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 .
This Final Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 4/15/2026.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a0(1) as being anticipated by USP 8117792 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim).
Kim discloses (Claim 1). A refrigerator 200 comprising (Fig. 6): a main body formed by an assembly of a plurality of insulation panels 210,220; a storage space in the main body; a door (inherent) to open and close the storage space; and a cooling device (inherent) to supply cold air to the storage space, wherein the plurality of insulation panels 210,220 includes a first insulation panel 210 and a second insulation panel 220 coupled to the first insulation panel 210, the first insulation panel 210 includes: an inner case 213,218a, an outer case 212 coupled to the inner case to thereby form an insulating space between the inner case and the outer case, and an insulation 211 in the insulating space, the inner case includes: a space forming portion 213 defining one side of the storage space, a coupling portion (see below annotated Fig.) coupled to the second insulation panel 220; and a contact portion 218a offset from the space forming portion 213 and contacting an outer surface of the second insulation panel 220, and the contact portion includes at least one opening 218 offset from (defined as “positioned below”) the coupling portion to reduce heat transfer through the contact portion between the first insulation panel 210 and the second insulation panel 220;
PNG
media_image1.png
740
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 2). The refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the contact portion includes (see below attached marked-up copy) a horizontal contact portion extending from the space forming portion in a horizontal direction, and a vertical contact portion extending from the horizontal contact portion in a vertical direction;
PNG
media_image2.png
854
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Claim 3). The refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the insulation 211 of the first insulation panel 210 is exposed through the at least one opening; (Claim 4). The refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the inner case includes a resin material (col. 3, lines 33-42); (Claim 5). The refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the insulation 211 includes urethane foam (col. 5, lines 3-4); (Claim 7). The refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the at least one opening 218 is a cutout portion of the inner case; (Claim 9). The refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the coupling portion includes a coupling protrusion (between the two recesses 218) that is inserted into the second insulation panel 220; (Claim 10). The refrigerator of claim 9, wherein the coupling protrusion protrudes to be coplanar with the space forming portion; (Claim 11). The refrigerator of claim 9, wherein the coupling portion includes (see below attached marked-up copy) a hook coupling portion on the coupling protrusion to be hook-coupled to the second insulation panel; (Claim 12). The refrigerator of claim 1, wherein the inner case includes (see below attached marked-up copy) a reinforcing rib protruding from an edge of the at least one opening of the contact portion to increase a rigidity of the first insulation panel;
PNG
media_image2.png
854
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Claim 13). The refrigerator of claim 12, wherein the contact portion includes a contact surface on a first side to contact the second insulation panel, and an opposing surface on a second side opposite the first side, and the reinforcing rib protrudes from the opposing surface.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2022/0099358 to Jung et al (hereinafter Jung).
Kim discloses all the elements as discussed above including the limitations in claim 6 of the at least one opening is formed integrally with the inner case, claim 14 of a first vertical reinforcement portion protruding from a first side edge of the at least one opening, and a second vertical reinforcement portion protruding from a second side edge of the at least one opening. The differences being that Kim fails to clearly disclose the limitations in (i) claim 6 of wherein the inner case is a molded member; and (ii) claim 14 of wherein the at least one opening has a quadrangular shape, and the reinforcing rib includes: a first horizontal reinforcement portion protruding from an upper edge of the at least one opening, a second horizontal reinforcement portion protruding from a lower edge of the at least one opening.
Regarding (i), Jung shows in paragraph [0004] that it is known to manufacture the main body of a refrigerator by molding inner and outer cases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art, in view of Jung, to modify Kim to include the limitations in (i) Claim 6 of wherein the inner case is a molded member with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the refrigerator.
Regarding (ii), the at least one opening 218 of Kim (Fig. 6) appears to have a quadrangular shape, and since Kim also discloses a first vertical reinforcement portion protruding from a first side edge of the at least one opening, and a second vertical reinforcement portion protruding from a second side edge of the at least one opening, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art to modify Kim to include the limitations in (ii) Claim 14 of wherein the at least one opening has a quadrangular shape, and the reinforcing rib includes: a first horizontal reinforcement portion protruding from an upper edge of the at least one opening, a second horizontal reinforcement portion protruding from a lower edge of the at least one opening with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility and strength of the refrigerator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument on page 6 that the protrusion 228 and recesses between the inner plate 213 and outer plate 212 cannot be properly considered as part of the inner plate 213, the examiner respectfully take the position that (i) it is not clear why applicant mentions the protrusion 228 which protrusion is not a part of the first insulation panel 210, but rather a part of the second insulation panel 220, (ii) it is not clear why that part cannot be properly considered as part of the inner plate 213, as alleged by the applicant, and (iii) the claim language fails to provide adequate structural limitations in defining applicant’s invention (e.g., defining the coupling portion, and the contact portion) in order to distinguish from the prior art of record.
In response to applicant’s argument on page 7 that the protrusions and recesses form the very coupling themselves for coupling the panels, the examiner, again, respectfully take the position that the claim language fails to provide adequate structural limitations in defining applicant’s invention in order to distinguish from the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and all show structures similar to various elements of applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH VAN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
HVT
May 22, 2026
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights