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 .
This Office action is in response to the application filed 03/04/2025. Claims 1-19 are pending.
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.
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) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolle et al. (US Pat. 4,106,829) in view of Jung et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0104923).
Regarding claim 7, Dolle discloses a refrigerator comprising: a cavity (14, Fig. 1) having an opening to accommodate a product; a door (18) opening and closing the opening of the cavity; and a hinge support (63) supporting a hinge shaft (60) of the door, wherein a portion of the cavity is formed by a vacuum adiabatic body (35, Fig. 2; column 2, line 55 to column 3, line 6), wherein the hinge support includes a fitting groove (62) configured to support the hinge shaft (60) of the door, wherein the hinge support (63) is provided as a separate component with the door, and the hinge shaft of the door is fitted to the fitting groove (column 4, lines 1-17), and wherein the fitting groove (62) is disposed outside the vacuum insulation (35, Fig. 2).
Dolle does not explicitly teach the vacuum adiabatic body including: a first plate; a second plate; and a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate and the fitting groove is disposed outside the vacuum space.
Jung teaches the concept of a refrigerator including a vacuum adiabatic body including a first plate (110); a second plate (120); and a vacuum space (130) provided between the first plate and the second plate that enhances heat insulating function and makes an outside volume compact (paragraphs 3, 12, 132-135). Adding the vacuum adiabatic body of Jung to the refrigerator of Dolle would provide the fitting groove is disposed outside the vacuum space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the refrigerator of Dolle to have the walls made up of a vacuum adiabatic body including: a first plate; a second plate; and a vacuum space provided between the first plate and the second plate and the fitting groove is disposed outside the vacuum space taught by Jung in order to provide enhanced insulating performance of the refrigerator while remaining compact in size leading to a space saving design.
Regarding claim 8, Dolle as modified discloses the refrigerator according to claim 7, wherein the hinge support (63) is provided as a separate component with the first plate or the second plate (110 or 120 taught by Jung).
Regarding claim 9, Dolle as modified discloses the refrigerator according to claim 7, and Jung further teaches wherein the first plate (110) provides a boundary of an inner space of the cavity (111), and a second plate (120) provides a boundary of an outer space of the cavity (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Dolle as modified discloses the refrigerator according to claim 7, and Jung further teaches at least one of a supporting unit (140) or a porous substance, wherein the supporting unit is configured to reduce a deformation of the vacuum space and includes a bar (paragraph 49), wherein the porous substance is filled in the vacuum space. Dolle in combination with Jung would further teach wherein the hinge support (63) is spaced apart from the at least one of a supporting unit or a porous substance. It is noted the recitation of “or” only requires the supporting unit or porous substance and Dolle in view of Jung meets the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Dolle as modified discloses the refrigerator according to claim 7, and Jung further teaches a conductive resistance sheet (213) configured to block heat transfer between the first plate and the second plate (paragraphs 101-102), and the combination of Dolle and Jung teach the hinge support (63) is spaced apart from the conductive resistance sheet.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolle et al. (US Pat. 4,106,829) in view of Jung et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0104923), further in view of Jung (US 2013/0105494).
Regarding claim 12, Dolle as modified discloses the refrigerator according to claim 7, but does not explicitly teach a radiation resistance sheet configured reduce heat radiation between the first plate and the second plate, wherein the hinge support is spaced apart from the radiation resistance sheet.
Jung ‘494 teaches it is known for a refrigerator having a vacuum insulated wall to include a radiation resistance sheet (210, 220) configured reduce heat radiation between the first plate and the second plate (paragraph 63) and the teachings of Jung ‘494 combined with Dolle would arrive at the hinge support (63) is spaced apart from the radiation resistance sheet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the refrigerator of Dolle to have a radiation resistance sheet configured reduce heat radiation between the first plate and the second plate, wherein the hinge support is spaced apart from the radiation resistance sheet taught by Jung ‘494 in order to block radiation heat transfer and improve the insulative properties of the refrigerator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 17 and 18 are allowed.
Claims 13-16 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show "A refrigerator comprising… a conduit including a first portion disposed in the cavity, a second portion disposed outside the cavity, and a third portion connecting the first portion and the second portion and a hinge support supporting a hinge shaft of the door… wherein the hinge support includes a fitting groove configured to support the hinge shaft of the door… the conduit passes outside the fitting groove of the hinge support" recited in claim 1; “A refrigerator comprising: a cavity having an opening to accommodate a product; a door opening and closing the opening of the cavity; a conduit connecting between an inner space of the cavity and an outer space of the cavity; and a hinge support supporting a hinge shaft of the door… wherein the hinge support includes a fitting groove configured to support the hinge shaft of the door, wherein the fitting groove is disposed outside the vacuum space, and wherein the conduit passes outside the fitting groove of the hinge support” recited in claim 4. The closest prior art of record discloses a refrigerator having vacuum insulation between two plates with many of the limitations claimed, but not further including the conduit and fitting groove in the arrangement as claimed. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in claims 1 and 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH F TRPISOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/JOSEPH F TRPISOVSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights