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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (invention directed to a vacuum adiabatic body), Group 3 (species directed to the strength reinforcement does not contact the support), and Group 5 (species directed to the shape of the strength reinforcement is different from the shape of the grid) in the reply filed on 29 April 2026 is acknowledged.
The applicant highlighted claims 1-8 and 11-20 read on the elected species (election of Group 3 and Group 5). However, this is not the case because: (i) claims 5, 8, 13, 19 and 20 are directed to a nonelected species because each of claims 5, 8, 13, 19 and 20 require the strength reinforcement to be in contact with the support/grid (corresponding to nonelected Group 4); and (ii) claims 7 and 18 are directed to a nonelected species because each of claims 7 and 18 require the shape of the strength reinforcement corresponds to the shape of the grid (corresponding to nonelected Group 6).
In summary, claims 1-4, 6, 11, 12, 14-17 read on the elected species.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
The end of claim 3 recites “the support is to pass through the inner portion.” There is no support for this limitation in the originally filed disclosure. It is noted that claim 3 from the non-amended claim set submitted on 31 May 2024 (corresponding to claim 3 from WO 2023/101462) recites “at least one of the inner portion and the outer portion passes through a support.” However, this recitation fails to provide sufficient support that the claimed support passes through the inner portion of the strength reinforcement.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0010629 (hereinafter “Pierce”).Regarding claim 1 Pierce teaches a vacuum insulation panel (vacuum adiabatic body) 10 comprising a top air tight covering (first plate) 1, a bottom air tight covering (second plate) 1, and a core 2 which creates the interior volume for a vacuum (vacuum space configured to be provided in a vacuum state) disposed between the top air tight covering (first plate) 1 and the bottom air tight covering (second plate) 1 (paragraphs [0031] – [0033], and Figures 1-3). Pierce teaches a tube 4 is glued to the hole 20 in the top air tight covering (first plate) 1 (paragraph [0041], and Figures 1 and 3), which corresponds to a tube to be fastened to the first plate. Pierce teaches an interface (strength reinforcement) 5 made of a rigid material such as a hard plastic (paragraph [0036]), which corresponds to a strength reinforcement configured to suppress deformation of the first plate base on the tube.Regarding claim 2 Regarding the suppressed deformation of the first plate, in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the deformation of the first plate includes: a deformation due to the weight of the tube; a deformation by a force applied to the first plate based on the tube; and a distortion of the first plate that occurs when the tube is fastened to the first plate, the claimed functions are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the Pierce reference teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.Regarding claim 4 In addition, Pierce teaches a core (support) 2 comprising paper honeycomb or other light strong material capable of maintaining the interior volume under at least about one atmosphere of compression (configured to maintain the vacuum space) (paragraph [0033]). Pierce illustrates the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 includes a tube strength reinforcement structure which surrounds the tube 4 and prevents lateral movement thereof and a support strength reinforcement which lays on top of the support 2, wherein a width of the tube strength reinforcement is greater than a width of the support strength reinforcement (Annotated Figure 3, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
416
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11 Pierce teaches a vacuum insulation panel (vacuum adiabatic body) 10 comprising a top air tight covering (first plate) 1, a bottom air tight covering (second plate) 1, and a core 2 which creates the interior volume for a vacuum (vacuum space configured to be provided in a vacuum state) disposed between the top air tight covering (first plate) 1 and the bottom air tight covering (second plate) 1 (paragraphs [0031] – [0033], and Figures 1-3). Pierce teaches a core (support) 2 comprising paper honeycomb or other light strong material capable of maintaining the interior volume under at least about one atmosphere of compression (configured to maintain the vacuum space) (paragraph [0033]). Pierce teaches the honeycomb structure of the core (support) 2 includes a grid of hexagonally shaped cells (paragraph [0042] and Figure 3), which corresponds to the support including a grid. Pierce teaches an interface (strength reinforcement) 5 provided on the top air tight covering (first plate) 1 (Figure 3). Pierce teaches the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 comprises a precision hole 20 used to remove air from the panel, and made of a rigid material such as a hard plastic (paragraphs [0038] and [0040]), which corresponds to a strength reinforcement configured to reduce insulation loss.Regarding claim 12 In addition, Pierce teaches the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 includes a bottom surface (second area) in contact with a strength layer 6, with an optional porous layer 3 disposed on the strength layer 6, and the core (support) 2 disposed on the porous layer 3 (Figure 3 and paragraphs [0031] – [0035]), which corresponds to the strength reinforcement includes a second area in which the strength reinforcement is aligned with the support, and the strength reinforcement does not contact the support.Regarding claim 14 In addition, Pierce teaches the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 includes a hole having a diameter (inner portion) and an outer perimeter having a diameter (outer portion), wherein the outer perimeter having a diameter (outer portion) of the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 is larger than the hexagonally shaped cells (spacing of the grid) (Annotated Figure 3-1, shown below, and paragraphs [0010], [0012] and [0040]).Regarding claim 17 In addition, Pierce teaches the disc-shape of the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 (shape of the strength reinforcement) is different from the hexagonally shaped cells (shape of the grid) (Annotated Figure 3-1, shown 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.
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.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce as applied to either claim 1 or 11 above.Regarding claim 3 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Pierce teaches a core (support) 2 comprising paper honeycomb or other light strong material capable of maintaining the interior volume under at least about one atmosphere of compression (configured to maintain the vacuum space) (paragraph [0033]). Pierce teaches the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 includes a hole (inner portion) 20 having a closed curve and an outer perimeter (outer portion) forming the shape of a disc, wherein the hole 20 is in the center of the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 (geometric center for the hole (inner portion) 20 is the same as a geometric center for the outer perimeter (outer portion)) (Annotated Figure 3-1, shown below, and paragraphs [0010], [0012] and [0040]). Pierce teaches the hole (inner portion) 20 includes a sidewall (flange to fasten the tube being disposed at the inner portion) which extends through the thickness of the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 (Figure 3). Pierce also teaches the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 may be installed in the core (support) 2 (paragraph [0040]), which corresponds to the support is to pass through the inner portion.Regarding claim 15 The limitations of claim 11 have been set forth above. In addition, Pierce teaches the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 includes a hole 20 having a diameter (inner portion) and an outer perimeter having a diameter (outer portion) (Annotated Figure 3-1, shown below). Pierce teaches the hole (inner portion) 20 of the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 will receive and connect to the end 18 of the tube 4, and the hole 20 facilitates the removal of air (Figures 3-4 and paragraphs [0035] – [0040]). Pierce illustrates the honeycomb core 2 comprises an inside of the grid (Annotated Figure 3-1, shown below). Pierce does not explicitly teach the hole (inner portion of the strength reinforcement) 20 is larger than an inside of the grid. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine an appropriate size of the hole (inner portion of the strength reinforcement) 20, relative to the size of the inside of the grid, to yield a size of the hole capable of: (i) receiving and connecting to the end 18 of the tube 4; and/or (ii) facilitating the air removal function desired by Pierce. Moreover, such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce as applied to either claim 1 or 15 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0238609 (hereinafter “Uchida”).Regarding claim 6 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Pierce teaches a core (support) 2 comprising paper honeycomb or other light strong material capable of maintaining the interior volume under at least about one atmosphere of compression (configured to maintain the vacuum space) (paragraph [0033]). Pierce teaches the honeycomb structure of the core (support) 2 includes a grid of hexagonally shaped cells (paragraph [0042] and Figure 3), which corresponds to the support including a grid. Pierce teaches the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 includes a hole having a diameter (inner portion) and an outer perimeter having a diameter (outer portion), wherein the outer perimeter having a diameter (outer portion) of the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 is larger than the hexagonally shaped cells (spacing of the grid), the disc-shape of the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 (shape of the strength reinforcement) is different from the hexagonally shaped cells (shape of the grid), and the outer portion of the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 is larger than an outer portion of the grid (Annotated Figure 3-1, shown below, and paragraphs [0010], [0012] and [0040]).
PNG
media_image2.png
436
875
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pierce teaches the hole (inner portion) 20 of the interface (strength reinforcement) 5 will receive and connect to the end 18 of the tube 4, and the hole 20 facilitates the removal of air (Figures 3-4 and paragraphs [0035] – [0040]). Pierce illustrates the honeycomb core 2 comprises an inside of the grid and an outer portion of the grid (Annotated Figure 3-1, shown above). Pierce does not explicitly teach the hole (inner portion of the strength reinforcement) 20 is: (i) larger than an inside of the grid; and (ii) larger than the outer portion of the grid. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine an appropriate size of the hole (inner portion of the strength reinforcement) 20, relative to the size of the inside of the grid and the size of the outer portion of the grid, to yield a size of the hole capable of: (i) receiving and connecting to the end 18 of the tube 4; and/or (ii) facilitating the air removal function desired by Pierce. Moreover, such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Pierce illustrates each of the hole (inner portion of the strength reinforcement) 20 and the outer portion of the strength reinforcement have a radius of curvature (Annotated Figure 3-1, shown above). Pierce does not explicitly teach a corner of the vacuum insulation panel (vacuum adiabatic body) 10 has a radius of curvature. Uchida teaches a heat insulation material comprising a supporting material formed on a core material under reduced pressure or a partial vacuum (abstract, and paragraphs [0049] and [0100]). Uchida teaches the corners of the supporting material are rounded (comprising a radius of curvature) to prevent damage, which may be caused by the concentration of stresses on the outer packaging facing the corners of the underlying corners of the supporting material during depressurization (paragraph [0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the corner(s) of the vacuum insulation panel (vacuum adiabatic body) 10 of Pierce with the rounded structure taught by Uchida to prevent damage to outer layers during depressurization. The combination of Pierce and Uchida does not explicitly teach: (i) a radius of curvature of a corner of the vacuum adiabatic body is smaller than a radius of curvature of the inner portion of the strength reinforcement; and (ii) a radius of curvature of the outer portion of the strength reinforcement is larger than the radius of curvature of the corner of the vacuum adiabatic body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate radius of curvature for the rounded corner(s) of the vacuum insulation panel (vacuum adiabatic body) 10 of Pierce, relative to the radius of curvature of the inner portion of the strength reinforcement and the radius of curvature of the outer portion of the strength reinforcement, using nothing more than routine experimentation to yield a vacuum insulation panel (vacuum adiabatic body) 10 which prevents damage to an overlying layer as taught by Uchida. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).Regarding claim 16 The limitations for claim 15 have been set forth above. In addition, Pierce teaches each of the hole (inner portion of the strength reinforcement) 20 and the outer portion of the disc-shaped strength reinforcement have a radius of curvature (Annotated Figure 3-1, shown above and paragraph [0040]). Pierce does not explicitly teach a corner of the vacuum insulation panel (vacuum adiabatic body) 10 has a radius of curvature. Uchida teaches a heat insulation material comprising a supporting material formed on a core material under reduced pressure or a partial vacuum (abstract, and paragraphs [0049] and [0100]). Uchida teaches the corners of the supporting material are rounded (comprising a radius of curvature) to prevent damage, which may be caused by the concentration of stresses on the outer packaging facing the corners of the underlying corners of the supporting material during depressurization (paragraph [0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the corner(s) of the vacuum insulation panel (vacuum adiabatic body) 10 of Pierce with the rounded structure taught by Uchida to prevent damage to outer layers during depressurization. The combination of Pierce and Uchida does not explicitly teach: (i) a radius of curvature of a corner of the vacuum adiabatic body is smaller than a radius of curvature of the inner portion of the strength reinforcement; and (ii) a radius of curvature of the outer portion of the strength reinforcement is larger than the radius of curvature of the corner of the vacuum adiabatic body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate radius of curvature for the rounded corner(s) of the vacuum insulation panel (vacuum adiabatic body) 10 of Pierce, relative to the radius of curvature of the inner portion of the strength reinforcement and the radius of curvature of the outer portion of the strength reinforcement, using nothing more than routine experimentation to yield a vacuum insulation panel (vacuum adiabatic body) 10 which prevents damage to an overlying layer as taught by Uchida. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights