DETAILED ACTION
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, 3, 5-6, 10-11, 13, 15-17 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-1993-0008419 in view of KR 10-2005-0111607, JP 10-166388, Ono [US 2006/0182812] and Narang [US 2005/0042266]. KR`419 teaches of a refrigerator (fig. 1) comprising: a cabinet (body of the refrigerator) configured to form a storage space (shown in fig. 1); a door (doors shown along the right side of fig. 1) configured to open and close the storage space; and a wall (such as (4) or wall of (5)) provided in the storage space; wherein the wall includes a base resin (14), and an antibacterial agent (15) including a silver component (Ag), wherein the wall contains the antibacterial agent in an amount of .05 to .1% by weight of the resin [disclosed as .05~0.1% of vegetable box (5) or shelf (4) to the resin (14)]. KR`419 teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed refrigerator as outlined above, but does not show 1) the inclusion of a zirconium phosphate-based carrier within the agent; or show 2) the base resin as including polystyrene; or show 3) the zirconium phosphate-based carrier as including three compounds as prescribed by applicant; or show 4) the silver component as being 5%-15% by weight; or 5) indicate an elution rate of silver ions of 1 ppb/day or less. As to the inclusion of a zirconium phosphate-based carrier within the agent, KR`607 is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a zirconium phosphate-based carrier along with silver in an antimicrobial agent (see disclosure where 60-80% by weight of Ag, 10-20% by weight of zirconium phosphate, and 10-20% by weight of zinc oxide make up the antimicrobial agent). Accordingly, 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 modify the device of KR`419 so as to include zirconium phosphate within the antibacterial agent in view of KR`607’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device since the addition of the zirconium phosphate with the silver helps to reduce the discoloration of the resin while maintaining the antibacterial power of the resin as compared to a resin using silver and cooper / zinc components. As to the base resin including polystyrene, JP`388 is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of polystyrene within a base resin in an analogous art. Accordingly, 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 modify the device of the combined prior art so as to include polystyrene within the base resin in view of JP`388’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing one of many alternative types of resins whereby the use of polystyrene promotes moldability of the resin while maintaining the transparency of the resin. As to the zirconium phosphate-based carrier including three compounds as prescribed by applicant, Ono is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of an alkali metal {compound A}, a tetravalent metal {compound B}, and phosphoric acid {compound C} [0020] within a zirconium phosphate-based carrier [0056-0058] in an analogous art. Accordingly, 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 modify the device of the combined prior art so as to include the composition of compounds in view of Ono’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by improving the processability of a film to which the antibacterial agent is added. As to the % of silver component by weight of the agent, KR`419 as modified by KR`607 teaches the silver component is in an amount of 60%-80% by weight of the antibacterial agent (note KR`607); but not 5%-15% by weight as prescribed by applicant. However, the position is taken 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 ratios 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As to the wall having an elution rate of silver ions of 1 ppb/day or less, the position is taken that the prior art already teaches a structure having antibacterial properties, but does not specify a rate of elution for the silver ions; however, 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 elution rate of silver ions so as to encompass a specified range as dependent upon the needs or preferences of an end 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). Narang being cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of varying an elution rate in order to bring about a desired result, i.e., it will thus be appreciated that the elution mechanism can be utilized to provide desired antimicrobial effects, such as by tailoring the elution rate and amount of antimicrobial agent available at the application site, where the level of antimicrobial effects can be increased by increasing the amount of anti-microbial agent incorporated into the composition, or alternatively the dissolution of elution rate of the agent from the product can be adjusted by adjusting other factors of the composition such as additives, biodegradation, absorption rate etc. [0031]. As such, this claimed “inventive feature” concerns a slight constructional change in the prior art device that is deemed to come within the scope of the customary practice followed by persons skilled in the art, especially as the advantages thus achieved can readily be foreseen; therefore, the “inventive feature” lacks an inventive step and therefore does not constitute patentable subject matter. Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the base resin can be a general-purpose polystyrene containing 75 to 99% by weight of a styrene monomer and 1 to 25% by weight of ethylbenzene. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s inventive claimed device as disclosed above, but does not show the range of %’s by weight as prescribed by applicant; however, the position is taken 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 ratios 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding Claim 5, as modified, Ono teaches the molar ratio of the compounds as being 1:4:6, which is within the range of applicant’s prescription (i.e., 0.5-2: 2-6; 4-8). Regarding Claim 6, as modified, Ono teaches the zirconium phosphate-based carrier can be heat treated to a temperature of 1,000°C to 1,600°C [0028]. Regarding Claim 10, as modified, Ono teaches a particle size of the antibacterial agent is 5 or 2 um which is between the range of 0.1 ~10um. Regarding Claims 11, 13 & 15, as modified, the wall would inherently attain an antibacterial performance of at least 99.9%, and a transparency of 12% or less where the base resin is transparent (i.e., the resin being defined by the color of the wall substrate and deemed transparent). Regarding Claim 16, as modified, the wall can be a shelf or drawer received in the storage space (see fig. 1 of KR`419). Regarding Claim 17, as modified, the base resin can include a pigment (defined as the final product color of the wall). Regarding Claim 19, as modified, the position is taken that the similarly claimed features have adequately been mapped within the rejections and therefore a redundant mapping of the features is superfluous, wherein the combined prior art teaches applicant’s refrigerator including a cabinet to form a storage space; a door configured to open and close the storage space; and a molded article provided in the storage space and including a transparent resin, and a compound including zirconium phosphate and silver (note the mapping in the above rejections). Regarding Claim 20, as modified, the position is taken that the similarly claimed features have adequately been mapped within the rejections and therefore a redundant mapping of the features is superfluous, wherein at least one surface (surface of the box or shelf) includes a transparent base resin with at least Sliver (Ag), Sodium (Na), Hydrogen (hydrogen ion) and zirconium phosphate (note Ono).
Claims 14 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR`419 in view of KR`607, JP`388, Ono, Narang and further in view of Mitchell et al., [US 2015/0107285] and Banzashi et al., [US 2018/0230279]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed refrigerator as outlined above, but does not show the inclusion of a display on an outer surface of the door as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Mitchell is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of a display (display component) of (136) along an outer surface of a door (126) on a refrigerator (100); while Banzashi is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of displays, such as a touch panel, LCD, plasma display, LED element etc., [0123] & [0125] containing lithium carbonate [0053], zirconium [0080] and ammonium dihydrogen phosphate [0127]. Accordingly, 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 modify the device of the prior art so as to include a display in view of Mitchell’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by allowing for a user interface to be mounted to an outside surface of the door, whereby a display of the interface would provide the user with operational feedback as dictated by the needs and/or preferences of the user. Furthermore, 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 modify the display of the prior art so as to include the base resin with antibacterial agent (along with the various compounds) in view of Banzashi’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing the display with high transparency while suppressing yellowing under high temperature conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 05, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s arguments that “all the limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art” note the following: The Supreme Court Decision KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) forecloses the argument that a specific teaching, suggestion, or motivation be required to support a finding of obviousness, note Ex parte Smith, --USPQ2d--, slip op. at 20, (Bd. Pat. & Interf. June 25, 2007) {citing KSR, 82 USPQ2d at 1396}. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. stated that the Federal Circuit erred when it applied the well-known teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test in an overly rigid and formalistic way. Under the TSM test, a claimed invention is obvious when there is a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art teachings. The teaching, suggestion, or motivation may be found in the prior art, in the nature of the problem, or in the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art. According to the Supreme Court, the TSM test is one of a number of valid rationales that could be used to determine obviousness. It is not the only rationale that may be relied upon to support a conclusion of obviousness.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d at 1396.
Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
In summation, the position is taken that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known devices according to their established functions, as such, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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. 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
March 9, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637