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 is the Final Office action in response to the Amendment filed on 4/17/2026.
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) 1-3, 8, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/023088 to Jung et al (hereinafter Jung).
Jung discloses (Claim 1). A vacuum adiabatic body comprising (such as shown in Fig. 4(a)): a first plate 10; a second plate 20; a vacuum space 50 provided between the first plate 10 and the second plate 20; a sheet 60 to reduce heat conduction between the first and second plates, the sheet 60 being disposed to be connected with the first plate 10 and the second plate 20; a support 30 provided to reduce deformation of the vacuum space 50; and a cover adiabatic material 62 disposed to shield the sheet 60 and made of a different material from the sheet 60, wherein the first plate 10 is spaced apart from the second plate 20 in a first direction, and wherein the support 30 includes at least one of a bar 31 having a portion extending in the first direction and a support plate 35 extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction; (Claim 2). The vacuum adiabatic body according to claim 1, wherein the cover adiabatic material 62 comprises a portion to define an edge of the vacuum adiabatic body; (Claim 3). The vacuum adiabatic body according to claim 1, wherein the cover adiabatic material 62 comprises a first portion to face the sheet 60 and a second portion to define an edge of the vacuum adiabatic body; (Claim 8). The vacuum adiabatic body according to claim 1, wherein a width of the cover adiabatic material 62 in a second direction is greater than a width of the sheet 60, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction; (Claim 18). A vacuum adiabatic body comprising (Figs. 4(b) and 11): a first plate 10; a second plate 35,70; a vacuum space 50 provided between the first plate and the second plate; a sheet 60 to reduce heat conduction between the first and second plates, the sheet 60 being disposed to be connected with the first plate 10; a first arm (see attached marked-up copy) that extends along the first plate 10; a second arm 20 (see attached marked-up copy) that extends along the second plate; and a cover adiabatic material 90 disposed at edges of the first and second arms and configured to shield the sheet 60, the cover adiabatic material 90 including a portion to form an edge of the vacuum adiabatic body (defined as any portion of the cover adiabatic material 90 that is farthest away from the center of the cover adiabatic material 90); (Claim 19). The vacuum adiabatic body according to claim 18, further comprising a shoulder that is bent from the first arm and is coupled to the cover adiabatic material 90 (Fig. 11); (Claim 20). The vacuum adiabatic body according to claim 18, further comprising a shoulder 91 that is bent from at least one of the first arm or the second arm and is disposed between the sheet 60 and the cover adiabatic material 90.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
1109
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of US 2019/0078829 to Okazaki et al (hereinafter Okazaki).
Jung discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations recited in the above listed claims.
However, Okazaki disclose an adiabatic body comprising (such as shown in Fig. 22): a first plate 306; a second plate 7; an insulating material 8 provided between the first plate 306 and the second plate 7; a cover adiabatic material 9 disposed to shield the insulating material 8; at least one arm to support the cover adiabatic material 9, wherein the at least one arm comprises a first part disposed between the insulating material 8 and the cover adiabatic material 9; wherein the at least one arm further comprises a second part 302 that is bent from the first part and is coupled to the cover adiabatic material 9; wherein the at least one arm further comprises a another part 302 that is bent from the first part and extends along a surface of the first plate 306.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Okazaki, to modify Jung to include the limitations in Claim 4 of at least one arm to support the cover adiabatic material 62, wherein the at least one arm comprises a first part disposed between the sheet 60 and the cover adiabatic material 62; Claim 5 of wherein the at least one arm further comprises a second part that is bent from the first part and is coupled to the cover adiabatic material; and Claim 6 of wherein the at least one arm further comprises a another part that is bent from the first part and extends along a surface of one of the first plate and the second plate with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the vacuum adiabatic body.
Claim(s) 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Figs. 5 and 11 of Jung.
Jung discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations recited in the above listed claims.
However, Figs. 5 and 11 of Jung disclose a vacuum adiabatic body comprising a first plate 10; a second plate 35,70; a vacuum space 50 provided between the first plate 10 and the second plate; a sheet 60 to reduce heat conduction between the first plate and the second plate; a cover adiabatic material 90 disposed to shield the sheet 60 and made of a different material from the sheet 60; further comprising at least one arm 85 to support the cover adiabatic material 90, wherein the at least one arm 85 comprises a first part extending along a surface of the first plate 10 and a second part that is bent from the first part and is inserted into the cover adiabatic material 90 (Figs. 5 & 11); wherein the cover adiabatic material 90 is made of a resin material ([80], “foaming urethane or Styrofoam”), and the sheet is made of a metal material ([54], “thin foil”, “stainless material”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Figs. 5 and 11 of Jung, to modify Jung to include the limitations in Claim 7 of further comprising at least one arm 85 to support the cover adiabatic material 90, wherein the at least one arm comprises a first part extending along a surface of the first plate 10 and a second part that is bent from the first part and is inserted into the cover adiabatic material 90 (Fig. 11); Claim 9 of wherein the cover adiabatic material 90 is made of a resin material ([80], “foaming urethane or Styrofoam”), and the sheet is made of a metal material ([54], “thin foil”, “stainless material”) with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the vacuum adiabatic body.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of US 2016/0258671 Allard et al (hereinafter Allard).
Jung discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations recited in the above listed claims.
However, Allard discloses a vacuum insulation body comprising (such as shown in Fig. 3): a first plate 52; a second plate 54; an insulation layer 55 provided between the first plate 52 and the second plate 54; a cover adiabatic material 53 disposed between the first plate 52 and the second plate 54, wherein the first plate 52 is spaced apart from the second plate 54 in a first direction; a first arm provided on the first plate 51 and a second arm provided on the second plate 54, wherein the first and second arms are spaced apart from each other by the cover adiabatic material 53; further comprising a first shoulder bent from the first arm and a second shoulder bent from the second arm, the second shoulder being spaced apart from the first shoulder in a first direction, wherein a distance from the first shoulder to the second shoulder is less than a width of the cover adiabatic material 53 in the first direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Allard, to modify Jung to include the limitations in Claim 10 of further comprising a first arm provided on the first plate and a second arm provided on the second plate, wherein the first and second arms are spaced apart from the each other by the cover adiabatic material; Claim 11 of further comprising a first shoulder bent from the first arm and a second shoulder bent from the second arm, the second shoulder being spaced apart from the first shoulder in a first direction, wherein a distance from the first shoulder to the second shoulder is less than a width of the cover adiabatic material in the first direction with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the vacuum adiabatic body.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of KR 10-0654678 to Yoo.
Jung discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations recited in claim 12.
However, Yoo discloses an adiabatic body (such as shown in Figs. 9-16): a cover adiabatic material 40; a first coupling portion 50 bent from a first shoulder and a second coupling portion 50 bent from a second shoulder, wherein the coupling portions 50 are inserted into the cover adiabatic material 40.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Yoo, to modify Jung to include the limitations in Claim 12 of further comprising a first coupler bent from the first shoulder and a second coupler bent from the second shoulder, wherein at least one of the first coupler or the second coupler is inserted into the cover adiabatic material with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the vacuum adiabatic body.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung.
Jung discloses (Claim 13). A vacuum adiabatic body comprising (Figs. 4(b), 5 & 11): a first plate 10; a second plate 35,70; a vacuum space 50 provided between the first plate and the second plate; a sheet 60 to reduce heat conduction between the first and second plates, the sheet 60 being disposed to be connected with the first plate 10; and a cover assembly comprising a first cover (see attached marked-up copy) provided on the first plate 10, a second cover (see attached marked-up copy) provided on the second plate; (Claim 14). The vacuum adiabatic body according to claim 13, further comprising a third cover 90 including a portion disposed at edges of the first plate and the second edge and configured to shield the sheet 60, wherein the third cover 90,91 connects the first cover to the second cover; (Claim 15). The vacuum adiabatic body according to claim 14, wherein the first cover includes an inner cover at an inner side of the vacuum adiabatic body, and the second cover includes an outer cover at an outer side of the vacuum adiabatic body, and wherein the third cover 90,91 is disposed between the first cover and the second cover; (Claim 16). The vacuum adiabatic body according to claim 14, wherein the portion of the third cover includes a cover adiabatic material 90, and wherein the cover adiabatic material 90 has a thickness greater than a thickness of each of the first plate and the second plate; (Claim 17). The vacuum adiabatic body according to claim 16, wherein each of the first plate and the second plate is made of a metal material ([54], “stainless material”), and wherein the cover adiabatic material is made of a non-metal material ([80], “foaming urethane or Styrofoam”).
The differences being that Jung fails to clearly disclose the limitations in claim 13 of wherein a thickness of the first cover is less than or equal to a thickness of the first plate, or a thickness of the second cover is less than or equal to a thickness of the second plate.
However, Figs. 5 & 11 of Jung appears to show, and Applicant’s remarks on page 15 of the amendment filed on 4/17/2026 states a thickness the second cover is less than or equal to a thickness of the second plate.
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 Jung to include the limitations in Claim 13 of wherein a thickness of the first cover is less than or equal to a thickness of the first plate, or a thickness of the second cover is less than or equal to a thickness of the second plate with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the vacuum adiabatic body.
PNG
media_image2.png
620
1109
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 11-12 that Jung fails to disclose the limitations in claim 1 of the first plate is spaced apart from the second plate in a first direction, and the support includes at least one of a bar having a portion extending in the first direction and a support plate extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction by referring to Fig. 11 of Jung, the examiner respectfully take the position that although Fig. 11 fails to meet all the limitations recited in claim 1 as alleged by the applicant, Fig. 4(a) of Jung discloses all the limitations recited in the claim.
In response to applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15 that Jung fails to disclose the limitations in claim 13 of wherein a thickness of the first cover is less than or equal to a thickness of the first plate, or a thickness of the second cover is less than or equal to a thickness of the second plate by referring to Fig. 11 of Jung, the examiner respectfully take the position that although Jung fails to clearly disclose the thickness of the first and second covers as wall as the thickness of the first and second plates, Figs. 5 and 11 of Jung appears to show, and Applicant’s remarks on page 15 of the amendment filed on 4/17/2026 states a thickness the second cover is less than or equal to a thickness of the second plate; therefore, Jung, as modified, meets all the limitations recited in claim 13.
In response to applicant’s arguments on pages 16-17 that Jung fails to disclose the limitations in claim 18 of a cover adiabatic material disposed at edges of the first and second arms and configured to shield the sheet, the cover adiabatic material including a portion to form an edge of the vacuum adiabatic body, the examiner 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. More specifically, Jung discloses a cover adiabatic material 90 disposed at edges of the first and second arms and configured to shield the sheet 60, the cover adiabatic material 90 including a portion to form an edge of the vacuum adiabatic body (defined as any portion of the cover adiabatic material 90 that is farthest away from the center of the cover adiabatic material 90), thus meets all the limitations recited in claim 18.
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 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 26, 2026
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights