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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/19/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
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.
Claims 1-15 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites “a plurality of edge portions respectively extending between edges of the first surface and edges of the second surface” (emphasis added); but also recites “the edges which extend from the first surface and the edges extending from the second surface” (emphasis added). It is therefore unclear whether “the edges which extend from the first surface and the edges extending from the second surface” refers to the same component(s) as, or different component(s) than, “a plurality of edge portions respectively extending between edges of the first surface and edges of the second surface”. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering “the edges which extend from the first surface and the edges extending from the second surface” to refers to the same component(s) as “a plurality of edge portions respectively extending between edges of the first surface and edges of the second surface”.
Claims 2-15 are indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, & 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (EP2789948) in view of Kim (KR20170081417).
PNG
media_image1.png
435
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Oikawa teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a refrigerator comprising a storage compartment (5); a main body (1) forming the storage compartment (5) inside the main body and including a plurality of vacuum insulation panels (1a-1e) joined to each other by joining means; but fail(s) to teach edge portions that maintain a sealed state. However, Kim teaches a plurality of vacuum insulation panels (311, 321, 331, 341, 351) each including: an exterior material (62) including: a first surface (A in Fig. 9 Annotated), a second surface (B) facing the first surface, and a plurality of edge portions (C) respectively extending between edges of the first surface and edges of the second surface, and a core material (61) arrangeable in a space defined by the first surface, the second surface, and the plurality of edge portions (Fig. 12), wherein each vacuum insulation panel of the plurality of vacuum insulation panels is configured so that: the first surface and the second surface engage (via C) at the edges of the first surface and the edges of the second surface and externally join with each other in a sealed state (par. 107 & 112) and maintain a vacuum in the space defined by the first surface, the second surface, and the edges (C) which extend from the first & second surfaces (par. 38, 48, 52, 62, 68, & 105-106), with the core material arranged inside the vacuum (par. 107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute vacuum insulation panels, as taught by Kim, for the vacuum insulation panels of Oikawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to keep the storage compartment and its contents cool, and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known panel for another.
It is noted that, in Oikawa, the panels (1a-1e) combine to form (as in Fig. 3-5) a storage compartment (5), wherein first surface (10) of the exterior material (9-10) of each panel of the plurality of panels is exposed to the storage compartment (as in Fig. 10) while the second surface (9) of the exterior material of each panel of the plurality of panels is exposed to an outside of the main body (as in Fig. 10). The above modification merely contemplates replacing each of Oikawa’s panels (1a-1e) with one of Kim’s vacuum insulation panels (311, 321, 331, 341, 351). Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that, in the structure of Oikawa as modified, the plurality of vacuum insulation panels (311, 321, 331, 341, 351 of Kim) would form a storage compartment (5 of Oikawa), wherein a first surface (A of Kim) of the exterior material (62 or 621 of Kim) of each vacuum insulation panel (311, 321, 331, 341, 351 of Kim) of the plurality of vacuum insulation panels forms an exposed surface of the storage compartment (as in Fig. 10 of Oikawa) while the second surface (B of Kim) of the exterior material of each vacuum insulation panel of the plurality of vacuum insulation panels is exposed to an outside of the main body (as in Fig. 10 of Oikawa).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches an exterior material (62) of each vacuum insulation panel (311, 321, 331, 341, 351) of the plurality of vacuum insulation panels (311, 321, 331, 341, 351) that includes a first panel (A) forming the first surface (A) of the exterior material of the vacuum insulation panel, and a second panel (B) coupled to the first panel and forming the second surface (B) of the exterior material of the vacuum insulation panel.
Regarding claims 3 & 15, Kim teaches first (A) & second (B) panels of each of the vacuum insulation panels (311, 321, 331, 341, 351) that include a layer (621-622) of plastic material (i.e., nylon - see par. 110) having an unspecified thickness. Additionally, altering the size of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first & second panels of each of the vacuum insulation panels of Oikawa as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the plastic layer of each of the first & second panels 0.75 mm thick, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the refrigerator (e.g., intended use of the refrigerator, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Oikawa as modified teaches a first panel (A of Kim) of the plurality of vacuum insulation panels (311, 321, 331, 341, 351 of Kim) that form an inner case (as in Fig. 10 & par. 15 of Oikawa) of the main body (12-15 of Oikawa & 311, 321, 331, 341, 351 of Kim).
Regarding claims 7 & 15, Oikawa as modified teaches a second panel (B of Kim) of each vacuum insulation panel (311, 321, 331, 341, 351 of Kim) of the plurality of vacuum insulation panels (311, 321, 331, 341, 351 of Kim) that includes a metal material (623 - see par. 111 of Kim) forming an outside surface of the second panel (as in Fig. 9 of Kim).
Regarding claim 13, Oikawa teaches a plurality of vacuum insulation panels (311, 321, 331, 341, 351 of Kim) that form side walls (311, 331 of Kim), an upper wall (341 of Kim), a lower wall (351 of Kim), and a rear wall (321 of Kim) of the main body (12-15 of Oikawa & 311, 321, 331, 341, 351 of Kim).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches vacuum insulation panels (311, 321, 331, 341, 351) each including a blocking layer (623) formed inside the exterior material (621) of the vacuum insulation panel to block gas permeation through the exterior material of the vacuum insulation material (par. 111).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (EP2789948) & Kim (KR20170081417) in view of Yoon (KR20120037271). Oikawa as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a plurality of vacuum insulation panels (311, 321, 331, 341, 351 of Kim) each including first & second panels (A-B of Kim) bonded by sealing means; but fail(s) to teach epoxy bonding therebetween. However, Yoon teaches sealing means (310, 320) comprising an epoxy (310) for bonding first & second panels (210) of a vacuum insulation panel (200) for vacuum (par. 32, 34, 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute sealing means, as taught by Yoon, for the sealing means of each of the vacuum insulation panels of Oikawa as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce leakage therebetween (as suggested by par. 32 of Yoon).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (EP2789948) & Kim (KR20170081417) in view of Kaflon (20090031659). Oikawa as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a plurality of vacuum insulation panels (311, 321, 331, 341, 351 of Kim) each including first & second panels (A-B of Kim); but fail(s) to teach a ring member or groove. However, Kaflon teaches sealing means comprising a ring member (84) disposed between a first component and a second component to maintain a space between the first & second components in a vacuum state (par. 302), and the second component includes an accommodating groove (85) formed to accommodate the ring member (Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add sealing means, as taught by Kaflon, between the each of the first & second panels of Oikawa as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to leakage therebetween (as suggested by par. 302 of Kaflon).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (EP2789948) & Kim (KR20170081417) in view of Jang (20150159937). Oikawa as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a plastic material; but fail(s) to teach a plastic material which is ABS, PP, or PS. However, Jang teaches making first (140) & second (130) panels of a vacuum insulated panel (100) from PP (par. 99, 109, 113). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the plastic material of Oikawa as modified from PP, as taught by Jang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the cost & weight of the refrigerator.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (EP2789948) & Kim (KR20170081417) in view of Ochiai (JP2009155172). Oikawa as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a core material having glass fibers (par. 107 of Kim); but fail(s) to teach glass fibers having a particular diameter, density, or restoring force. However, Ochiai teaches high compression glass fibers having a fiber diameter of 3-5 μm (par. 34) and a density of 200-250 kg/m3, and an unspecified restoring force It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute high compression glass fibers, as taught by Ochiai, for the core material of Oikawa as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide improved insulation; an because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known insulating means for another. Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the restoring force of Oikawa as modified 45%, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide improved insulation performance.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (EP2789948) & Kim (KR20170081417) in view of Winkler (20190170430). Oikawa as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a plurality of vacuum insulation panels (311, 321, 331, 341, 351 of Kim); but fail(s) to teach an adsorbent or vacuum valve. However, Winkler teaches the inclusion, in a vacuum insulation body (10), of an adsorbent (34) provided to adsorb gas inside the core material of the vacuum insulation body (par. 54), and a vacuum valve (50) mounted on the exterior material of the vacuum insulation body (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an adsorbent, as taught by Winkler, to each of the vacuum insulation panels of Oikawa as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to adsorb gas therein (as suggested by par. 54 of Winkler); and to add a vacuum valve, as taught by Winkler, to each of the vacuum insulation panels of Oikawa as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate evacuation of gas therefrom (as suggested by par. 58 of Winkler).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “teach or suggesta configuration where the panels "engage at the edges" and "externally join with each other in a sealed state and maintain a vacuum in the space defined by the first surface, the second surface, and the edges", as currently recited in claim 1” (Remarks at 6). This argument is not persuasive for the reasons stated in par. 9 above. Applicant also contends that “Kim's coupling structure of the panel assembly including in FIG. 9 requires a separate pre-assembled outer first vacuum insulation member 311 having the protrusion receiving recess 3111 to receive the structure that has the expanded EPS sheet 312” (Remarks at 7). This argument is not persuasive for the reasons stated in par. 19 of the Final Rejection mailed 11/19/25.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637