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
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 7/6/26. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
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) 1, 2, 4, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hauck USPN_5340208 in view of Shen CN_105968679_A (see machine English translation).
Regarding Claims 1, 13, Hauck discloses a refrigerator including an outer wall (element 1 in Figs.; corresponds to claimed outer wall), an inner liner wall (element 2 in Figs.), and insulation (element 3 in Figs.; corresponds to claimed insulation member) there-between (column 2, lines 48-51).
However, Hauck does not disclose the claimed inner wall member.
Shen discloses a refrigerator (Title) comprising a liner material (corresponds to claimed inner wall) comprising a microporous foam layer made of polystyrene (corresponds to instant Claim 13’s limitation) having gas bubbles (corresponds to claimed foam layer including a closed cell) (Claim 1, paragraph 0017), with a surface layer (corresponds to claimed inner layer) adjacent to it (Claim 8), and also a bottom layer (corresponds to claimed outer layer) adjacent to the other side of said foam layer (Claim 11). Shen discloses its said liner material (corresponds to claimed inner wall) results in sound insulation effect improvement, heat conductive coefficient is low, and the liner weight is reduced, and the refrigerator heat preservation performance is improved (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the inner line wall, of Hauck, by trying the liner material (corresponds to claimed inner wall), of Shen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so out of a desire to obtained sound insulation improvement, lower heat conductive coefficient, light liner weight, and improved heat preservation performance.
Regarding Claim 2, Hauck in view of Shen suggests said surface layer (corresponds to claimed inner layer) can be 2.5 mm (Shen: Claim 10) while said bottom layer (corresponds to claimed outer layer) can be 1 mm (Shen: Claim 13); thereby meeting the claimed ratio.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, Hauck in view of Shen suggests its foam layer being as low as 0.5 mm (paragraph 0010), while its surface layer (corresponds to claimed inner layer) being as low as 0.05 mm (Claim 10), and its bottom layer (corresponds to claimed outer layer) being as low as 0.1 mm (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 10, Hauck in view of Shen does not explicitly disclose the claimed thicknesses. However, the Examiner respectfully submits that these are known variables that are modified based on end-user product specifications. It would be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to know how to vary the thicknesses of said inner and outer layers as well as the foam layer based on the specs required for the size of the refrigerator.
Regarding Claim 12, Hauck in view of Shen suggests the use of polystyrene foam which is known to inherently have a thermal conductivity of less than 300 milliwatts per meter-kelvin.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Hauck in view of Shen suggests in addition to its foam layer being made from high-impact polystyrene (corresponds to claimed high-strain hardening polystyrene resin) (Claim 1), its surface layer (corresponds to claimed inner layer) and its bottom layer (corresponds to claimed outer layer) can also be made of high-impact hardening polystyrene resin (Shen: Claims 8 and 11).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hauck USPN_5340208 in view of Shen CN_105968679_A (see machine English translation), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Hwang USPA_20100113635_A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Hauck in view of Shen does not suggest the claimed density.
Hwang discloses a polyurethane foam (Title) that can be used in refrigerators (paragraph 0005) wherein the density of said foam can be modified by increasing the density of the polyurethane foam which in turn leads to an increase in both mechanical strength and thermal conductivity (paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the foam, of Hauck in view of Shen, by modifying the density based on the desired degree of mechanical strength and thermal conductivity, as disclosed by Hwang.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hauck USPN_5340208 in view of Shen CN_105968679_A (see machine English translation), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Hashida EP_0679681_A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Hauck in view of Shen does not suggest the claimed diameter of its closed cell.
Hashida discloses a heat insulating foamed material (title) useable in refrigerators (column 1, lines 5-8) that includes closed cell (Abstract) having a closed cell diameter of 110 microns (column 28, lines 38-39) that leads to improving the nonflammability at application (Page 7, Line 51’ Page 8, Lines 20-21) which leads to a safer environment (Page 10, column 17, Lines 41-43), and also an improvement in heat insulating property (Page 20, Lines 21-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the gas bubble cell, of Hauck in view of Shen, by using the diameter, of Hashida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to gain nonflammability improvement, safer environment, and an improvement in heat insulation.
Regarding Claim 6, Hauck in view of Shen and further in view of Hashida suggests how to obtain different shapes (Hashida: column 24, lines 4-14). Given that the cells are scattered throughout the foam, it would be expected for some of them to be perpendicular to the direction of the thickness of the foam layer.
Regarding Claims 7-9, Hauck in view of Shen and further in view of Hashida suggests that the if the diameter of the if the closed cells are too small, the time point of initiating the pressure-reduction is hastened and the speed is increased. If too large, the time point of initiating the pressure-reduction is delayed and the speed is decreased (Hashida: column 17, lines 30-35). Additionally, Hashida discloses that the improvement in the heat insulating performance is attributable to the minimizing of the diameter of the closed cells (Hashida: column 36, lines 39-42). As such, it would be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to know how to try different diameters based on the desired degree of heat insulating property.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights