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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Feb. 20, 2026 has been entered.
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) 7-19 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.
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 (0045, 0058).
Regarding claim 8, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 7. Sung discloses the metal sheet includes steel (0022).
As to claim 9, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 7. Sung teaches the concave region and the convex region are formed on the surface of the metal sheet (0011, 0012, 0032, 0033, 0145-0148, Fig. 9). Weber discloses the coating material is colored (0011, 0013, 0069, 0078).
The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 9 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 9. The references teach the structure.
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.
With respect to claim 19, Sung and Weber teach the appliance of claim 7. Sung discloses the exposed portion of the convex region and the concave region are collinear (Fig. 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Feb. 20, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant has argued Sung teaches a metal sheet having a hairline pattern, and in this context Sung teaches at Fig. 5 that a metal sheet may also include an embossing pattern 500 (p. 3 of the Remarks). The Examiner notes in the rejection the Examiner relied on Fig. 9 where an embossment pattern including a concave region and a convex region is disclosed, the pattern disclosed as a separate embodiment from the embodiment including the hairline pattern only (0145-0148) discussed by the Applicant (pp. 3 and 4 of the Remarks).
Regarding Weber, the Applicant argued that in the Office Action element 315 of Weber was interpreted as corresponding to the embossed surface of metal plate of Sung, while in Weber element 315 is not a “metal layer” but a “reflective interface” between two polymer layers, the element not being a mechanically embossed surface. The Examiner notes element 315 is formed of metal – corresponds to element 215 (0055, 0057), and as an element formed of metal it has been interpreted as corresponding to the metal plate of Sung. Sung is the reference that discloses a metal sheet having concave and convex regions, element 315 also includes concave and convex regions (Weber, Fig. 3).
The Applicant argued that the allegation that element 315 is interpreted as corresponding to the embossed surface of Sung has no basis and is an “extremely arbitrary assertion” (p. 11 of the Remarks). The Examiner maintains that element 315 being formed of metal corresponds to the metal sheet of Sung, as discussed above.
Furthermore, the Applicant argued that Weber does not teach or suggest that “the metal sheet (e.g. 315) and the coating layer (e.g. layer 313) are formed of different materials” (p. 11 of the Remarks). However, element 315 is formed of metal and element 313 is a polymer layer, as stated by the Applicant on p. 10 of the Remarks. Weber discloses element 315 is formed of metal – corresponds to element 215 (0055, 0057), and element 313 – the coating layer is formed of a polymeric material (0045, 0058).
The Applicant discussed the technical effects of the configuration of claim 7, arguing that the effects disclosed in the prior art are different from the effects of the configuration of claim 7, the exemplary effect being a gradation effect due to the physical difference between metal and the coating material. The Examiner notes claim 7 does not recite characteristics related to the differences between the materials, or related to the gradation effect.
The Applicant argued that element 315 is an interface between two layers, thus, the interface – element 315 cannot be “exposed to the outside”; additionally that Weber does not teach that the convex region is “intentionally” exposed to the outside (p. 12 of the Remarks). It is not clear to the Examiner what weight the phrase “intentionally” is meant to have. The Applicant argued Weber discloses the optical function of the multi-layered laminated structure and does not teach exposing convex portion of a metal substrate to the outside. The Examiner notes Fig. 3 of Weber shows that at 331 there is no coating 313, thus, the very top part of element 315 is exposed to the outside. Furthermore, the phrase “exposed to the outside” could be understood as visible from the outside, e.g. through a transparent material.
The Applicant argued Weber does not teach that the coating material is selectively filled only in concave portions. The Examiner notes the claim recites “the concave region is filled with the coating material.” Weber discloses that the coating material is filled in concave region (Fig. 3).
The Applicant argued that there is no motivation to combine the steel sheet of Sung with the undulating reflective interface 315 of Weber. The Applicant argued that the Office Action alleges that a person of ordinary skill in the art “could selectively fill the concave portions of Sung’s et al.’s metal sheet” (p. 13 of the Remarks). The Examiner notes it was not alleged in the last Office Action that a person of ordinary skill in the art could “selectively” fill the concave portions of Sung’s metal sheet. The motivation to combine the references is stated above in the rejection. Since the structure of Weber provides 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.
The Applicant argued that the Office Action did not provide a teaching that Weber’s technology is applicable to metal surface treatment, a teaching suggesting that a Fresnel laminated structure can be converted to selective concave portion filling and a teaching suggesting that such a combination would produce aesthetic effect, and that no specific motivation to combine the references was provided, but only assertion of a conclusion that combination is possible (pp. 13-14 of the Remarks). The Examiner notes that the structure of Weber having specific optical properties provides an aesthetic effect (0004, 0089, 0107-0109), thus, 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.
The Applicant argued that Weber does not disclose that the optical principle of the transparent polymer multi-layer structure would work on a opaque metal substrate. The Examiner notes Weber discloses that the films can be applied to a workpiece (0034), on wood products (0038), and on such articles as lighting fixtures, automobile exterior surfaces, and electronic devices (0086).
The Applicant argued that in Weber transparent/translucent material, multi-layer laminated structure, light transmission and optical interaction are essential elements and Weber does not teach a configuration in which these essential elements are separated, the Office Action alleging that the coating material is selectively coated only in concave portions and that an aesthetic effect is obtained therefrom, but such assertion destroys the principles of the design disclosed in Weber (pp. 14 and 15 of the Remarks). The Examiner notes in the rejection it was not asserted that the coating material of Weber “selectively” coats only concave portions. The rejection relied on Fig. 3 of Weber, wherein a portion of the convex region is exposed to the outside and the concave region is filled with the coating material, as recited in the claim, as discussed above.
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