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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 11,047,616 to Jeong et al. (Jeong).
In reference to claim 1, Jeong teaches a refrigerator (FIG. 1-23) comprising a main body (10, FIG. 1) including a vacuum adiabatic body (FIG. 1) to form a first space (3, FIG. 2) configured to store items, wherein the vacuum adiabatic body includes a first plate (20, FIG. 7), a second plate (40, FIG. 7) having a portion spaced apart from the first plate in a first direction to define a vacuum space (with 410, FIG. 7) between the first plate (20, FIG. 7) and the second plate (40, FIG. 7), and a support (420, FIG. 7) configured to maintain a distance between the first plate (20, FIG. 7) and the second plate (40, FIG. 7) and disposed next to or adjacent to the first plate (20, FIG. 7), a door (240, FIG. 6) provided to open and close an opening of the main body to allow access to the first space (3, FIG. 2); and a component (col 5, line 49) provided between the main body (10, FIG. 1) and the door (240, FIG. 6) and including a portion (portion inherently pressed in the direction perpendicular to 20 and 40, FIG. 1-7) inclined with respect to an extension direction of at least one of the first plate or the second plate (col 5, lines 47-51).
In reference to claim 2, Jeong teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Jeong additionally teaches wherein the component comprises a gasket installed on one of the door or the main body (col 5, lines 47-51).
In reference to claim 3, Jeong teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Jeong additionally teaches wherein the component comprises a frame (420, FIG. 7) configured to cover respective edges of the first plate and the second plate (20 and 40, FIG. 1-7).
In reference to claim 6, Jeong teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Jeong additionally teaches wherein the component comprises an air gap (471, FIG. 7) to define a portion of the first space.
In reference to claim 8, Jeong teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Jeong additionally teaches wherein the support comprises a bar (S1, FIG. 7) extending in the first direction, and wherein the component (col 5, lines 47-51) is inclined with respect to an extension direction of the bar.
In reference to claim 9, Jeong teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Jeong additionally teaches wherein the support comprises a support plate (422, FIG. 13) extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction, and wherein the component is inclined with respect to an extension direction of the support plate.
In reference to claim 10, Jeong teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 9 above, and Jeong additionally teaches wherein the first direction is a direction of thickness of the vacuum space (410, FIG. 13), and wherein the second direction is a direction of width of the vacuum space and is perpendicular to the first direction (FIG. 13).
In reference to claims 12-19, said claim claims the limitations as claimed in claims 1-3, 6 and 8-10; thus, said claims 12-19 are rejected in the same manner, as described in detail above.
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) 4, 5, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeung in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0251653 to Mills (Mills).
In reference to claim 4, Jeong teaches the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but does not teach wherein the component comprises a sheet provided between the first plate and the second plate and coupled to at least one of the first plate and the second plate. Mills shows integrated multilayer insulation (FIG. 1-11) comprising a sheet (120, FIG. 1-11) provided between the first plate (124, FIG. 1-11) and the second plate (108, FIG. 1-11) and coupled (via 136, FIG. 1-11) to at least one of the first plate and the second plate (124 and 108, FIG. 1-11, respectively) in order to minimize the thermal conduction for the operating conditions (par 0008, first four sentences).
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 Jeung, to include a sheet provided between the first plate and the second plate and coupled to at least one of the first plate and the second plate, as taught by Mills, in order to minimize the thermal conduction for the operating conditions.
In reference to claim 5, Jeong and Mills teach the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 4 above, and Mills teaches wherein the sheet (120, FIG. 1-11) includes a first end (end of 120, FIG. 1-11) coupled (via 112, FIG. 1-3) to the first plate (124, FIG. 1-11) and a second end (end of 120, FIG. 1-11) coupled (via 112, FIG. 1-3) to the second plate (108, FIG. 1-11).
In reference to claim 11, Jeung discloses the refrigerator as explained in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the support comprises a radiation resistance sheet to reduce heat radiation between the first plate and second plate, and disposed next to or adjacent to the first plate, and wherein the component is inclined with respect to an extension direction of the radiation resistance sheet. Mills shows integrated multilayer insulation (FIG. 1-11) comprising a radiation resistance sheet (120, FIG. 1-11) to reduce heat radiation between the first plate (124, FIG. 1-11) and second plate (108, FIG. 1-11), and disposed next to or adjacent to the first plate (124, FIG. 1-11), and wherein the component (weld 116, FIG. 3) is inclined with respect to an extension direction of the radiation resistance sheet (120, FIG. 1-3) in order to minimize the thermal conduction for the operating conditions (par 0008, first four sentences).
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 Jeung, to include a radiation resistance sheet to reduce heat radiation between the first plate and second plate, and disposed next to or adjacent to the first plate, and wherein the component is inclined with respect to an extension direction of the radiation resistance sheet, as taught by Mills, in order to minimize the thermal conduction for the operating conditions.
In reference to claim 20, said claim claims the limitations as claimed in claim 11; thus, said claim 20 is rejected in the same manner, as described in detail above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Conclusion
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