DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on March 31, 2025 & May 28, 2026 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7-35467. JP`467 teaches of a cooling apparatus (1) comprising: a body case (3); and a vacuum insulated glass plate (2) attached to an upper end of the body case (fig. 3); the vacuum insulated glass plate being attached to the body case at an angle smaller than or equal to 60 degrees with respect to a horizontal plane (as shown). JP`467 teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus as outlined above, including the aspect of maintaining a freezing temperature of -20 degrees C due to the cooling and the glass door; but does not specifically state that the glass plate has a thermal transmittance less than 1.4 W/m2K. As to this feature, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thermal transmittance so as to encompass several ranges as dependent upon the needs or preferences of a user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As to Claim 2, the body case has a covering part ((28) for instance) covering an upper surface of a peripheral edge of the vacuum insulated glass plate (fig. 4). As to Claim 3, the vacuum insulated glass plate has a thickness, a long side length, a short side length (all shown), along with a covering part distance and a lowest set temperature. JP`467 teaches such structure; but does not specifically state an equation where T1(°C),hi > (1.85 (W1^2 + D1^2) - 0.579)* (Ti - 25)^2/(1000*ti) is satisfied considering the glass plate thickness (t1), long side length (W1), short side length (D1), covering part (h1), and temperature (T1). As to this aspect, the position is again taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary thicknesses and lengths of the glass plate along with the temperature within the body case so as to encompass satisfied conditions as dependent upon the needs or preferences of a user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum / workable / satisfied conditions involves only routine skill in the art. As to Claim 4, the vacuum insulated glass plate is a fixed glass plate directly attached to the body case (fig. 3), the apparatus further includes a buffer layer (such as (26) for instance) disposed under the vacuum insulated glass plate (fig. 4). JP`467 teaches such structure; but does not specifically state an equation where b1 (mm),bi > (1.85 (W1^2 + D1^2) - 0.579)* (T1 - 25)^2/(1000*ti) is satisfied considering the glass plate thickness (W1), short side length (D1), temperature (T1) and buffer layer (b1). As to this aspect, the position is again taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary thicknesses and lengths of the glass plate along with the temperature within the body case so as to encompass satisfied conditions as dependent upon the needs or preferences of a user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum / workable / satisfied conditions involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 5-6 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7-35467 in view of Abe et al., [US 10,941,608]. JP`467 teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus as outlined above, including the glass plate having a pair of glass substrates (22A, 22B), but does not show the inclusion of a plurality of pillars disposed between the pair of glass substrates, where the plurality of pillars each have a height hpl greater than or equal to 50 pm. As to this feature, Abe is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a vacuum insulated glass plate (1) having a pair of glass substrates (10, 20) and a plurality of pillars (40) disposed between the glass substrates in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of JP`467 so as to either substitute out the existing glass plate or to include pillars between the glass substrates in view of Abe’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing increased stability within the vacuum space of the glass plate and therefore help to maintain the shape of the glass plate. As to the height of each pillar, the position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of personal preference to vary the shape or size of an element or to vary the distances between elements depending upon the needs and/or preferences of the user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or configuration of a component. A change of this degree is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding Claim 6, as modified, the prior art teaches that one glass substrate of the pair of glass substrates is provided with an infrared reflective film (note (11) – Abe). As to an average reflectance of the one glass panel provided with the infrared reflective film having a wavelength range from 500 nm to 760 nm and lower than 10%, including a lower than average reflectance of the other glass panel provided with no infrared reflective film, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exhibit a lower reflectance along the glass substrate with the reflective film as opposed to the other glass substrate without the film since the sole purpose of the film is to lower the reflectance while the ranges achieved would be obvious since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding Claim 9, the position is taken that the similarly claimed features have adequately been mapped within the above rejections and therefore a redundant mapping of the features is superfluous.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7-35467 in view of Abe et al., and further in view of Hahn et al., [US 5,125,726]. The prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus as outlined above, but does not show the inclusion of an interior lighting fixture disposed within the body case. As to this feature, Hahn is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of a light fixture (6) installed within a body case (display case) of a storage apparatus (figs. 1, 5 for instance). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the prior art so as to include an interior lighting fixture within the body case in view of Hanh’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing illuminating the interior of the body case, thereby allowing a user better visibility of contents stored within the apparatus. As to the spectral distribution of light emitted from the interior lighting fixture along with a wavelength of max peak, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the characteristics of the spectral distribution and spectrum wavelength so as to encompass several ratio ranges as dependent upon the needs or preferences of a user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7-35467 in view of Hahn et al. JP`467 teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed apparatus as outlined above, but does not show the inclusion of a top glass plate affixed to an outer side or outside and apart from the vacuum insulated plate. As to this feature, Hahn is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of a top glass plate (shown as (7) and disclosed as an all glass construct) affixed to an outer side of a glass plate (5) or disposed outside and apart from the glass plate (fig. 2). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the prior art so as to include an outer top plate in view of Hanh’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an upper external termination of the body case while providing a means by which the insulated glass plate can be protected from outside harm, yet still be removed to have access to the glass plate as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various cooling housings with glass plate structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
JOH
June 26, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights