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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 7, 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 4 recites, in line 3 “the heat transfer resister” which contains a spelling error. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to have this portion of the claim recite “the heat transfer resistor” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 5 recites, in line 3, “the second direction different than” which appears to contain a typographical/grammatical error. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to have this portion of the claim recite “the second direction is different than” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 7 recites, in line 2, “the getter disposed to overlap” which appears to contain a typographical/grammatical error. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to have this portion of the claim recite “the getter is disposed to overlap” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 10 recites, in line 2, “the getter disposed to overlap” which appears to contain a typographical/grammatical error. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to have this portion of the claim recite “the getter is disposed to overlap” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 17 recites, in lines 2-3, “a curvature radius less than that of at least one of other curved portions provided at a portion of the side plate” which appears to contain a typographical/grammatical error. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to have this portion of the claim recite “a curvature radius less than that of at least one other curved portion provided at a portion of the side plate” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 8, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites, in lines 1-2, “…wherein the tube provided for a getter, the getter…” which is indefinite because the scope of the claim is not clear. Upon review of the instant specification, specifically paragraph [0149] from the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant application (US 2025/0172231), it appears the applicant may have intended to recite this portion of the claim as “…wherein the tube is a hole for a getter, the getter…” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 8 recites, in lines 6-7, “…a through-hole provided at a portion of the side plate, a tube provided at a portion of the side plate” which is indefinite because the scope of the claim is not clear. It is not clear if the two different recitations of “a portion of the side plate” refers to the same portion of the side plate or not. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as “…a through-hole provided at a portion of the side plate, a tube provided at the portion of the side plate.”
Claim 10 recites, in lines 1-2, “…wherein the through-hole is provided for a getter, the getter…” which is indefinite because the scope of the claim is not clear. Upon review of the instant specification, specifically paragraph [0148] from the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant application (US 2025/0172231), it appears the applicant may have intended to recite this portion of the claim as “…wherein the through-hole is a hole for a getter, the getter…” and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 17 recites, in line 3, “…provided at a portion of the side plate” which is indefinite because the scope of the claim is not clear. It is not clear if the “portion of the side plate” refers back to the “portion of the side plate” referenced in claim 12 or not. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as “…provided at the portion of the side plate.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0224193 (hereinafter “Jung”), and further in view of JP 2004-232735 A with a machine translation (concurrently filed) (hereinafter “Jinno”) being used as the English language equivalent translation.Regarding claims 1 and 8 Jung teaches a vacuum adiabatic body comprising a first plate member (first plate) 10, a second plate member (second plate) 20 separated from the first plate member (first plate) 10 in a thickness direction (first direction) to provide a vacuum space part (vacuum space) 50 between the first plate member (first plate) 10 and the second plate member (second plate) 20 (Figures 2, 5 and 8, and paragraphs [0010], [0037] and [0055]). Jung teaches a side frame (side plate) 70 provided between the first plate member (first plate) 10 and the second plate member (second plate) 20 (Figure 8 and paragraph [0055]). Jung teaches the vacuum adiabatic body includes an exhaust port through which gas is evacuated, forming the vacuum space part (vacuum space) 50 (paragraphs [0010] and [0014]). Jung teaches the exhaust port may be applied to the side frame (side plate) 70 (paragraphs [0037] and [0055]), which corresponds to a through-hole provided at a portion of the side plate. Jung does not explicitly teach a tube is provided at a portion of the side plate. Jinno teaches an evacuated heat insulating panel (abstract). Jinno teaches a tip tube 5 and base member 6 (tube 5, 6) is joined to an exhaust hole (port) (through-hole) to facilitate depressurization of the interior space of the panel (paragraphs [0007] and [0021]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the exhaust port of Jung with the tip tube of Jinno to aid in facilitating the depressurization of the vacuum adiabatic body.Regarding claims 2 and 3 In addition, Jinno teaches when the inside of the panel reaches a predetermined degree of vacuum by the evacuation, the tip tube (tube) 5 is sealed as illustrated in the Figures (paragraph [0023]). Jinno illustrates the tip tube (tube) 5 includes a first seal portion and a second seal portion spaced apart from the first sealed portion, wherein the first sealed portion is provided at a first portion of the tip tube (tube) 5 extending in a second direction and the second sealed portion is provided at a second portion of the tip tube (tube) 5 extending in a third direction different from the second direction (Annotated Figure 12, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4 As noted above, the combination of Jung and Jinno results in Jinno’s tip tube 5 and base member 6 (tube 5, 6) being located in the exhaust port of Jung, where said exhaust port is located on the side frame (side plate) 70 of Jung. In addition, Jung teaches the vacuum adiabatic body also comprises conductive resistance sheets (heat transfer resistor comprising a conductive resistance sheet) 60, 63, a radiation resistance sheet (heat transfer resistor comprising a radiation resistance sheet) 32, a shielding part 62 comprising a porous material (heat transfer resistor comprising a porous material) and a supporting unit (support) 30 (paragraphs [0037], [0043], [0045] and [0054]). Jung illustrates the conductive resistance sheets (heat transfer resistor comprising a conductive resistance sheet) 60, 63, the radiation resistance sheet (heat transfer resistor comprising a radiation resistance sheet) 32, and the supporting unit (support) 30 are spaced apart from the side frame (side plate) 70 (Figure 5), which corresponds to the tube is spaced apart from the heat transfer resistor and the support. Jung teaches the supporting unit (support) 30 includes bars 31 which support a distance between the first and second plate members 10 and 20 (object to maintain a gap between the first plate and the second plate) (paragraph [0043]).Regarding claim 6 In addition, Jinno illustrates a thickness of the tip tube (tube) 5 is greater than a thickness of the plate member into which the tip tube (tube) 5 is applied (Figures 3 and 12-14).Regarding claims 7 and 10 In addition, Jinno teaches a getter material 14 being arranged so that the central space thereof coincides with the axis of the tip tube (tube) 5 and the through-hole within which said tip tube (tube) 5 is disposed (paragraph [0018]). The modification of Jung by Jinno, as previously detailed with regards to the rejection of claim 1, yields a structure where the tip tube (tube) 5 and the through-hole within which said tip tube (tube) 5 is disposed is present in a side frame (side plate), which also corresponds to the getter material being disposed to overlap at least a portion of the tube/through-hole in the longitudinal direction of the vacuum space.Regarding claim 9 In addition, Jinno teaches the through-hole within which the tip tube (tube) 5 is disposed provides a path through which a fluid moves (Figure 12 and paragraph [0021]).Regarding claim 11 In addition, Jinno teaches after air evacuation, the tip tube (tube) 5 and the through-hole within which said tip tube (tube) 5 is disposed are sealed (paragraph [0023]).Regarding claims 12 and 13 In addition, Jinno teaches after air evacuation, the tip tube (tube) 5 and the through-hole within which said tip tube (tube) 5 is disposed are sealed (paragraph [0023]). Jinno also illustrates a curved portion of the tube 6 is provided which extends from the plate member 2A (corresponding to the side frame (side plate) from the combination of Jung and Jinno) (Annotated Figure 12-1, shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
614
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14 In addition, Jinno illustrates a length of a portion extending from the plate member 2A (corresponding to the side frame (plate) from the combination of Jung and Jinno) of the curved portion of the tube 6 is less than a height of the vacuum space (Annotated Figure 12-1, shown above, and Figure 3).Regarding claim 15 In addition, Jinno illustrates a length of a portion extending from the plate member 2A (corresponding to the side plate from the combination of Jung and Jinno) of the curved portion is less than a height of the vacuum space (Annotated Figure 12-1, shown above, and Figures 3 and 14). The modification of Jung by Jinno, as previously detailed with regards to the rejection of claim 8, yields a structure where the tip tube 5 and base member 6 (tube 5, 6) is disposed in the side frame (side plate), which also corresponds to the curved portion includes a portion extending in the longitudinal direction of the vacuum space.Regarding claim 16 In addition, Jinno illustrates the curved portion includes one end of the curved portion connected to at least the plate member 2A (corresponding to the side plate from the combination of Jung and Jinno), and the other end of the curved portion disposed so as not to be in contact with other portions of the first plate, the second plate, and the side plate (Annotated Figure 12-1, shown above).Regarding claim 17 In addition, Jinno illustrates a relatively sharper curvature (smaller curvature radius) located at the curved portion of the base member 6 when compared to a relatively less sharp curvature (larger curvature radius) of the plate member 2A (corresponding to the side plate from the combination of Jung and Jinno) in an area adjacent to said curved portion of the base member 6 (Annotated Figures 12-1, shown above, and Figure 14).Regarding claim 19 Jung teaches a vacuum adiabatic body comprising a first plate member (first plate) 10, a second plate member (second plate) 20 separated from the first plate member (first plate) 10 in a thickness direction (first direction) to provide a vacuum space part (vacuum space) 50 between the first plate member (first plate) 10 and the second plate member (second plate) 20 (Figures 2, 5 and 8, and paragraphs [0010], [0037] and [0055]). Jung teaches a side frame (side plate) 70 provided between the first plate member (first plate) 10 and the second plate member (second plate) 20 (Figure 8 and paragraph [0055]). Jung teaches the vacuum adiabatic body includes an exhaust port through which gas is evacuated, forming the vacuum space part (vacuum space) 50 (paragraphs [0010] and [0014]). Jung teaches the exhaust port may be applied to the side frame (side plate) 70 (paragraphs [0037] and [0055]), which corresponds to a through-hole provided at a portion of the side plate. Jung does not explicitly teach a tube is provided at a portion of the side plate. Jinno teaches an evacuated heat insulating panel (abstract). Jinno teaches a tip tube (tube) 5 is joined to an exhaust hole (through-hole) to facilitate depressurization of the interior space of the panel (paragraphs [0007] and [0021]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the exhaust port of Jung with the tip tube of Jinno to aid in facilitating the depressurization of the vacuum adiabatic body. Jung teaches the plate members 10, 20 and the side frame (side plate) 70 may be made of a material having sufficient strength (deformation resistance) with which they are not damaged by vacuum pressure (paragraph [0069]). The combination of Jung and Jinno does not explicitly teach a portion of the tube has a degree of deformation resistance greater than that of at least a portion of the side plate. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine appropriate materials, and their degree of deformation resistance or strength, for each of the tube and the side plate using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired resistance to damage caused by vacuum pressure.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung and Jinno as applied to either claim 1 or 19 above, and further in view of United States Patent Number 6,109,712 (hereinafter “Haworth”).Regarding claims 5 and 20 The limitations for claims 1 and 19 have been set forth above. In addition, the combination of Jung and Jinno does not explicitly teach: (i) the tube is configured to convert an extension direction of the tube into a second direction and a third direction, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction and the third direction is different than the first direction and the second direction; or (ii) the tube includes a first section extending from the side plate in a second direction and a second section extending from the first section in at least one direction of a third direction different from the second direction and the first direction. Haworth teaches an integrated vacuum panel insulation for thermal cabinet structures (title and abstract). Haworth teaches the panel includes evacuation tubes (tubes) 96-99 affixed at access ports 68, 75, 82, 93, where each evacuation tube includes a straight section 103 and an angled section 105 (column 4, lines 56-64, and Figures 3 and 5). Haworth illustrates the straight section (first section) 103 extends in a second direction from an upper surface 48 of the panel (analogous to a side plate) and the angled section (second section) 105 extends in a third direction, different than the second direction (Figures 3 and 5), which corresponds to: (i) the tube is configured to convert an extension direction of the tube into a second direction and a third direction, wherein the third direction is different than the second direction; and/or (ii) the tube includes a first section extending from the side plate in a second direction and a second section extending from the first section in at least one direction of a third direction different from the second direction. Haworth teaches each of the tubes are connected to a vacuum system and the chambers are evacuated to low pressures to provide a desired level of thermal insulation (column 2, lines 14-37). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the tip tube (tube) 5 from the combination of Jung and Jinno, and substituting the tip tube 5 shape of Jinno with the evacuation tube (tube) comprising a straight section 103 and an angled section 105, as suggested by Haworth, motivated by the desire to form conventional evacuation tubes for vacuum panels, comprising an evacuation tube (tube) comprising a straight section 103 and an angled section 105 which is known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for use in forming such an evacuation tube. The combination of Jung, Jinno, and Haworth does not explicitly teach a first direction (thickness direction which separates the first plate and second plate) is different than the second direction and the third direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine appropriate directions for each of the straight section 103 (extending in the second direction) and the angled section 105 (extending in the third direction) of the evacuation tubes, relative to a thickness direction (first direction which separates the first plate and second plate) of the panel, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record Jung, Jinno, and Haworth while broadly teaching the limitations of the presently claimed invention, do not teach or suggest the combination of limitations as presently claimed in claim 18. Specifically, none of Jung, Jinno, and/or Haworth, when considered alone or in combination, teach or reasonably suggest the adiabatic body from the combination of claims 8 and 12, in addition to the side plate including a first portion and a second portion thinner than the first portion, where the curved portion is provided at the second portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights