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 3/30/2026.
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, 7, 11, and 19 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 refrigerator 1 comprising (such as shown in Figs. 4(b) & 5): a vacuum adiabatic body including: a first plate 10; a second plate 35,70; a vacuum space 50 provided between the first plate 10 and the second plate 35,70; an outer case 20 including a first portion that contacts the second plate 35,70 and a second portion that is spaced apart from the second plate 35,70; and a foam adiabatic material 90 including a part disposed between the second plate 35,70 and the second portion of the outer case 20;
PNG
media_image1.png
698
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 7). The refrigerator according to claim 1, wherein the vacuum adiabatic body includes a support 30 provided to reduce a deformation of the vacuum space 50, and wherein the support 30 includes a bar 31 extending between the first plate 10 and the second plate 35,70 to space a distance between the first plate 10 and the second plate 35,70; (Claim 11). The refrigerator according to claim 1, further comprising an inner cover 85 coupled to the outer case 20 and a gasket 80 that is seated on the inner cover 85 and contacts a body 2 of the refrigerator 1, the body having a storage space, and wherein the outer case 20 and the inner cover 85 define an outer appearance of a door 3; (Claim 19). A refrigerator 1 comprising: a main body 2 provided with a cavity capable of storing storage goods; a door 3 provided to open and close the main body 2 and including, a vacuum adiabatic body including a first plate 10, a second plate 35,70 and a vacuum space 50 provided between the first plate 10 and the second plate 35,70; an outer case 20 configured to contact the second plate 35,70; and a foam adiabatic material 90 provided outside the vacuum adiabatic body, wherein the vacuum adiabatic body having a first surface 74 and a second surface 72 facing each other, and wherein the foam adiabatic material 90 includes a first part provided on the first surface 74 and a second part provided on the second surface 72.
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of US 2017/0023291 to Kal et al (hereinafter Kal).
Jung discloses all the elements as discussed above including the limitations in (a) claim 2 of wherein the vacuum adiabatic body includes a first extension module extending in a first direction; (b) claim 4 of wherein the first extension module extends along a front surface of a door; (c) claim 6 of wherein the vacuum space includes a first vacuum space provided in the first extension module; (d) claim 8 of wherein the vacuum adiabatic body includes a first extension module, and the first extension module having the support 30; wherein the first extension module includes a first bar 31 extending in a first direction; (e) claim 9 of wherein the vacuum adiabatic body includes a support plate 35 (defined as plate 35 which contacts first plate 10) that is provided on the bar 31 and contacts the first plate 10, and wherein the vacuum adiabatic body includes a first extension module including a first support plate 35 extending in a first direction; (f) claim 10 of wherein the vacuum adiabatic body includes a radiation resistance sheet 60 for reducing heat radiation between the first and second plates, and wherein the vacuum adiabatic body includes a first extension module including a first radiation resistance sheet 60 extending in a first direction.
The differences being that Jung fails to clearly disclose the limitations in (i) claim 2 of at least one second extension module extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction, and wherein each of the first extension module and the at least one second extension module includes the first plate 10, the second plate 35,70 and the vacuum space 50; (ii) claim 3; (iii) claim 4 of the at least one second extension module extends along a lateral surface of the door; (iv) claim 5; (v) claim 6 of a second vacuum space provided in the at least one second extension module, and wherein the first vacuum space and the second vacuum space communicate with each other to form a single vacuum space; (vi) claim 8 of a second extension module, he second extension module having the support, and the second module includes a second bar extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction; (vii) claim 9 of a second module including a second plate extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction; and (viii) claim 10 of a second module including a second radiation resistance sheet extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction.
Regarding (i)-(vii), Kal discloses a refrigerator vacuum body 170 comprising (Figs. 3 and 15): a first plate; a second plate; a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate; wherein the vacuum body 170 includes a first extension module extending in a first direction and at least one second extension module extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction, and wherein each of the first extension module and the at least one second extension module includes the first plate, the second plate and the vacuum space; wherein the first extension module and the at least one second extension module are provided as a single body; wherein the at least one second extension module includes a pair of second extension modules to face each other with respect to the first extension module; wherein a first insulation space provided in the first extension module and a second insulation space provided in the at least one second extension module, and wherein the first insulation space and the second insulation space communicate with each other to form a single insulation space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Kal, to modify Jung to include the limitations in (i) claim 2 of at least one second extension module extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction, and wherein each of the first extension module and the at least one second extension module includes the first plate, the second plate and the vacuum space; (ii) claim 3 of wherein the first extension module and the at least one second extension module are provided as a single body; (iii) claim 4 of the at least one second extension module extends along a lateral surface of the door; (iv) claim 5 of wherein the at least one second extension module includes a pair of second extension modules to face each other with respect to the first extension module; (v) claim 6 of a second vacuum space provided in the at least one second extension module, and wherein the first vacuum space and the second vacuum space communicate with each other to form a single vacuum space; (vi) claim 8 of a second extension module, he second extension module having the support, and the second extension module includes a second bar extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction; (vii) claim 9 of a second extension module including a second support plate extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction; and (viii) claim 10 of a second extension module including a second radiation resistance sheet extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the refrigerator.
Claim(s) 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of JP 4417335 (hereinafter JP ‘335).
Jung discloses all the elements as discussed above including the limitations in claim 13 of further comprising an inner cover 85 coupled to the outer case 20; wherein the outer case 20 is made of a metal material ([47], lines 3-4, “[T]he first and second plate members 10 and 20 may be made of a stainless material capable of preventing corrosion and providing a sufficient strength.”). The differences being that Jung fails to clearly disclose the limitations recited in (i) claim 12; and (ii) claim 13 of the inner case is made of a nonmetal material to reduce heat transfer from the outer case.
However, JP ‘335 discloses a refrigerator comprising: a gasket 21 that is seated on an inner cover of a door 20 and contacts a body 1 of the refrigerator, the body 1 having a storage space, wherein an energy nose (circular portion of gasket 21 that comes into contact with the body to define contact point 100) is provided in a space between the inner cover and the body of the refrigerator, to reduce heat transfer of the storage space of the body; wherein body comprises an outer case 3 made of a metal material (steel), and an inner case 4 made of a nonmetal material (synthetic resin) to reduce heat transfer from the outer case 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of JP ‘335, to modify Jung to include the limitations in (i) claim 12 of wherein an energy nose is provided in a space between the inner cover and the body of the refrigerator, to reduce heat transfer of the storage space of the body; and (ii) claim 13 of the inner cover is made of a nonmetal material to reduce heat transfer from the outer case with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the refrigerator.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of EP 2419685 to Yun et al (hereinafter Yun).
Jung discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitation sin claim 14.
However, Yun discloses a refrigerator comprising: a door having a cool air passage 120 and an ice maker 7 extending through an inner space defined by a vacuum insulated body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Yun, to modify Jung to include the limitations in claim 14 of an air passage disposed in an inner region of a door, the inner region thermally insulated by the vacuum adiabatic body, wherein the foam adiabatic material is disposed at an outside of the inner region of the door with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the refrigerator.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Kal.
Jung discloses (Claim 15). A refrigerator 1 comprising: a vacuum adiabatic body including a first extension module, the first extension module including: a first plate 10; a second plate 35,70; a vacuum space 50 provided between the first plate 10 and the second plate 35,70; and an outer case 20 configured to contact the second plate 35,70; wherein the first extension module extends in a first direction; (Claim 17). The refrigerator according to claim 15, wherein the first extension module includes a first bar 31 extending in the second direction to space the first plate 10 apart from the second plate 35,70; (Claim 18) The refrigerator according to claim 15, wherein the vacuum adiabatic body includes a support plate 35 to contact the first plate 10, and wherein the support plate 35 includes a first support plate 35 provided in the first extension module.
The differences being that Jung fails to clearly disclose the limitations in (i) claim 15 of a second extension module including a first plate, a second plate, a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate, wherein the second extension module extends in a second direction that is different from the first direction; (ii) claim 16; (iii) claim 17 of wherein the second extension module includes a second bar extending in the first direction to space the first plate apart from the second plate; and (iv) claim 18 of a second support plate provided in the second extension module.
However, Kal discloses a refrigerator vacuum body 170 comprising (Figs. 3 and 15): a first plate; a second plate; a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate; wherein the vacuum body 170 includes a first extension module extending in a first direction and at least one second extension module extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction, and wherein each of the first extension module and the at least one second extension module includes the first plate, the second plate and the vacuum space; wherein the first extension module and the at least one second extension module are provided as a single body; wherein the at least one second extension module includes a pair of second extension modules to face each other with respect to the first extension module; wherein a first insulation space provided in the first extension module and a second insulation space provided in the at least one second extension module, and wherein the first insulation space and the second insulation space communicate with each other to form a single insulation space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art, in view of Kal, to modify Jung to include the limitations in (i) claim 15 of a second extension module including a first plate, a second plate, a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate, wherein the second extension module extends in a second direction that is different from the first direction; (ii) claim 16 of wherein the first extension module and the second extension module share the vacuum space; (iii) claim 17 of wherein the second extension module includes a second bar extending in the first direction to space the first plate apart from the second plate; and (iv) claim 18 of a second support plate provided in the second extension module with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the refrigerator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 that Jung fails to disclose the limitations in claim 1 of an outer case including a first portion that contacts the second plate and a second portion that is spaced apart from the second plate; and a foam adiabatic material including a part disposed between the second plate and the second portion of the outer case, the examiner respectfully take the position that Jung discloses an outer case 20 including a first portion that contacts the second plate 35,70 and a second portion that is spaced apart from the second plate 35,70; and a foam adiabatic material 90 including a part disposed between the second plate 35,70 and the second portion of the outer case 20.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s arguments on pages 12-15 regarding the deficiencies of Kal, Tagatani and Yun, the examiner respectfully take the position that each of said references is not relied upon to teach the limitations in claim 1 of an outer case including a first portion that contacts the second plate and a second portion that is spaced apart from the second plate; and a foam adiabatic material including a part disposed between the second plate and the second portion of the outer case.
In response to applicant’s arguments on page 17 of “Thus, KAL et al. teaches providing foam insulation member 15 between vacuum insulating member 100 and inner case 11 and does not teach or suggest a vacuum adiabatic body including a first extension module that extends in a first direction and a second extension module that extends in a second direction that is different from the first direction provides unexpected technical benefits of improved strength and reduced heat transfer, as recited in claim 15.”, the examiner respectfully take the position that (i) Kal discloses a refrigerator vacuum body 170 comprising (Figs. 3 and 15): a first plate; a second plate; a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate; wherein the vacuum body 170 includes a first extension module extending in a first direction and at least one second extension module extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction, and wherein each of the first extension module and the at least one second extension module includes the first plate, the second plate and the vacuum space; wherein the first extension module and the at least one second extension module are provided as a single body; wherein the at least one second extension module includes a pair of second extension modules to face each other with respect to the first extension module; wherein a first insulation space provided in the first extension module and a second insulation space provided in the at least one second extension module, and wherein the first insulation space and the second insulation space communicate with each other to form a single insulation space, and (ii) “provides unexpected technical benefits of improved strength and reduced heat transfer, as recited in claim 15”, it is noted that said features are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s arguments on pages 19 that Jung fails to teach or suggest the limitations in claim 19 of wherein the vacuum adiabatic body includes a first extension module having a first surface and a second surface facing each other, and wherein the foam adiabatic material includes a first part provided on the first surface and a second part provided on the second surface, the examiner respectfully take the position that Jung clearly discloses wherein the vacuum adiabatic body having a first surface 74 and a second surface 72 facing each other, and wherein the foam adiabatic material 90 includes a first part provided on the first surface 74 and a second part provided on the second surface 72.
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 14, 2026
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights