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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are pending in the application, claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Amendments to the specification and the claims 1 and 8, filed on 5 February 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5 February 2026.
Applicants' election with traverse of claims 1-5 and 7-8 in the reply filed on 5 February 2026 is acknowledged. However, the applicants failed to provide any arguments regarding the traversal of the restriction requirement.
As such, the requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 5 February 2026, regarding the objections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claimed and specification.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 5 February 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claimed and specification.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 5 February 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicants argue that Li fails to disclose the specific geometric parameters and structural configurations of the claimed invention (i.e., the annular groove is positioned such that one side end face is flush with the side end face of the core material; the insulating material is a pre-molded component; "the insulating material is adhered to the groove to restore the panel to a perfect rectangular cross-section"; and/or "a pre-assembled insulating panel unit"). The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicants' argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "the annular groove is positioned such that one side end face is flush with the side end face of the core material"; "the insulating material is a pre-molded component"; and/or "the insulating material is adhered to the groove to restore the panel to a perfect rectangular cross-section") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the applicants argument appears to be rooted in the insulating material being pre-formed and the insulating panel being a pre-assembled prior to its attachment to a refrigerator shell, so as to avoid the formation of narrow spaces where the foamed polyurethane cannot fill; which the prior art of Li does not teach. In the instant case, the applicants' arguments appear to be based upon the process by which the final product is made. However, the claim is not written as a "product-by-process" claim, and such features are not read into the claims. Even if they were, only the final structure and distinctive structural characteristics imparted to the final product by the process claims are given weight, of which the applicants present no showing. See MPEP §2113(I).
Therefore, in light of the applicants arguments, the examiner contends that the prior art rejections made of record over Li in view of Kirby and Yamamoto are still valid.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With Regards to Claims 1-5, 7, and 8: Instant claim 1 recites the limitation "a board surface of the core material" in line 11. The instant specification as filed is silent with respect to what constitutes "a board surface" of the claimed core material, and the term is not a technical term in the art. While applicants' provide Figure 2 with annotations pertaining to the aforementioned limitation, such a showing is not considered to comply with the written description requirement. As such, the claim is deemed by the examiner as failing to comply with the written description requirement. (For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat said "board surface" of the core material as "any surface" of the core material, such that all other limitations are met.)
Claims 2-5, 7, and 8, which depend from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
Claim 8 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With Regards to Claim 8: Claim 8 recites the limitation --a surface of the insulating panel being attached to the refrigerator shell-- in lines 3 to 4. Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, recites --a surface of the insulating panel is used to attach to a refrigerator shell-- in line 10. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that said "surface of the insulating panel" of claim 8 is different from the "surface of the insulating panel" of claim 1; or (2) that the "surface of the insulating panel" of claims 1 and 8 are both the same. In view of the disclosure (i.e., figure 1), it is the decision of the examiner that the latter interpretation applies, and that the limitation of claim 8 will be treated as "the[[a]] surface of the insulating panel being attached to the refrigerator shell".
With Regards to Claim 8: Claim 8 recites the limitation --[a] refrigerator, comprising a shell and a liner-- in line 1. Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, recites the limitation --a surface of the insulating panel is used to attach to a refrigerator shell-- in line 10. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that the "shell" of the refrigerator recited in claim 8 is different from the "refrigerator shell" recited in claim 1; or (2) that the "shell" of the refrigerator recited in claim 8 is the same "refrigerator shell" recited in claim 1. In view of the disclosure (i.e., figure 1), it is the decision of the examiner that the latter interpretation is to be applied, wherein the limitation of claim 8 will be read as:
A refrigerator, comprising the refrigerator shellthe liner, with the[[a]] surface of the insulating panel being attached to the refrigerator shell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 105371580 A) in view of Kirby et al. (US 5,532,034 A) and Yamamoto et al. (US 4,529,638 A), and further evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 (referred to herein as "Nuclear Power"), Non-Patent Literature No. 2 (referred to herein as "Wikipedia"), and Non-Patent Literature No. 3 (referred to herein as "AZO Materials").
Regarding Claim 1: Li discloses a vacuum insulation panel (ref. #1) comprising a barrier film bag (ref. #11) and a core material (ref. #10), the core material having a circumferential groove (ref. #101) formed along the circumference of the core material, wherein the core material is encapsulated within the barrier film bag by a vacuum to cause the barrier film bag to adhere to the outer surface of the core material and to the inner wall surface of the groove (figures 2 to 3, [0010], [0011], [0013]-[0019], [0023], [0043]-[0053] of Li). Li also discloses a refrigerator comprising an inner liner having a receiving cavity with a front opening, an outer shell fitted onto the inner liner, a space is formed between the inner wall surface of the outer shell and the outer wall surface of the inner liner, the vacuum insulation panel installed within the space and on the inner wall of the outer shell, and a foam layer covering the outer surface of the vacuum insulation panel, the foam layer is filled in the grooves on the core material of the vacuum insulation panel ([0011], [0027], [0028], [0046], and [0056] of Li). (Note: In the instant case, since the foamed layer (insulating material) is embedded in the groove ([0011] of Li), it would exist on some plane that is the same plane as the vacuum insulation panel, which would meet the claimed limitations of --the insulating material is located on the same plane as the vacuum insulation panel-- and --a adhered end surface of the insulating material and the vacuum insulation panel are in the same plane--.) Li further discloses that the barrier film bag is a composite film bag of metal (e.g., aluminum foil) and polymer material ([0024]-[0025] of Li). Specifically, Li provides for --an insulating panel, comprising a vacuum insulation panel and insulating material; wherein the vacuum insulation panel comprises a core material and a coating material, wherein the core material provides an annular groove on one side, the coating material envelops the core material, and a vacuum is formed between the core material and the coating material; wherein the insulating material is arranged in the annular groove enveloped by the coating material, the insulating material is located on the same plane as the vacuum insulation panel, wherein a surface of the insulating panel is used to attach to a refrigerator shell, and wherein the annular groove is formed on a board surface of the core material, and a adhered end surface of the insulating material and the vacuum insulation panel are in the same plane--.
Li fails to disclose that --the thermal resistance of the insulating material is higher than the thermal resistance of the coating material--.
Kirby discloses a refrigerator compartments (ref. #24 and #26) defined by an interior liner wall (ref. #32) spaced within an exterior outer shell (ref. #34), a space (ref. #36) between the liner wall and outer shell being filled with an insulation material (e.g., polyurethane foam), and a vacuum insulation panel (ref. #38) inserted in the space (figure 1 and [Col. 4: li. 50 to Col. 5: li. 14] of Kirby). Kirby also discloses a single compartment vacuum insulation panel (ref. #200 and #220) in which the panel is comprised of a top barrier wall (ref. #202 and #222) and bottom barrier wall (ref. #204 and #224), filled with a filler material (ref. #206 and #226) (e.g., fumed silica, or glass fiber), and a getter system (ref. #210 and #230) within a cavity (ref. #212 and #232) in the filler material, the getter system comprising an getter material (figures 9 to 10, [Col. 1: li. 8-36], [Col. 2: li. 29-54], and [Col. 8: li. 27-67] of Kirby).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the vacuum insulation panel of Kirby with the insulating panel disclosed by Li in order to have --an insulating material of foamed polyurethane; and absorbent within the core material--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the vacuum insulation panel of Kirby with the insulating panel disclosed by Li, from the stand-point of having a getter for use in a vacuum insulation panel wherein the getter does not require heat activation ([Col. 3: li. 13-16] and Col. 5: li. 51-53] of Kirby). (In the instant case, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the insulating material be a foamed polyurethane, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07.)
Li in view of Kirby still fails to disclose that --the thermal resistance of the insulating material is higher than the thermal resistance of the coating material--.
Yamamoto discloses a thermal insulator for refrigerators comprising an evacuated powder insulation portion (ref. #1) comprising fine powder (ref. #2) and a container (ref. #3) enclosing the powder by evacuation, wherein the container can be a composite of plastics and metal (e.g., be a bag-form container of vinyl chloride film) (figure 1, [Col. 1: li. 4-5 and 45-48], and [Col. 2: li. 1-61] of Yamamoto).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the insulator of Yamamoto with the insulation panel of Li in view of Kirby in order to have -- the thermal resistance of the insulating material is higher than the thermal resistance of the coating material--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the insulator of Yamamoto with the insulation panel of Li in view of Kirby, from the stand-point of having a container made of a deformable film that when evacuated provides for higher protection against vacuum leak ([Col. 2: li. 18-27] of Yamamoto). (In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the polymeric material of the coating material disclosed by Li be a vinyl chloride film (i.e., flexible polyvinyl chloride), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07.)
Li in view of Kirby and Yamamoto discloses that the insulating material can comprise a composite film of a metal (e.g., aluminum foil) and a polymer (e.g., vinyl chloride film), and that that the insulating material can be a foamed polyurethane, but do not explicitly recite --the thermal resistance of the insulating material is higher than the thermal resistance of the coating material--. However, it has been evidenced by other non-patent literature references that the thermal resistivity of the foamed polyurethane is greater than the thermal resistivity of the composite film of aluminum foil and viny chloride film. Nuclear Power discloses that the typical thermal conductivity values for polyurethane foams are between 0.022 and 0.035 W/m∙K (i.e., thermal resistivity of 28 to 45) ([Pg. 2: li. 1-2] of Nuclear Power). Wikipedia discloses that a flexible polyvinyl chloride can have a thermal conductivity of 0.14 to 0.17 W/m∙K (i.e., thermal resistivity of 5.8 to 7.1) (see "Properties" Table on page 4 of Wikipedia). AZO Materials discloses that the aluminum foils can have thermal conductivities of about 235 W/m∙K (i.e., thermal resistivity of 0.0042) ([Pg. 3] of AZO Materials). As evidenced by the non-patent literature, the thermal resistance of the insulating material (e.g. polyurethane foam) would be higher than that of the coating material disclosed by Li in view of Kirby and Yamamoto. (In the instant case, Li in view of Kirby and Yamamoto discloses that the coating material would comprise at least a single layer of the polymer and a single layer of a metal, which together would not result in a thermal resistance greater than that of the polyurethane foam.)
Regarding Claim 2: Li in view of Kirby and Yamamoto discloses that the coating material is configured as aluminum foil ([0024] and [0025] of Li).
Regarding Claim 3: Li in view of Kirby and Yamamoto discloses that the core material comprises at least one of glass fiber and fumed silica ([Col. 8: li. 37-43 and 59-63] of Kirby).
Regarding Claim 4: Li in view of Kirby and Yamamoto discloses that the insulating material comprises at least one of foamed polyurethane ([0011] of Li; [Col. 4: li. 64 to Col. 5: li. 7]; [Col. 2: li. 67 to Col. 3: li. 2] of Yamamoto).
Regarding Claim 5: Li in view of Kirby and Yamamoto discloses that the groove can be a circumferential groove, and that the groove can be a notch that extends from a bottom wall of the groove upwards and penetrating the upper surface of the core material (figure 3, [0013], [0016]-[0017], and [0022]-[0023] of Li), but does not explicitly recite that --the thickness of the annular groove is 1/2-2/3 of the thickness of the core material--. However, given that the circumferential groove would have a thickness that is less than the thickness of the core to a thickness about 1/3 the thickness of the core material (based upon the drawings), and given that the thickness of the notch depends upon the position of the bottom wall of the groove), the notch could have at least a thickness that is greater than half the thickness of the core material; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --1/2-2/3 of the thickness of the core material--. Li differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Li, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7: Li in view of Kirby and Yamamoto discloses an adsorbent is provided inside the core material (figures 9 to 10, [Col. 1: li. 8-36], [Col. 2: li. 29-54], and [Col. 8: li. 27-67] of Kirby).
Regarding Claim 8: Li in view of Kirby and Yamamoto discloses a refrigerator, comprising a shell and a liner, wherein a foamed polyurethane and the insulating panel are provided between the refrigerator shell and liner, with a surface of the insulating panel being attached to the refrigerator ([0011], [0023], [0027], and [0028] of Li; [Col. 4: li. 63 to Col. 5: li. 14] of Kirby). (In the instant case, with respect to the as presented limitation of --the surface of the insulating material being attached to the refrigerator shell--. As disclosed by Li ([0011], [0023], [0027], and [0028] of Li), the insulation material is a portion of the foamed polyurethane that is disposed in the annular groove, and would have some surface thereof indirectly attached to the shell by the foamed polyurethane not within the annular groove or by the vacuum insulation panel. Alternatively, Li also discloses that the groove can be a notch, wherein the insulating material would be in the groove (notch) and in contact with the shell ([0022] and [0023] of Li).)
Conclusion
Applicants' 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights