UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/900,569
`
`02/20/2018
`
`YOShihil‘O TAKAHASHI
`
`092122-0058
`
`1036
`
`01/28/2019
`759°
`20277
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`The MeDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, NW.
`WASHINGTON Dc 20001
`
`ROHRHOFF' DANIEL J
`
`3637
`
`PAPERNUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/28/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdoeketmwe @ mwe. com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/900,569
`Examiner
`DANIEL J ROHRHOFF
`
`Applicant(s)
`TAKAHASHI et al.
`Art Unit
`AIA Status
`3637
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 12/13/18.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1 and 3—5 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1 and 3—5 is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)D accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)D AII
`
`b)[:l Some”
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) E] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) D Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190122
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/900,569
`Art Unit: 3637
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice ofPre-AIA 0r AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 103
`
`2.
`
`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 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.
`
`3.
`
`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 USC.
`
`102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/900,569
`Art Unit: 3637
`
`Page 3
`
`5.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere C0., 383 US. l, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied 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.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 1 & 3—5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takasugi
`
`(US patent 8,826,686) in view of Yuzawa et al. (US patent 7,624,586) (hereinafter Yuzawa).
`
`7.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Takasugi discloses an ultra—low temperature freezer comprising: an
`
`insulated case (7) defining a storage compartment (4) having an opening in an upper face (Col. 8:
`
`14); and an insulated door (13) configured to be able to open and close the opening so that the
`
`storage compartment can be seen from a front face side of the insulated case (Fig. 1), wherein: a
`
`front face (6A) of the insulated case has a thickness smaller than a thickness of a side face of the
`
`insulated case (Fig. 3), the insulated case includes an inner case (7) whose upper face is
`
`configured to be opened, an outer case (6) that surrounds the inner case, an insulating material
`
`(9) filled between the inner case and the outer case, and a vacuum insulated panel (12, mounted
`
`on 6A, as shown in Fig. 3) mounted between the inner case and the outer case (Fig. 3), and the
`
`vacuum insulated panel is mounted only to the front face of the insulated case (Fig. 3 & Col. 8:
`
`27-36).
`
`8.
`
`Takasugi does not disclose the front face of the insulated case has a thickness smaller
`
`than thicknesses of two side faces and a back face of the insulated case.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/900,569
`Art Unit: 3637
`
`Page 4
`
`9.
`
`Yuzawa teaches a freezer wherein a front face (left side in Fig. 2) of an insulated case has
`
`a thickness smaller than a thickness of a back face (right side in Fig. 2) of an insulated case.
`
`10.
`
`As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the filing to modify Takasugi wherein the front face of the insulated case has a thickness smaller
`
`than thicknesses of two side faces and a back face of the insulated case, since it has been held
`
`that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re J apikse, 86
`
`USPQ 70.
`
`ll.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Takasugi, as modified, teaches a freezer wherein the vacuum
`
`insulated panel is mounted to the front face of the insulated case such that the insulating material
`
`is interposed between the inner case and the vacuum insulated panel (Fig. 3 & Col. 8: 27—36).
`
`12.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Takasugi, as modified, teaches a freezer wherein the front face has a
`
`thickness (Fig. 3).
`
`l3.
`
`Takasugi, as modified, does not teach wherein the thickness of the front face is equal to
`
`or greater than 1/4 of the thickness of the back face and equal to or smaller than 2/3 of the
`
`thickness of the back face.
`
`14.
`
`It would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Takasugi, as modified,
`
`wherein the thickness of the front face is equal to or greater than l/4 of the thickness of the back
`
`face and equal to or smaller than 2/3 of the thickness of the back face, since such a modification
`
`would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally
`
`recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237,
`
`(CCPA 1955).
`
`15.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Takasugi, as modified, teaches a freezer wherein the front face has a
`
`thickness (Fig. 3).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/900,569
`Art Unit: 3637
`
`Page 5
`
`16.
`
`Takasugi, as modified, does not teach wherein the front face has the thickness equal to or
`
`smaller than a half of the thickness of the back face.
`
`17.
`
`It would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Takasugi, as modified,
`
`wherein the front face has the thickness equal to or smaller than a half of the thickness of the
`
`back face, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a
`
`component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`18.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/13/18, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been
`
`fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of claims 1—5 have been withdrawn.
`
`19.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 12/13/18 with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully
`
`considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`20.
`
`Regarding applicant’s argument that Takasugi teaches vacuum insulated panels 12 on
`
`three faces as shown in Fig. 3, the examiner disagrees. Takasugi teaches three separate vacuum
`
`insulated panels 12 as shown in Fig. 3 and described at Col. 8: 27—36. One of those panels is
`
`mounted only to the front face of the insulated case as is recited in the claim. Thus, Takasugi
`
`teaches this claim limitation.
`
`21.
`
`Regarding applicant’s argument that none of the cited references disclose or suggest that
`
`the front face of the insulated case has a thickness smaller than thicknesses of two side faces and
`
`aback face of the insulated case and it is unclear from Figs. 3 and 4 of Takasugi whether the front
`
`face has a thickness smaller than the thickness of the back face because Takasugi is silent on
`
`whether the drawing are to scale or not, the examiner disagrees.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/900,569
`Art Unit: 3637
`
`Page 6
`
`22.
`
`Takasugi teaches a side face to be thicker than a front face as is shown in Fig. 3; Yuzawa
`
`teaches that the front face has a thickness smaller than the thickness of a back face as shown in
`
`Fig. 2. Based on these two teaching, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the filing to modify Takasugi wherein the front face of the insulated case has a thickness
`
`smaller than thicknesses of two side faces and a back face of the insulated case because it has
`
`been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art [In re
`
`J apikse, 86 USPQ 70] and this proposed modification only involves repositioning the inner box 7
`
`relative to the outer box 6 based on the teachings of Takasugi and Yuzawa.
`
`Conclusion
`
`23.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR l.l36(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 extension fee pursuant to 37
`
`CFR l.l36(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 DANIEL J ROHRHOFF whose telephone number is (571)270—
`
`7624. The examiner can normally be reached on M—F 7:30—4:00.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/900,569
`Art Unit: 3637
`
`Page 7
`
`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, Dan Troy can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see http://pair—direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
`
`system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866—217—9197 (toll—free). If you would
`
`like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
`
`information system, call 800—786—9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571—272—1000.
`
`/DANIEL J ROHRHOFF/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
`
`