DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 09, 2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As to Claim 1, the phrase “the filter member maintains the gas conduit within the filter recess” is unclear and confusing as presently set forth since it is not known how the filter member maintains the gas conduit within the filter recess or what that may constitute. A review of prior patented claimed subject matter [see US 12,055,341 – Claim 1 for instance] notes “the filter member maintains the gas conduit and the filter recess to be substantially free of an insulating material disposed within the insulating space” which makes sense in the context of the disclosure. As such, the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant is unascertainable. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 8-9, 16-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolf et al., [US 2002/0041134]. Wolf teaches of a trim breaker assembly (fig. 2) for an insulating structure {10}, the trim breaker assembly comprising: a trim breaker (20) configured to extend between opposing metallic panels {16, 15} to define a cavity {fig. 1} having an insulating space therein {viewed as the space between the wrapper & liner – fig.2}; a filter recess (32) defined within a surface of the trim breaker; a gas conduit (41) disposed within the filter recess and adapted to define selective communication between the insulating space adjacent the filter recess and an exterior area proximate an exterior surface of the trim breaker (note fig. 3); and a filter member (43) disposed adjacent the gas conduit and configured to partially define the insulating space {fig. 2}, wherein the filter member maintains the gas conduit within the filter recess (fig. 2 – as best understood), and wherein the filter member is in a form of at least a mesh barrier (where the flanged / stepped profile of the filter member is in working contact [i.e., meshed] with the mating surfaces of the trim breaker) that is configured to permit gas to flow between the insulating space and the filter recess {such as when the filter member is removed for instance}. As to Claim 2, the trim breaker assembly further comprising: at least one gas valve (42) disposed within a portion (upper recessed portion) of the trim breaker and configured to define selective communication between the filter recess and the exterior area {such as attached or removed for instance}. As to Claim 3, the at least one gas valve is operable between open and closed positions, the open position (as shown in fig. 3) defining a fluid communication between the filter recess and the exterior area via the gas conduit, the closed position (as shown in fig. 2) defined by the gas conduit and the filter recess being sealed relative to the exterior area. As to Claim 4, the open position is further defined by an inherent first gas pressure present proximate the exterior area (viewed as the ambient pressure present) and an inherent second gas pressure (viewed as the vacuum state pressure) present proximate the filter recess, wherein the second gas pressure is less than the first gas pressure (by virtue that the second gas pressure under a vacuum-tight condition would have a lower pressure than the ambient pressure). As to Claim 5, the closed position is further defined by the second gas pressure being equal to or less than the first gas pressure both being equal due to the evacuable interspace). As to Claim 6, the at least one gas valve can be viewed as an umbrella valve (due to the flanged sealing head portion of (46) which resembles an umbrella) extending through a portion of the trim breaker. As to Claim 8, the gas valve includes an operable flap (46) that is operable to define the open position (when removed from a sealing position) and the closed position (when seated in the sealing position). As to Claim 9, the operable flap engages the exterior surface of the trim breaker in the closed position (fig. 2), the operable flap being deflected away (removed) from the trim breaker in the open position (fig. 3). As to Claim 16, again, Wolf teaches of a trim breaker assembly (fig. 2) for an insulated cabinet {10}, the trim breaker assembly comprising: a trim breaker (20) extending between metallic panels (16, 15) to define an interior cavity (fig. 1), an exterior surface (such as (31, 23) for instance) of the trim breaker defining a front face of the trim breaker, an interior surface (downward / inward facing surface – fig. 2) of the trim breaker at least partially defining a gas conduit (41) that is adapted to define selective communication between the interior cavity and an exterior area defined by the front face of the trim breaker; a filter member (43) that engages the interior surface of the trim breaker to at least partially define the gas conduit, wherein the filter member is configured to separate a filter recess {32} of the trim breaker from an insulating space of the interior cavity {in a manner similar to applicant’s representation}; and at least one gas valve (42) disposed within the filter recess, wherein the at least one gas valve is operable between open and closed positions, the open position (as shown in fig. 3) defining a fluid communication between the filter recess and the exterior area via the gas conduit, the closed position (as shown in fig. 2) defined by the gas conduit being sealed relative to the exterior area. As to Claim 17, the at least one gas valve can be viewed as an umbrella valve (due to the flanged sealing head portion of (46) which resembles an umbrella) extending through a portion of the trim breaker. As to Claim 18, the gas valve includes an operable flap (46) that engages the exterior surface of the trim breaker in the closed position (when seated in the sealing position), the operable flap being deflected away from the trim breaker in the open position (when removed from a sealing position). As to Claim 20, the filter member can be a filter tube (viewed as the hollow structure surrounding (47) for instance) that is disposed within the gas conduit of the trim breaker, wherein the filter tube and the trim breaker cooperate to define the gas conduit (fig. 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 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf [US 2002/0041134]. Regarding Claim 10, again, Wolf teaches of a trim breaker assembly (fig. 2) comprising: a trim breaker (20) configured to extend between opposing metallic panels {16, 15} to define an interior cavity {fig. 1}; a gas conduit (41) that is at least partially defined by a filter recess (32) of the trim breaker; at least on gas valve that is attached to the trim breaker and is selectively operable between open and closed positions, the open position (as shown in fig. 3) defined by a fluid communication between the gas conduit and an exterior area defined by an exterior surface (along 23, 31 for instance) of the trim breaker via the gas conduit, the closed position (as shown in fig. 2) defined by the gas conduit being sealed at the at least one gas valve; and a filter member (43) attached to the trim breaker at the filter recess and configured to maintain the gas conduit separate from the interior cavity {fig. 2}, the filter member configured to permit gas to flow between the interior cavity and the gas conduit {such as when the filter member is removed for instance}, and wherein the filter member includes a mesh barrier (where the flanged / stepped profile of the filter member is in working contact [i.e., meshed] with the mating surfaces of the trim breaker) that engages the gas conduit. Wolf teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed structure as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the use of plural gas valves. As to the plural use of gas valves, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the single elongated valve separable / into multiple sections {such as for ease of replacement in the event only a section of the valve is damaged or needs replacing), with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and constructing a formally integral structure into various elements (multiples of the structure in question for instance), where the elements perform the same function as the integral structure, involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding Claim 11, as modified, the gas conduit is defined within a portion of the trim breaker (note fig. 3). Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the plurality of serially aligned gas valves would extend at least partially into the gas conduit (fig. 2). Regarding Claim 13, as modified, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of gas valves are viewed as being umbrella valves (due to the flanged sealing head portion of (46) which resembles an umbrella), each umbrella valve including an operable flap (46) that engages an exterior surface of the trim breaker in the closed position (fig. 2). Regarding Claim 14, as modified, the filter member can be a filter tube (viewed as the hollow structure surrounding (47) for instance) that is disposed within the gas conduit of the trim breaker. Regarding Claim 15, as modified, the filter tube and the trim breaker cooperate to define the gas conduit (fig. 2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-4, 8-16 & 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,055,341. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed features outlined in the instant invention are accounted for and represented within the claims of the cited patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-4, 8-15 & 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,650,003. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed features outlined in the instant invention are accounted for and represented within the claims of the cited patent, where the “metallic panels” are equivalent to the outer wrapper and the inner liner.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-4 & 8-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,830,526. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed features outlined in the instant invention are accounted for and represented within the claims of the cited patent, where the “metallic panels” are equivalent to the outer wrapper and the inner liner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing a flange design for an insulated structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
JOH
February 19, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637