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
Amendments to the claims, filed on 4/17/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11-13, and 15-26 in the reply filed on 4/17/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the” appears to not be needed, e.g., “the a” (line 6 as amended). 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jung et al (US 2018/0326535 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a vacuum adiabatic body comprising a first plate (10); a second plate (20); a vacuum space (50) disposed between the first plate and the second plate, and configured to be provided in a vacuum state; and a seal that includes a weld and is configured to seal the first plate and the second plate and form the vacuum space, wherein an outline of a cross-section of the weld has at least one inflection point (61) .
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of the instant claim is a product by process limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in claim 7 and the product of Jung.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Jung teaches an appliance comprising a vacuum adiabatic body of claim 1; and a refrigerator comprising: a main body provided with a cavity that is capable of storing a storage good; a door provided to open and close the main body; and a vacuum adiabatic body of claim 1 (para 7, 21-22, 36-40; figs 1, 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 11-13, and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung.
Jung would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the second plate is disposed under the first plate (para 21-22, 36-40; figs 1, 2).
It is noted that a change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the vacuum adiabatic body of Jung with the following dimensions and or shapes:
first and second inflection point and spacing of claim 2;
size A, B, C, and ratio A/B of claim 3;
a ratio of a standard deviation of a depth of the weld to a depth of claim 5;
wherein a depth of the weld compared to a thickness of the first plate of claim 11;
size A, B, and cross-section of the weld of claim 13, 15, and 16;
thickness of the plate t1 of claim 17;
thicknesses of the plate t1, t2 and ratio t2/t1 of claim 18, 19, 20; and
size A, B, C, ratio C/A, angles and/or angle cross-sections of claims 21-24
based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention.
In addition, Jung teaches the first and second plate member may have a thickness of 500 to 2000 μm (e.g., t2/t1 of 4) (para 13) which would lie within the range of the instant claims.
Furthermore, Jung teaches ensuring perfect welding performance at all welding points between a plate and a conductive resistance sheet to stably maintain sealing such that loss does not occur at any specific point, thereby improving fabrication yield (para 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the number and spacing of the inflection points, the size, angles, and cross-sections of A, B, and C (and ratios therein), standard deviation and cross-section of the weld, as well as the plate thicknesses (and ratios therein) to optimize the welding performance at all welding points and to ensure a loss of an adiabatic effect does not occur.
The following claims and/or limitations are product by process limitations:
claim 7
“wherein an output to the first plate is first applied during a welding” of instant claim 11
Claim 12
“wherein an injection flow rate of a shielding gas during a sealing is 2 liters/min or less” of claim 13
“wherein an injection flow rate of a shielding gas during the sealing is 2.65 liters/min or less.” Of claim 15
Claim 16
“the weld being provided by laser welding, and wherein, when a ratio t2/t1 of a thickness t1 of the first plate to a thickness t2 of the second plate satisfies 2 < (t2/t1)< 20, a relationship between a beam diameter D of a laser and the thickness t1 of the first plate satisfies 0.5 < (D/t1) ≤ 1” of instant claim 17.
“the weld being provided by laser welding, and wherein, when a ratio t2/t1 of a thickness t1 of the first plate to a thickness t2 of the second plate satisfies 2 < (t2/t1)< 20, a relationship between a beam diameter D of a laser and the thickness t1 of the first plate satisfies 0.5 < (D/t1) ≤ 3” of instant claim 18.
“wherein weld is configured to overlap and weld the first plate and the second plate, the weld being provided by laser welding” and “a relationship between a beam diameter D of a laser and the thickness t1 of the first plate satisfies 1≤ (D/t1) ≤ 10” of instant claim 19.
“wherein weld is configured to overlap and weld the first plate and the second plate, the weld being provided by laser welding;” “a relationship between a beam diameter D of a laser and the thickness t1 of the first plate satisfies a1 ≤ (D/t1) ≤ b1;” and “a relationship between the beam diameter D of the laser and the thickness t1 of the first plate is a2 ≤ (D/t1) ≤ b2” of instant claim 20.
Product by process limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in the instant claims and limitations and the product of Jung. Furthermore, Jung teaches the weld may be made through laser welding (para 10-12, 50-52).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights