DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12259178. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims 1-20 would anticipate/render obvious claims 1-20 of US Patent 12259178.
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 1-7, 10-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US Publication 20180216872) in view of Han et al (KR 1020200001347 which is being directly translated by US Publication 20240200859).
As to claims 1, 3, 10-13 Jung discloses a vacuum adiabatic bodying that includes a first plate member, a second plate member spaced apart from the first plate member (abs). An inner panel that includes a first portion to cover a part of the first plate and a second portion to extend from the first portion in a direction away from the vacuum space as seen in the figures. The body further includes a supporting unit 30 that includes bars 31 (paragraph 47). However this reference is silent to a height difference between the bars 31.
Han discloses a vacuum adiabatic body including a first plate and a second plate. The body further includes a supporting unit/support 30 that includes bars 31. The bars 31 can have a different height configuration as seen in figure 10 as well as having a varying number of bars.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jung and used this configuration for the first and second panel with the bars suggested by Han as it allows for a seating coupling mechanism and a coupling mechanism to form the adiabatic body allowing easy manufacturing without damage as it’s a suitable alternative.
As to claim 2, Jung discloses a hinge that is disposed on a side of the first and second plates.
As to claims 4-7, Jung discloses that a heat conduction path can be formed as claimed, in the alternative it would have been obvious to have formed the heat transfer paths as claimed as Jung teaches the heat transfer paths can be changed depending upon design dimensions so that the first and second plate members can endure vacuum pressure without being deformed and the heat resistance sheet can be changed depending upon the difference in temperature. Therefore forming the heat resistance sheet to be lengthened on the second side or having the portion overlapping the vacuum space shortened.
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US Publication 20180216872)
Jung discloses a vacuum adiabatic bodying that includes a first plate member, a second plate member spaced apart from the first plate member (abs). An inner panel that includes a first portion to cover a part of the first plate and a second portion to extend from the first portion in a direction away from the vacuum space as seen in the figures. The body further includes a supporting unit 30 that includes bars 31 (paragraph 47). The adiabatic body can also have foaming provided on the side of the vacuum body. Jung teaches the heat transfer paths can be changed depending upon design dimensions so that the first and second plate members can endure vacuum pressure without being deformed and the heat resistance sheet can be changed depending upon the difference in temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed the first and second pathway as claimed absent unexpectedly better results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9 and 20 are 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.
Claims 14-18 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights