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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed 1/21/2026. Claims 1-15 and 21-24 are pending while claims 16-20 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, last paragraph, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 8-13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, first paragraph, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jang, as described in detail below.
Further, applicant’s arguments regarding new claims, page 12, filed 1/21/2026, are moot due to newly cited reference to Jang, as explained in detail below.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end with a full stop. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0159937 to Jang et al. (Jang).
In reference to claim 21, Jang teaches a vacuum adiabatic body (FIG. 1-13), comprising a first plate (11, FIG. 2-3); a second plate (13, FIG. 3) including a portion spaced apart from the first plate in a first direction (towards the rear of the system FIG. 2); a vacuum space (S, FIG. 2-3) defined as a gap between the first plate (11, FIG. 3) and the second plate (13, FIG. 3); a perforation plate (perforation plate PP, FIG. Z, below) including a portion spaced apart from the first plate in a second direction which is different from the first direction (towards the front of the system, FIG. 2-3); a cooling air passage (cooling air passage CAP, FIG. Z) formed between the first plate (11, FIG. 3) and the perforation plate (PP, FIG. Z), wherein the first plate (11, FIG. 3) includes a first surface (11a, FIG. 2-3) configured to define a first wall for the cooling air passage (CAP, FIG. Z), and a second surface (portion of 11 facing S, FIG. 2-3) configured to define a wall for the vacuum space (S, FIG. 2-3), and wherein the perforation plate (PP, FIG. Z) includes a first surface (surface of PP facing CAP, FIG. Z) configured to define a second wall for the cooling air passage (CAP, FIG. Z), and a second surface configured to define a wall for a first space (20, FIG. 2).
In reference to claim 22, Jang teaches the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 21 above, and Jang additionally teaches wherein the first plate (11, FIG. 3) is configured to define at least one portion of a wall for the first space (20, FIG. 3), and a second plate (13, FIG. 3) is configured to define at least one portion of a wall for a second space (vacuum filled space S, FIG. 2-3).
In reference to claim 23, Jang teaches the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 21 above, and Jang additionally teaches at least one of a support or a porous substance (foam S, par 0073), wherein the support is provided to reduce a deformation of the vacuum space, and includes bars, and a porous substance being filled in the vacuum space (15, FIG. 2-3).
In reference to claim 24, Jang teaches the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 21 above, and Jang additionally teaches a refrigerator (10, FIG. 1-3) comprising a main body provided with a chamber (21 and 22, FIG. 1) in which a stored item is placed; a door (30, FIG. 1-3) provided to open and close the main body; wherein the first space (20, FIG. 1-3) is the chamber.
PNG
media_image1.png
878
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. Z, as annotated by the Examiner: Perforation Plate and the Cooling Air Passage
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0178145 to Lee et al. (Lee) in view of Jang.
In referenced to claim 1, Lee teaches a vacuum adiabatic body (FIG. 1-7), comprising a first plate (First plate, FIG. X, as annotated by the Examiner); a second plate (Second plate, FIG. X); and a perforation plate (Perforation plate, FIG. X) spaced apart from the first plate by a gap (gap between the first plate and the perforation plate, FIG. X) to allow passage of cool air, wherein the perforation plate is flat (FIG. X), but does not teach a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate. Jang teaches a vacuum insulation panel and refrigerator including the same (FIG. 2-3) wherein a vacuum space (110, FIG. 3) provided between the first plate (11, FIG. 3) and the second plate (13, FIG. 3) in order to improve the insulative characteristics of the refrigerator by preventing the occurrence of a heat bridge phenomenon (par 0008), thus improving the system’s durability (par 0003, 0009 and 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lee, to include a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate, as taught by Jang, in order to improve the insulative characteristics of the refrigerator by preventing the occurrence of a heat bridge phenomenon, thus improving the system’s durability.
In reference to claim 2, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Lee additionally teaches wherein an entire portion of the perforation plate is substantially flat (FIG. X).
In reference to claim 3, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Lee additionally teaches wherein a width of the gap in a direction from a first end of the perforation plate to a second end of the perforation plate is substantially constant (FIG. X).
PNG
media_image2.png
766
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. X, as annotated by the Examiner: first, second and perforation plates
In reference to claim 4, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Lee additionally teaches a pair of protrusions that is provided at the first plate and supports the first end and the second end of the perforation plate (inherent in the structure of FIG. X and 1-7; the perforation plate does not levitate and is attached to the body of the refrigerator, including the back wall which reads on the first plate).
In reference to claim 5, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 4 above, and Lee additionally teaches wherein each of the pair of protrusions includes a first portion to contact the first or second end of the perforation plate and a second portion passing through the perforation plate and extending into the gap (FIG. 6).
In reference to claim 6, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Lee additionally teaches wherein the first plate includes a rear wall, a pair of side walls and an upper wall that define a first space (202, FIG. 2) to store items, and wherein the perforation plate has at least one hole through which the cool air is discharged from the gap (see arrows, FIG. 2), the at least one hole being configured to discharge the cool air into the first space (202, FIG. 2).
In reference to claim 7, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 6 above, and Lee additionally teaches wherein the perforation plate is provided at a position spaced apart from at least one of the rear walls, and wherein the perforation plate extends across an entirety of the upper wall (FIG. 2 and X).
In reference to claim 8, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 6 above, and Lee additionally teaches wherein the perforation plate is provided at a position spaced apart from the rear wall and has an upper portion and a lower portion, the upper portion of the perforation plate being configured to discharge a relatively larger amount of the cool air than the lower portion of the perforation plate (it appears that the upper portion of the perforation plate delivers more cooled air than the lower portion, FIG. 2).
In reference to claim 9, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 8 above, and Lee additionally teaches wherein at least one hole includes at least one first hole provided in the upper portion of the perforation plate (the hole allowing the fan 308 to blow air through, FIG. 6) and at least one second hole provided in the lower portion of the partition plate (by the cooling air inlet 311, FIG. 6), and wherein the first hole is relatively larger than the second hole (FIG. 6).
In reference to claim 10, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 8 above, and Lee additionally teaches wherein the at least hole includes at least three holes, and wherein a number of the holes provided in the upper portion of the partition plate is greater than a number of the holes provided in the lower portion of the partition plate (FIG. 6).
In reference to claim 11, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 6 above, and Lee additionally teaches wherein the perforation plate is provided at a position spaced apart from the upper wall and has a front portion and a rear portion, the front portion of the partition plate being configured to discharge a relatively larger amount of the cool air than the rear portion of the partition plate (FIG. 1-7) and wherein the vacuum adiabatic body further comprises a door (204, FIG. 1) configured to open or close the first space (202, FIG. 1-2).
In reference to claim 12, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, and Lee additionally teaches wherein at least one hole includes at least one first hole (the hole allowing the fan 308 to blow air through, FIG. 6) provided in the front portion of the perforation plate and at least one second hole (by the cooling air inlet 311, FIG. 6) provided in the rear portion of the perforation plate, and wherein the first hole is larger than the second hole (FIG. 6).
In reference to claim 13, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, and Lee additionally teaches wherein the at least one hole includes at least three holes, and wherein a number of the holes provided in the front portion of the partition plate is relatively greater than a number of the holes provided in the rear portion of the partition plate (FIG. 6).
In reference to claim 14, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 6 above, and Lee additionally teaches wherein the at least one hole includes a plurality of holes that are distributed across an entire surface of the perforation plate at an uneven density (FIG. 2).
In reference to claim 15, Lee and Jang teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Lee additionally teaches a support configured to maintain a distance between the first plate and second plate, the support being positioned to contact or to be adjacent to the first plate (inherent in the structure of FIG. 1-7 and X, the perforation plate does not levitate with respect to the first plate and the rest of refrigerator body).
Conclusion
This rejection is being made non-final to afford the applicants the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
4/20/2026
Prosecution Insights