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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election
1. Applicant’s election of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on April 17, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 17, 2026.
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 31, 2024, has been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaji et al. (JP H0630795).
Yamaji discloses a vacuum insulation pipes comprising: an outer pipe (2); an inner pipe (3); and a vacuum space (5) provided between the outer pipe (2) and the inner pipe (3), wherein the vacuum space (5) is provided by a seal configured to seal the outer pipe (2) and the inner pipe (3), and the seal has a silicone coating material layer (12) for improving corrosion resistance (see paragraphs [0014]-[0015], [0017] and figure 1), where Figure 1 is shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
275
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Because Yamaji discloses a vacuum body with the same materials as claimed and preferentially disclosed, the article of Yamaji will inherently possess improved corrosion resistance, as in claim 1.
Concerning claim 2, Figure 1 of Yamaji shows the seal has at least a first and second material.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
5. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaji et al. (JP H0630795).
Yamaji discloses a vacuum insulation pipes comprising: an outer pipe (2); an inner pipe (3); and a vacuum space (5) provided between the outer pipe (2) and the inner pipe (3), wherein the vacuum space (5) is provided by a seal configured to seal the outer pipe (2) and the inner pipe (3), and the seal has a silicone coating material layer (12) for improving corrosion resistance (see paragraphs [0014]-[0015], [0017] and figure 1), where Figure 1 is shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
275
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Figure 1 of Yamaji shows the seal has at least a first and second material, as in claim 4. In claim 4, the phrase, “formed by at least one of a first process, a second process, and a third process in order to improve corrosion resistance” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Concerning claim 5, the phrase, “wherein the first process includes at least one of: coating a surface of the seal with a material having higher corrosion resistance than the first material, a process in which a weight ratio of the first material decreases, and a process in which a weight ratio of the second material increases, and removing a rough surface of the seal” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Concerning claim 6, the phrase, “wherein the first process includes electrolytic polishing” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Concerning claim 7, the phrase, “wherein the seal is formed by at least one of a first process, a second process, and a third process to improve corrosion resistance, and wherein the second process is performed after the seal is scaled” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Concerning claim 8, the phrase, “wherein the second process is performed after the first process” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Concerning claim 9, the phrase, “wherein the second process is performed before the third process” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Concerning claim 10, the phrase, “wherein the second process includes applying a composition to the seal to provide an application portion” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 3, 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited vacuum adiabatic body further including wherein a weight ratio of the first material is greater than a weight ratio of the second material, wherein a strength of the second material is greater than a strength of the first material, wherein a corrosion resistance of the second material is greater than a corrosion resistance of the first material, wherein a degree of oxidation of the second material is greater than a degree of oxidation of the first material, wherein a melting point of a mixture of the first and second materials is lower than a melting point of the first material, and the melting point of the first material is lower than a melting point of the second material.
The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited vacuum adiabatic body further including wherein the composition is an insulating coating agent of a silicone component or an antirust coating agent of a metal component, and wherein metal powder is included in the composition, or viscosity of the composition is 1 cs (centistokes) ≤ viscosity of the mixture ≤ 10 cs (centistokes).
The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited vacuum adiabatic body further including wherein the application portion covers at least a portion of an upper surface of a portion obtained by the first plate spaced apart from the second plate, wherein the application portion covers at least a portion of a side gap of the portion obtained by the first plate spaced apart from the side plate, wherein the application portion is inserted into at least a portion of the gap obtained by the first plate spaced apart from the side plate, wherein the application portion extends to at least a portion of a lower surface of the side plate, or wherein the application portion covers a cutting portion in which the first plate and the side plate are cut.
The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited vacuum adiabatic body further including initial humidity is 87% or less and drying time is within a range of 6 hours to 48 hours, dry humidity is 60% or less, dry humidity is 60% or less and an initial humidity is 87% or less, or drying humidity is 60% or less and drying time is within a range of 6 hours to 48 hours.
The prior art does not teach motivation or suggestion for modification to make the invention as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights