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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of informalities, wherein appropriate correction is required:
In claim 8: the recitation of “on interface” (in line 4) should be amended to –on an interface—, to provide proper antecedent basis.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Dherde et al. (US 20200033049 A1), herein Dherde.
As per claim 1, Dherde discloses a refrigerator (10; see fig. 1) comprising:
a vacuum adiabatic body (see at least ¶ 4) including:
a first plate (18) configured to define at least a portion of a wall for a first space (see at least fig. 3);
a second plate (22) configured to define at least a portion of a wall for a second space (see at least fig. 3); and
a vacuum space (26) provided between the first plate and the second plate (as shown in fig. 3),
a collection pipe (110) provided in the first space (at 146) and including:
a suction hole (bottom opening of 110) into which air is introduced (see fig. 3);
a discharge hole (top of 110) through which air is discharged (see fig. 3); and
a wall (130) configured to connect the suction hole and the discharge hole and having at least one groove (formed between 142 and 18, or between 134 and 22).
As per claim 2, Dherde discloses wherein the groove (between 142 and 18) is closer to the suction hole (bottom of 110) than the discharge hole (top of 110).
As per claim 3, Dherde discloses wherein the groove (between 142 and 18) is formed to be recessed from an outer surface of the wall (130) to allow a component to be inserted into the groove (e.g., 18, 58, etc.).
As per claim 4, Dherde discloses wherein the at least one groove includes a first groove (between 142 and 18) formed at a first surface (lower surface, at 146) of the wall (130) and a second groove (between 134 and 22) formed at a second surface (upper surface, at 138) of the wall (130), the first surface being different from the second surface (as shown in fig. 3).
As per claim 5, Dherde discloses wherein the suction hole (bottom of 110) is formed in a first surface (surface of 146) of the wall (130) and the discharge hole (top of 110) is formed in a second surface (surface of 138) of the wall (130), and
wherein the first surface (of 146) is different from the second surface (of 138) such that a first flow direction (e.g., bottom flow direction) of air suctioned into the suction hole is opposed1 to a second flow direction (e.g., top flow direction) of air discharged through the discharge hole (see at least fig. 3).
As per claim 6, Dherde discloses wherein the wall (130 in fig. 3, or 296 in fig. 7B) of the collection pipe includes:
a head (146 in fig. 3, or 162 in fig. 7B) having the suction hole (bottom of 110 in fig. 3, or bottom of 294 in fig. 7A-7B);
a first transfer duct (one of 62) extending in a first direction from the head (162; see at least fig. 7B); and
a second transfer duct (the other of 62) extending in a second direction (parallel and spaced apart) from the first transfer duct (first 62) and having the discharge hole (at the top), the second direction being different (i.e., spaced apart) from the first direction (see at least fig. 7B).
As per claim 8, Dherde discloses wherein the wall (130) of the collection pipe includes a head (146, which is bounded by 142) having the suction hole (bottom of 110) and a transfer duct (118) having a size (e.g., diameter) smaller than a size of the head (see fig. 3), and
wherein the head (146) comprises a hook protrusion (142) provided on interface between the head (146) and the transfer duct (118).
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 9-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20130000333 A1), herein Kim, in view of Dherde (US 20200033049 A1).
As per claim 9, Kim discloses a refrigerator (see fig. 1) comprising:
an adiabatic body (1) including:
a first plate (14) configured to define at least a portion of a wall for a first space (see fig. 4);
a second plate (12) configured to define at least a portion of a wall for a second space (see fig. 4 and ¶ 62); and
an insulation space provided between the first plate and the second plate (as described in the last sentence of ¶ 62),
a pipe (200, 300) provided in the first space (of 14) and including:
a first duct (e.g., 200) extending in a first direction (e.g., width or horizontal) and having a first opening (at 210; see at least figs. 5 and 6); and
a second duct (e.g., 300) extending in a second direction (e.g., height or vertical) from the first duct and having a second opening (at 324 or 334; see fig. 7), the second direction (vertical) being different from the first direction (horizontal).
However, Kim may not appear to explicitly disclose a vacuum.
On the other hand, Dherde, directed to refrigerators, discloses a vacuum insulated refrigerator (see at least abstract).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.2
As per (1), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using vacuum insulation helps reduce the thermal exchange between an inside of the refrigerator and its environment. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Dherde has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the vacuum, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Kim. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both references are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. refrigerators). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Kim may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Dherde, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Kim by virtue of suggesting improved thermal insulation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Kim and to have modified them with the teachings of Dherde, by having a vacuum, in order to improve thermal insulation for the refrigerator, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 10, Kim as modified discloses wherein one of the first and second openings (at 210, 310) includes an inlet for air (e.g., via 210) and the other of the first and second openings includes an outlet for the air (see at least ¶¶ 83-84).
As per claim 11, Kim as modified discloses wherein the first duct (200) includes a first end (at the bottom) having the first opening (of 210) and a second end portion (e.g., at 230) having a closed wall (e.g., damper 232), and
wherein the second duct (300) is closer to the second end (at 230) than the first end (see at least fig. 5).
As per claim 12, Kim as modified discloses wherein the first duct (200) includes a head (210) having the first opening (see fig. 6) and a transfer duct (220) extending (e.g., horizontally) from the head (210) towards the second duct (300).
As per claim 13, Kim as modified discloses wherein a first width of the second duct (300) in the second direction (i.e., the vertical direction) is greater than a second width of the head (210) in the second direction (see at least fig. 5).
As per claim 15, Kim as modified discloses wherein the head (210) includes a hook protrusion (e.g., see shape of the opening in 210) extending in the second direction from the transfer duct (220), and
wherein a first length of the second duct (300) protruding from the transfer duct (220) is greater than a second length (see fig. 5) of the first duct (200) protruding from the transfer duct (220).
As per claim 16, Kim as modified discloses wherein the head (210) further includes and a base (distal bottom of 210) extending in the first direction from the second duct and having a closed end (i.e., the bottom is closed, with only the side of 210 being open).
As per claim 17, Kim as modified discloses a partition (e.g., 400) configured to separate the first space into two spaces (see fig. 5),
wherein the pipe (200, 300) passes through the partition (see fig. 5).
As per claim 18, Kim as modified discloses a refrigerator (see fig. 1) comprising:
an adiabatic body (1) including:
a first plate (14) configured to define at least a portion of a wall for a first space (see fig. 5);
a second plate (12) configured to define at least a portion of a wall for a second space (fig. 5); and
an insulation space provided between the first plate and the second plate (as described in the last sentence of ¶ 62),
a pipe (300) provided in the first space and including:
a head (324) including an air inlet (see fig. 7); and
a first transfer duct (322) extending in a first direction (e.g., vertical) from the head (324) and configured to allow air introduced into the air inlet to flow (see fig. 7),
wherein a first size of the air inlet (horizontal size of the opening of 324) is greater than a second size of a diameter (of one of the two channels formed in 322) of the first transfer duct (322).
However, Kim may not appear to explicitly disclose a vacuum.
On the other hand, Dherde, directed to refrigerators, discloses a vacuum insulated refrigerator (see at least abstract).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.3
As per (1), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using vacuum insulation helps reduce the thermal exchange between an inside of the refrigerator and its environment. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Dherde has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the vacuum, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Kim. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both references are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. refrigerators). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Kim may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Dherde, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Kim by virtue of suggesting improved thermal insulation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Kim and to have modified them with the teachings of Dherde, by having a vacuum, in order to improve thermal insulation for the refrigerator, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 19, Kim as modified discloses a second transfer duct (332) extending in a second direction (e.g., horizontal) that is different from the first direction (e.g., vertical), from the first transfer duct (322),
wherein the second transfer duct (332) includes an air outlet (at 310) having a third size that is greater than the first size of the air inlet (at 324; see at least fig. 7).
As per claim 20, Kim as modified discloses wherein the head (324) includes a slant surface to be inclined with respect to the first direction (see flat surface that includes the curved bottom part of 324), and
wherein the air inlet is formed on the slant surface (as shown in fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all4 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record, when taken as a whole, does not appear to reasonably anticipate or render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as currently recited in the aforementioned claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jianying C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 The term “opposed” is defined as: “set or placed in opposition: contrary”, according to the Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
2 See MPEP § 2143.
3 See MPEP § 2143.
4 Disclaimer: failure to include all the intervening limitations will result in a different claim scope, which may require a new grounds of rejection prior to a final determination of allowability.
Prosecution Insights