DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
At least claims 1, 9, 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 15 of U.S. Pat. No. 11821678, claim 8 of U.S. Pat. No. 10337788, claim 13 of U.S. Pat. No. 9651292 and claim 3 of U.S. Pat. No. 8899068. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 9, 20 are anticipated by said claims.
Alternatively, at least claims 1, 9, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 15 of U.S. Pat. No. 11821678, claim 8 of U.S. Pat. No. 10337788, claim 13 of U.S. Pat. No. 9651292 and claim 3 of U.S. Pat. No. 8899068 in view of Comstock as modified by Walker.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Comstock (US 2000882) in view of Walker (US 1984261).
Regarding claim 1,
Comstock teaches an appliance (see col 1, line 2) comprising: an inner case 2; an outer case 3 spaced apart from the inner case, wherein a vacuum space is disposed between the inner case and outer case (see col 3, lines 26-32) and configured to insulate the outer case from the inner case, the vacuum space having a thickness in a first direction (e.g. a direction from inner case 2 to outer case 3, perpendicular to said casing walls); a supporting portion 171 disposed between a surface of the inner case and a surface of the outer case, and to provide a gap between the inner case and the outer case.
Comstock does not teach at least one of a reinforcing member, a reinforcing frame, or a forming portion, wherein the reinforcing member is mounted to at least one of the surface of the inner case or the surface of the outer case for reinforcing strength of the inner case or the outer case, the reinforcing member being a reinforcing rib projected from at least one of the surface of the inner case or the surface of the outer case, wherein the reinforcing frame is provided to at least one of the surface of the inner case or the surface of the outer case, wherein the forming portion is provided for reinforcing strength of the inner case or the outer case, and wherein the at least one of the reinforcing member, the reinforcing frame, or the forming portion includes a portion extending in a different direction from a direction in which the supporting portion extends.
Walker, directed to an appliance comprising a vacuum space, teaches at least one of a reinforcing member 8, a reinforcing frame, or a forming portion (e.g. wherein reinforcing member[s] 8 reinforce the structural integrity of the casing), wherein the reinforcing member is mounted to at least one of the surface of the inner case or the surface of the outer case for reinforcing strength of the inner case or the outer case (see col 1, lines 41-47), the reinforcing member being a reinforcing rib projected from at least one of the surface of the inner case or the surface of the outer case (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the reinforcing frame is provided to at least one of the surface of the inner case or the surface of the outer case (e.g. wherein said recitation is given no patentable weight as only one of reinforcing members etc.… are required in claim 1), wherein the forming portion is provided for reinforcing strength of the inner case or the outer case (e.g. wherein said recitation is given no patentable weight as only one of reinforcing members etc.… are required in claim 1).
Walker teaches wherein said members 8 structurally strengthen the casing, prevent collapse of the casing, and maintain the insulating casing in proper position, and constitute heat absorbing mediums to maintain the vacuum space cool (see col 1, lines 33-47, col 3, lines 19-29).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Comstock by Walker with the motivation of structurally strengthening the casing, preventing collapse of the casing, and maintaining the insulating casing in proper position, and constituting heat absorbing mediums to maintain the vacuum space cool (see col 1, lines 33-47, col 3, lines 19-29).
Please note that Comstock as modified above comprises wherein the at least one of the reinforcing member 8, the reinforcing frame, or the forming portion includes a portion extending in a different direction (e.g. a direction parallel to the walls of the casing) from a direction in which the supporting portion extends.
Regarding claim 2,
Comstock teaches wherein the supporting portion is formed in a shape of boss or a column.
Regarding claim 3,
Comstock as modified above teaches wherein the supporting portion has a portion extending in the first direction, and the at least one of the reinforcing member, the reinforcing frame, or the forming portion has a portion extending in a second direction.
Regarding claim 4,
Comstock teaches wherein the supporting portion comprises: a base portion 172 provided between the surface of the inner case and the surface of the outer case, and a supporting member 171 projecting from the base portion.
Regarding claim 5,
Comstock as modified above teaches wherein the at least one of the reinforcing member, the reinforcing frame, or the forming portion includes a portion extending in a different direction from a direction in which the supporting member extends.
Regarding claim 6,
Comstock as modified above teaches wherein the at least one of the reinforcing member, the reinforcing frame, or the forming portion includes a portion extending in a different direction from a direction in which the base portion extends.
Regarding claim 7,
Comstock teaches wherein the supporting member includes a first supporting member and a second supporting member, and the first supporting member and the second supporting member are arranged spaced apart from each other on the base portion.
Regarding claim 8,
Comstock teaches wherein the base portion includes a portion which surrounds the inner case (e.g. surrounds a portion of the inner case).
Regarding claims 9-11, 18-20,
The subject matter of claims 9-11, 18-20 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 1-4, 7 and has been addressed in the rejection of claims 1-4, 7.
Regarding claim 12,
Comstock as modified above teaches wherein the at least one of the reinforcing member, the reinforcing frame, or the forming portion includes a portion having less height than the thickness of the vacuum space (see Walker, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13,
Comstock as modified above teaches wherein the at least one of the reinforcing member, the reinforcing frame, or the forming portion includes a portion having more length than the thickness of the vacuum space (see Walker, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 14,
Comstock as modified above teaches wherein the at least one of the reinforcing member, the reinforcing frame, or the forming portion has a band shape (e.g. the shape of a flat band) having at least one corner, and is arranged along a surface of the appliance.
Regarding claim 15,
Comstock as modified above does not teach wherein the at least one of the reinforcing member, the reinforcing frame, or the forming portion includes a portion provided at a corner of the appliance, the corner being defined by a first surface of the appliance and a second surface of the appliance, the first surface and the second surface extending in a different direction each other.
It is noted that it has been held that claims which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of a particular element were unpatentable because shifting the position of the particular element would not have modified the operation of the device. It has been further held that particular placement of an element was an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Regarding claim 16,
Comstock as modified above teaches wherein the at least one of the reinforcing member, the reinforcing frame, or the forming portion includes a portion extending toward a corner of the appliance, the corner being defined by a first surface of the appliance and a second surface of the appliance, the first surface and the second surface extending in a different direction each other (see Walker, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17,
The subject matter of claim 17 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claim 15 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Olson, Wynne, Benson, and Rowe, teach appliances with vacuum spaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights