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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The following claim(s) 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.
Claim 1 calls for the limitation “an insulation thickness of a portion on which the hinge is placed in the vacuum adiabatic body is different from an opposite portion” which limitation is indefinite for the following reasons:
The term “the vacuum adiabatic body” lacks antecedent basis.
it is unclear what “an opposite portion” is directed to. The limitation as a whole describes a specific structural arrangement; but the specification does not provide a clear description of what “an opposite portion” is referring to. Accordingly, a person skilled in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty the full scope of the claim.
For examination purposes, the limitation above will be interpreted as “an insulation thickness of a portion on which the hinge is placed in the adiabatic door is different from an insulation thickness on an opposite portion of the door on which no hinge is placed”.
Claim 1 also calls for the limitation “wherein the insulated foam body is configured to surround at least part of at least one of the first plate or the second plate so as not to be exposed”; which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what “so as not to be exposed” is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 20, line 8, the term “the adiabatic body” lacks antecedent basis.
Applicant is encouraged to recite “the adiabatic door”.
In claim 26, line 2, the term “the vacuum adiabatic body” lacks antecedent basis.
Applicant is encouraged to recite “the vacuum adiabatic door”.
Claims 3-7, 9, 11-14, 20-21, and 26-27 are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (US 20180224193 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Jung discloses an adiabatic door (Fig. 5, [0074-0075]), comprising:
a first plate #10;
a second plate #20 spaced apart from the first plate in a first direction to form a vacuum space between the first plate and the second plate ([0075]);
a side plate #70 configured to define a side of the vacuum space;
an insulated foam body #90 ([0076]) to insulate a periphery of the first and second plates; and
a hinge #87 disposed adjacent to a first side of the first and second plates, and configured to provide rotation of the adiabatic door (Fig. 1&6, [0086]), wherein an insulation thickness of a portion on which the hinge is placed in the adiabatic door is different from an insulation thickness on an opposite portion of the door on which no hinge is placed (see Fig. 5-6), and wherein the insulated foam body is configured to surround at least part of at least one of the first plate or the second plate (see Fig. 5: #90 surround at least part of #10 and #20).
Regarding claim 21:
Jung further discloses an appliance comprising the adiabatic door of claim 1 (abstract, Fig.1 & 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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) 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180224193 A1) in view of Allard (US 10808987 B2).
Regarding claims 26-27:
Jung discloses all the limitations, except for wherein a pipe is placed on the opposite portion of the hinge of the adiabatic door and the pipe is at least one of an exhaustion port or a getter port; wherein the pipe comprises a long portion that protrudes into an additional adiabatic body and the pipe is configured to provide a heat conduction path for heat passing therethrough.
In the field of forming insulating structures for a refrigerator, Allard teaches a pipe (Fig. 3A; to one of #66 or #70) placed on an insulating structure #98; and the pipe is at least one of an exhaustion port or a getter port; wherein the pipe comprises a long portion that protrudes into an additional insulating body and the pipe is configured to provide a heat conduction path for heat passing therethrough (col. 6, L 4-64).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Jung with the claimed arrangement above; in a similar manner as taught by Allard.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have facilitated the construction of the respective insulation portion of the adiabatic door.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 18, 23, and 28 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination of elements as set forth in independent claim 23 is not disclosed or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Claims 3-7, 9, 11-14, 20, and 22 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.
The combination of elements as set forth in independent claim 20 is not disclosed or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/02/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant submitted that the newly added features of “wherein the insulated foam body is configured to surround at least part of at least one of the first plate or the second plate so as not to be exposed” of claim 1 are not disclosed by Jung.
Claim 1 is rejected as being anticipated by Jung (US 20180224193 A1). See elaborated rejection under 102 section above.
Thus, claim 1 and dependent claims thereof remain unpatentable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
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, 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.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763