from the second segment as the first segment is connected to and extends from said second segment, and a stepped region being provided between said first segment and the second segment (see circled portion below as any area or space with a stepped structure may be considered a region or a stepped region) (Bae; Figs. 21 and 26; par. 0150-0155, and 0178-179). A first surface of the radiation resistance sheet (32) may be considered seated on the stepped region (the clip area as circled in the stepped region below) when the spacer structure of Fig. 26 is utilized in combination with the clipped structure embodiment for the coupling (340) in Fig. 21, and wherein the second surface of the radiation resistance sheet is in contact with one of the couplers that is coupled to the spacer as shown in Fig. 21.
PNG
media_image3.png
457
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the various spacer structures into the coupler embodiments to configure the structural strength and shear stress as taught by Bae (Bae: par. 0150-0181).
The spacers may be considered to be in contact with a sheet as they are all connected into the same vacuum adiabatic body structure, thus as direct contact is not required, they may be in contact via direct or indirect means to satisfy the claims. Further, as the unsupported spacers do not contact the sheets, they would intrinsically prevent conductivity heat from being transferred between the unsupported spacers and the sheet to some degree as they are not in contact.
Regarding claim 17,
Bae teaches the vacuum adiabatic body of claim 16. Bae further teaches a first sheet that may be considered further from the second support plate than the second sheet as they may be stacked as shown in Figures 8A-8C. Additionally, as segments may be arbitrarily chosen as sections or regions, due to no special definition in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art may assign a length of a second segment of the first spacer that is greater than a length of the second segment of the second spacer.
Regarding claims 21 and 22,
Bae teaches the vacuum adiabatic body of claim 15. Bae further teaches a third support spacer (a bar) and additional walls in the body as shown in Figure 2 in which one of the additional walls may contain a third radiation sheet that is spaced apart form a third bar in which the third bar supports the third sheet with a coupler (Bae: Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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. Claims 18 and 23-24 would be allowed if the Section 112(b) rejection on the claims are overcome.
The closest cited prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of features required by claim 3, 18, 23, and 24 (claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 3). That is, the cited prior art of record does not teach or suggest the features required by claim 1 in combination with claim 3, particularly that the first and second spacer that are shorter than a first coupler with first couplers of the first spacer having smaller support areas compared to second couplers of the second spacer. Additionally, the cited prior art of record does not teach the combination features of claim 16 with the requirement of claim 18 that the coupler of the second spacer is different or greater in length compared toa coupler of a first spacer or that the first, second, and third spacers required by claim 23 are different from each other or that the maximum width of the unsupported spacers are smaller than the holes in the radiation sheets. Lacking a teaching or motivation to meet these structural limitations would constitute impermissible hindsight lacking motivation to do so and could negatively affect the intended design and purpose of the teachings of the cited prior art of record lacking a distinct advantage to do so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue on pages 13-15 that Fig. 21 and Fig. 26 of Bae does not teach the claimed combination of features of a stepped region having the claimed seated structure required by claim 1 in a parallel plane as required by the claim amendments.
The argument is not found persuasive as Applicant appears to argue Fig. 21 and 26 separately and not when used in combination as proposed by the Section 103 rejection above. Further, the stepped region may be considered to have a plane parallel with the sheet as a single plane (or may extend through the cross section of the figures above and would intersect both the sheet and the stepped region in which said sheet may be considered to be seated on the plane as said plane extends through the entirety of the cross section of the above figures. Applicant does not appear to specifically address the proposed combination of the two embodiments within Bae.
Applicant argues on pages 16-17, that BAE does not teach the amended requirement that the unsupported spacers do not contact the sheets to prevent conductivity heat from being transferred between the unsupported spacers and the sheet. Applicant argues BAE shows no spacings between the sheet 330 and bars 31 without the spacing member 340.
The argument is not found persuasive in view of the amended rejection above, where the coupler part 345 is considered the unsupported spacer and is indeed not contacting the sheet 330 as shown in Figures 19 and 20.
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 Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 D. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783