DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 5 and 6 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 5 recites the limitation "the corrugated wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 is where a corrugated wall is first introduced. As such, claim 5 is being interpreted as depending from claim 2. Further clarification or correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the corrugated wall" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 is where a corrugated wall is first introduced. As such, claim 6 is being interpreted as depending from claim 2. Further clarification or correction is required.
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 pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Csiga (US 1588707).
Regarding Claim 1
Csiga teaches a refrigerator (below – Fig. 1) comprising: an inner case (3) in which a storage space is formed, the inner case comprising a first communication hole (shown below – expanded view of Fig. 1); an outer case (1) outside which an outer space is formed, the outer case being spaced apart from the inner case and comprising a second communication hole (shown below); a vacuum space provided between the inner case and the outer case; and a connection pipe (20-22) connecting the first communication hole to the second communication hole, wherein the connection pipe includes a first wall (shown below) disposed between the storage space and the outer space, and a second wall (shown below) extending from the first wall and disposed between the storage space and the outer space, wherein the first wall includes a portion extending in a first direction (up), and the second wall includes a portion extending in a second direction (down) different from the first direction (Pg. 1, Ln. 61-71 and 95-107; and Pg. 2, Ln. 3-16).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Second
wall)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (First wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second communication hole)][AltContent: textbox (First communication hole)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
736
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
358
272
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4
Csiga teaches the connection pipe is configured to define a passage through which water is drained or through which a drainage pipe passes.
Regarding Claim 8
Csiga teaches a supporting structure (4) configured to maintain a distance between the inner case (3) and the outer case (1), wherein the supporting structure includes a first spacer and a second spacer configured to maintain the vacuum space between the inner case and the outer case, each of the first spacer and the second spacer including a portion extending in a direction from the inner case towards the outer case, and wherein the connection pipe is configured to pass through a space between the first spacer and the second spacer, as can be seen above.
Regarding Claim 9
Csiga teaches a supporting structure (4) configured to maintain a distance between the inner case (3) and the outer case (1), wherein the supporting structure includes a support plate (2) located at a surface of the outer case, the support plate including a third communication hole, and wherein the connection pipe is configured to pass through the third communication hole, as can be seen below.
[AltContent: textbox (Third communication hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Support plate)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
358
272
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11
Csiga teaches a refrigerator (Fig. 1) comprising: an inner case (3) comprising a first communication hole (shown above – expanded view of Fig. 1); an outer case (1) spaced apart from the inner case and comprising a second communication hole (shown below); a vacuum space provided between the inner case and the outer case; and a connection pipe (20-22) connecting the first communication hole to the second communication hole, wherein the connection pipe includes a first wall (shown below) disposed between the inner case and the outer case, and a second wall (shown at 20 and 22) extending from the first wall and disposed between the inner case and the outer case, wherein the first wall includes a portion extending in a first direction, and the second wall includes a portion extending in a second direction different from the first direction, as can be seen above (Pg. 1, Ln. 61-71 and 95-107; and Pg. 2, Ln. 3-16).
Regarding Claim 14
Csiga teaches the connection pipe is configured to define a passage through which water is drained or through which a drainage pipe passes.
Regarding Claim 16
Csiga teaches a supporting structure (4) configured to maintain a distance between the inner case (3) and the outer case (1), wherein the supporting structure includes a first spacer and a second spacer configured to maintain the vacuum space between the inner case and the outer case, each of the first spacer and the second spacer including a portion extending in a direction from the inner case towards the outer case, and wherein the connection pipe is configured to pass through a space between the first spacer and the second spacer, as can be seen above.
Regarding Claim 18
Csiga teaches a supporting structure (4) configured to maintain a distance between the inner case (3) and the outer case (1), wherein the supporting structure includes a support plate (2) located at a surface of the outer case, the support plate including a third communication hole, and wherein the connection pipe is configured to pass through the third communication hole, as can be seen above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 10 and 19 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Csiga as applied to claims 1 and 11 above.
Regarding Claims 10 and 19
Csiga teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as shown above. Csiga does not teach an outer diameter of the connection pipe is greater than a diameter of any one of the first communication hole and the second communication hole.
However, Csiga does appear to teach portions of the pipe between the inner and outer case having diameters larger than the first and second communication holes (see below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
170
96
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, at the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply such a flange so that an outer diameter of the connection pipe is greater than a diameter of any one of the first communication hole and the second communication hole in order to further support the pipe and ensure it stays in place. As such, the claim of an outer diameter of the connection pipe is greater than a diameter of any one of the first communication hole and the second communication hole does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Csiga as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Cataldo et al. (US 2011/0259040) (hereinafter Cataldo).
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13
Csiga teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as shown above. Csiga does not teach the connection pipe includes a corrugated wall formed by the first wall and the second wall; or is a bellows type pipe formed by the first wall and the second wall.
Cataldo teaches a refrigeration unit with tubing (below – Fig. 22, 9) having a corrugated wall (or bellows type pipe) formed by a first wall and a second wall (Paragraph [00105]).
PNG
media_image4.png
398
446
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Csiga and Cataldo are analogous inventions in the field of refrigeration. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the connection pipe of Csiga with the teachings of a corrugated wall (or bellows type pipe) of Cataldo in order to decrease conduction efficiency by increasing a distance where conduction between the inner case and outer case is generated (Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15
Csiga in view of Cataldo teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 12, as shown above. Csiga in view of Cataldo does not specifically teach a height of the corrugated wall is identical to a height of the vacuum space.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the height of the corrugated wall be identical to a height of the vacuum space, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that having the height of the corrugated wall be identical to a height of the vacuum space provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of having the height of the corrugated wall be identical to a height of the vacuum space does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 6 and 17
Csiga in view of Cataldo teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 12, as shown above. Csiga in view of Cataldo does not specifically teach a height of the corrugated wall is smaller than a height of the vacuum space.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the height of the corrugated wall be smaller than a height of the vacuum space, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that having the height of the corrugated wall be smaller than a height of the vacuum space provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of having the height of the corrugated wall be smaller than a height of the vacuum space does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 21 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: Closest prior art – Csiga (cited above) – teaches a majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention. Csiga further teaches a supporting structure configured to maintain a distance between the inner case (3) and the outer case (1), wherein the supporting structure comprises: a spacer (4) configured to maintain the vacuum space between the inner case and the outer case, the spacer including a portion extending in a direction from the inner case towards the outer case; a support plate (2) located at a surface of the outer case.
However, the closest art does not teach a first support plate located at a surface of the inner case, and wherein a first portion of the spacer is configured to be fixed to the first support plate and a second portion of the spacer is configured to be received in a groove formed in the second support plate (claims 20 and 21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 16 September 2026
Prosecution Insights