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 1-11, 13-18 and 20-22 are pending while claims 12 and 19 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 and 17-19 under 103 over Jung in view of Kim 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 ‘006, as explained 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) 1-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0104923 to Jung et al. (Jung) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0109172 to Kim et al. (Kim) and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0103006 to Jung et al. (‘006).
In reference to claim 1, Jung teaches a vacuum adiabatic body (FIG. 1-8) comprising a first plate (110, FIG. 1-8) to have a first temperature (inner wall 110 having storage chamber temperature); a second plate (120, FIG. 1-8) to have a second temperature different than the first temperature (outer wall of case 120 having external temperature); a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate (par 0060); and a support (140, FIG. 1-8) provided to reduce a deformation of the vacuum space (par 0049), wherein the support includes bars (140, FIG. 1-8); but does not teach wherein the bars are being fabricated using at least one material selected from the group consisting of glass fiber PC, low outgassing PC and polyphenylene sulfide (PPS). Kim teaches a refrigerator wherein the bars are fabricated using at least one material selected from the group consisting of glass fiber PC, low outgassing PC and polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) (par 0071) in order to provide support that has excellent durability and a small heat transfer coefficient (par 0071, first sentence).
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 Jung, to have the bars fabricated using at least one material selected from the group consisting of glass fiber PC, low outgassing PC and polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), as taught by Kim, in order to provide support that has excellent durability and a small heat transfer coefficient.
Jung also does not teach that the support includes a porous material filled in the vacuum space. ‘006 teaches a refrigerator comprising vacuum space (FIG. 1-17) wherein the support includes a porous material (400, FIG. 15) filled in the vacuum space (330, FIG. 15) in order to prevent at least one of heat radiation, and heat conduction caused by gas between the inner case and the outer case from taking place (par 0031).
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 Jung, to have the support includes a porous material filled in the vacuum space, as taught by ‘006, in order to prevent at least one of heat radiation, and heat conduction caused by gas between the inner case and the outer case from taking place.
In reference to claim 2, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, and Jung additionally teaches wherein an emissivity of the porous material is greater than an emissivity of each of the first and second plates (FIG. 1-8).
In reference to claim 3, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, and Jung additionally teaches wherein the bars (140, FIG. 1-8) support the first plate and the second plate, and include a material having a lower emissivity than an emissivity of each of the first and second plates (FIG. 1-8).
In reference to claim 4, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, and Jung additionally teaches wherein the vacuum space is brought into a vacuum state by an exhaustion process to exhaust a gas in the vacuum space, and a heat is applied during the exhaustion process (FIG. 1-8).
In reference to claim 5, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, and Jung additionally teaches wherein the vacuum space is brought into a vacuum state by exhausting a gas in the vacuum space by a vacuum pump while evaporating a latent gas remaining in the support of the vacuum space through baking during a first time period (FIG. 1-8).
In reference to claim 6, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, and Jung additionally teaches wherein the vacuum space is brought into a vacuum state by activating a getter by disconnecting the vacuum space from the vacuum pump and applying heat to the vacuum space during a second time period (FIG. 1-8).
In reference to claim 7, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, and Jung additionally teaches a conductive resistance sheet (314, FIG. 1-8) configured to resist heat conduction along a wall of the vacuum space, wherein the conductive resistance sheet is provided between the first plate and the second plate to decrease a heat transfer amount between the first plate and the second plate (FIG. 8).
In reference to claim 8, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, and Jung additionally teaches a conductive resistance sheet that includes a portion provided in a curved shape such that a heat conduction distance of the conductive resistance sheet is longer than a linear distance between the first plate and the second plate (FIG. 8).
In reference to claim 9, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, and Jung additionally teaches a conductive resistance sheet that includes a portion having a smaller thickness than a thickness the first plate (FIG. 8).
In reference to claim 10, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, and Jung additionally teaches a conductive resistance sheet configured to prevent heat conduction between the first plate and the second plate, wherein the conductive resistance sheet has a lower stiffness than a stiffness of each of the first and second plates and the support (FIG. 8).
In reference to claim 11, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, and Jung additionally teaches a conductive resistance sheet configured to prevent heat conduction between the first plate and the second plate, wherein the conductive resistance sheet, the first plate and the second plate are made of a same material (FIG. 8).
In reference to claims 17-18, they claim limitations similar to the limitations claimed in claims 1-11; thus, said claims 17-18 are rejected in the same manner, as described in detail above.
In reference to claims 20-22, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the refrigerator comprising the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claims 1, 17 and 18, above.
Claim(s) 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Kim and ‘006 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 7,954,301 to Mills (Mills).
In reference to claim 13, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, but they do not teach at least one radiation resistance sheet configured to resist heat radiation through the vacuum space, wherein the at least one radiation resistance sheet has a lower emissivity than that of each of the first and second plates. Mills teaches integrated multilayer insulation (FIG. 1) comprising at least one radiation resistance sheet (120, FIG. 1) configured to resist heat radiation through the vacuum space (col 4, line 7), wherein the at least one radiation resistance sheet has a lower emissivity than that of each of the first and second plates in order to provide lightweight, high performance thermal insulation for space exploration mission (col 1, lines 50-55).
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 Jung, Kim and ‘006, to add at least one radiation resistance sheet configured to resist heat radiation through the vacuum space, wherein the at least one radiation resistance sheet has a lower emissivity than that of each of the first and second plates, as taught by Mills, in order to provide lightweight, high performance thermal insulation for space exploration mission.
In reference to claim 14, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, but they do not teach at least one radiation resistance sheet configured to resist heat radiation through the vacuum space, wherein the at least one radiation resistance sheet includes a material having a higher emissivity than a material of the support. Mills teaches integrated multilayer insulation (FIG. 1) comprising at least one radiation resistance sheet (120, FIG. 1) configured to resist heat radiation through the vacuum space (col 4, line 7), wherein the at least one radiation resistance sheet includes a material having a higher emissivity than a material of the support in order to provide lightweight, high performance thermal insulation for space exploration mission (col 1, lines 50-55).
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 Jung, Kim and ‘006, to add at least one radiation resistance sheet configured to resist heat radiation through the vacuum space, wherein the at least one radiation resistance sheet includes a material having a higher emissivity than a material of the support, as taught by Mills, in order to provide lightweight, high performance thermal insulation for space exploration mission.
In reference to claim 15, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, but they do not teach wherein the support includes at least two bars to support the first plate and the second plate, and wherein the at least one radiation resistance sheet includes a material having a higher emissivity than a material of each bar. Mills teaches integrated multilayer insulation (FIG. 1) comprising at least one radiation resistance sheet (120, FIG. 1) configured to resist heat radiation through the vacuum space (col 4, line 7), wherein the support includes at least two bars to support the first plate and the second plate and wherein the at least one radiation resistance sheet includes a material having a higher emissivity than a material of each bar in order to provide lightweight, high performance thermal insulation for space exploration mission (col 1, lines 50-55).
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 Jung, Kim and ‘006, to add at least two bars to support the first plate and the second plate, and wherein the at least one radiation resistance sheet includes a material having a higher emissivity than a material of each bar, as taught by Mills, in order to provide lightweight, high performance thermal insulation for space exploration mission.
In reference to claim 16, Jung, Kim and ‘006 teach the vacuum adiabatic body as explained in the rejection of claim 1, but they do not teach at least one radiation resistance sheet configured to resist heat radiation through the vacuum space; and a conductive resistance sheet configured to resist heat conduction along a wall of the vacuum space, wherein the at least one radiation resistance sheet has a low strength and a high stiffness as compared with that of the conductive resistance sheet. Mills teaches integrated multilayer insulation (FIG. 1) comprising at least one radiation resistance sheet (120, FIG. 1) configured to resist heat radiation through the vacuum space (col 4, line 7), at least one radiation resistance sheet configured to resist heat radiation through the vacuum space; and a conductive resistance sheet configured to resist heat conduction along a wall of the vacuum space, wherein the at least one radiation resistance sheet has a low strength and a high stiffness as compared with that of the conductive resistance sheet (FIG. 1) in order to provide lightweight, high performance thermal insulation for space exploration mission (col 1, lines 50-55).
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 Jung, Kim and ‘006, to add at least one radiation resistance sheet configured to resist heat radiation through the vacuum space; and a conductive resistance sheet configured to resist heat conduction along a wall of the vacuum space, wherein the at least one radiation resistance sheet has a low strength and a high stiffness as compared with that of the conductive resistance sheet, as taught by Mills, in order to provide lightweight, high performance thermal insulation for space exploration mission.
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
5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights