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 7/24/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 21-26 are pending while claims 4 and 16-20 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, second paragraph, filed 7/24/2026, with respect to objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 24 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed 7/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 103 over Lee in view of Jang and claim have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of current claims 1-3 and 5-15 under 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the arguments regarding the newly added limitation concerning the coated surface to prevent dew formation, pages 14-15, Lee clearly teaches that “the outer surface of the adiabatic case 230 is coated with polyurethane film” (par 0033), which is used to prevent dew formation, as claimed. Thus, claims 21-25 are now rejected under 103 over Jang in view of Lee, as described in detail below.
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) 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0159937 to Jang et al. (Jang) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0178145 to Lee et al. (Lee).
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), but does not teach wherein the first surface of the first plate is surface treated to prevent dew formation on the first surface of the first plate in direct contact with the cool air. Lee teaches a refrigerator and a cooling air passage structure (FIG. 1-5) wherein the first surface of the first plate (230, FIG. 1-5) is surface treated to prevent dew formation on the first surface of the first plate in direct contact with the cool air (par 0033) in order to reduce heat loss or heat inflow from an outside (par 0033).
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 Jang, to have the first surface of the first plate surface treated to prevent dew formation on the first surface of the first plate in direct contact with the cool air, as taught by Lee, in order to prevent dew formation, reduce heat loss or heat inflow from an outside.
In reference to claim 22, Jang and Lee teach 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 the 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 and Lee teach 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 wherein the porous substance is filled in the vacuum space (15, FIG. 2-3).
In reference to claim 24, Jang and Lee teach 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
In reference to claim 25, Jang and Lee teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 21 above, and Jang additionally teaches wherein the perforation plate (PP, FIG. Z) includes a plurality of holes (five groups of apertures unmarked but visible in PP, FIG. Z) that have a size and a density configured to increase in a downstream flow direction of the cool air in the cooling air passage (FIG. Z).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 26 are allowed.
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.
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
10/03/2026
Prosecution Insights