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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on Aug. 20, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites “as a result of the non-uniform thickness, an area ratio of the exposed portion of the convex region to a filled portion of the concave region continuously changes along one direction.” It is not clear why a continuous change of the area ratio of the exposed portion of the convex region to a filled portion of the concave region is a result of the non-uniform thickness of the coating layer in the concave region.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US 2018/0178344 A1) (“Sung”), in view of Weber et al. (US 2014/0009836 A1) (“Weber”).
With respect to claim 7, Sung discloses a home appliance (abstr., 0003), comprising a body and a door – implied in a refrigerator (0003, 0049), and a metal sheet that is applied to an outer surface of the door (0006, 0023, 0049), wherein the metal sheet includes a concave region and a convex region formed on a surface (0011, 0012, 0032, 0033, 0145-0148, Fig. 9). Sung is silent with respect to the metal sheet being coated and a coating layer provided on the metal sheet, as recited in the claim.
Weber discloses a decorative article (abstr.), comprising a metal layer having a concave region and a convex region – element 315 interpreted as corresponding to the embossed surface of Sung’s Fig. 9, and a coating layer – element 313 - which is provided on the metal sheet, wherein a portion of the convex region is exposed through the coating layer – the top of the convex region is exposed to an outside (Figs. 3, 3a, 3b), and the concave region is filled with the coating material (0045, 0046, 0047, 0055-0058, Figs. 3, 3a, 3b), the structure providing an aesthetic effect (0004, 0089, 0107-0109). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a coating layer on the metal sheet of Sung, wherein the concave region is filled with the coating material and a portion of the convex region is exposed to an outside for aesthetic purposes.
Weber discloses the coating layer – element 313 – provided in the concave region has a non-uniform thickness that varies along one direction of the metal sheet – element 315 – the thickness is not uniform as the coating layer is provided in concave regions having varying depths along each concave region (Fig. 3), and an area ratio of the exposed portion of the convex region to a filled portion of the concave region continuously changes along one direction – as the area of the filled portion is larger than the area of the exposed portion, the area ratio changes along the one direction (Fig. 3).
Regarding the limitation of the metal sheet and the coating layer being formed of different materials, the metal sheet is formed of metal (Sung, 0023, 0049), while the coating layer 313 is formed of a polymer-based material, a material transmitting light (Weber, 0045, 0058).
Regarding claim 8, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 7. Sung discloses the metal sheet includes steel (0022).
With respect to claim 10, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 9.
The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 10 is a product-by- process claim. For purposes of examination product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 10. The references teach the structure.
Regarding claim 11, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 10. The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 11 is a product-by- process claim. For purposes of examination product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 11. The references teach the structure.
As to claim 12, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 9. The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 12 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 12. The references teach the structure.
With respect to claim 13, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 12. The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 13 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 13. The references teach the structure.
Regarding claim 14, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 9. The claim defines the product by an apparatus used for the process. In the instant case the process implies the structure of claim 14. The references teach the structure.
As to claim 15, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 14. The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 15 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 15. The references teach the structure.
With respect to claim 16, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 14. The claim defines the product by an apparatus used for the process. In the instant case the process implies the structure of claim 16. The references teach the structure.
Regarding claim 17, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 9. The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 17 is a product-by- process claim. For purposes of examination product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 17. The references teach the structure.
As to claim 18, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 7. Sung discloses the appliance is a refrigerator (0023, 0049), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the door opens and closes a storage space defined by the body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Aug. 20, 2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the recent amendment 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the last Office Action of claim 7 has been withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued that Fig. 3 of Weber depicts that a thickness of the coating filled in the concave portions is uniform throughout the entire region. The Examiner notes as Fig. 3 of Weber shows that the coating fills the concave portions, the thickness of the coating in the concave portions is not uniform.
The Applicant argued that as a result of the non-uniform thickness of the coating layer that varies along one direction of the metal sheet, an area ratio of an exposed portion of the convex region to a filled portion of the concave region continuously changes along one direction. The Examiner notes, it is not clear why a continuous change of the area ratio of the exposed portion of the convex region to a filled portion of the concave region is a result of the non-uniform thickness of the coating layer in the concave region. The Applicant argued, that instead, element 315 provides article 310 with a different technical effect of providing a pattern of bright and dark features that appear to move or shift relative to fixed reference positions on the surface of the article as the position of the observer changes. The Examiner notes a technical effect obtained in Weber does not preclude the existing specific structure that corresponds to the structure recited in claim 7 in combination with Sung.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights