Conclusion
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 .
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 recites the limitation “the convex portion” in lines 22 and 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the concave portion” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 the limitation “the concave region and the convex region are formed on the surface of the metal sheet in a patterning and rolling operation” the claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 7 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 which is disclosed in Sung, Fig. 9.
Regarding the recitation: “the coating material is colored and is coated on the surface of the metal sheet in a coating operation in which the coating material is applied over upper surfaces of the concave region and the convex region”, Weber discloses the coating material is colored (0011, 0013, 0069, 0078). The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 7 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 7. The references teach the structure.
Regarding the recitation “the coating material is polished in a polishing operation after the coating operation so that at least a portion of the convex region is exposed, and the coating material is provided in the concave region”, Weber discloses a portion of the convex region being exposed and the coating material – element 313 - is provided in the concave region (0045, 0046, 0047, 0055-0058, Figs. 3, 3a, 3b).
The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 7 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 7. The references teach the structure.
Regarding the recitation “wherein an upper surface of the convex portion that is exposed to the outside and an upper surface of the coating material with which the concave portion adjacent to the convex portion is filled are collinear” Weber discloses an upper surface of the convex portion that is exposed to the outside and an upper surface of the coating material with which the concave portion adjacent to the convex portion is filled are collinear in Figs. 3, 3a and 3b.
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 June 9, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant argued the references cannot teach the newly added features of claim 7, of coating material being colored and coated on the surface of the metal sheet in a coating operation, the coating material being polished in a polishing operation after the coating operation so that at least a portion of the convex region is exposed, and the coating material is provided in the concave region while the upper surface of the convex portion that is exposed to the outside and an upper surface of the coating material with which the concave portion adjacent to the convex portion is filled are collinear. The Examiner notes Figs. 3, 3a and 3b of Weber disclose collinear surfaces of the upper surface of a convex portion that is exposed to the outside and an upper surface of the coating material with which the concave portion adjacent the convex portion is filled being collinear. The Applicant further argued that Weber does not disclose sequentially performing the steps newly added to claim 7. The Examiner notes claim 7 is a product claim, not a process claim. The references disclose the structural elements of claim 7 as discussed above.
The Applicant argued neither Sung nor Weber teach or suggest a structure where the exposed metal surface and the adjacent filled coating material are collinear, nor do the references recognize a polishing operation to form a collinear structure, polishing operation likely to destroy the optical functionality of the structure of Weber.
The Examiner notes the combination of Sung and Weber teaches a collinear exposed metal surface and the adjacent filled coating material, as discussed above. Regarding the polishing operation, the claims of the instant application are product claims, wherein their patentability does not depend on a method of making the product.
Regarding a “gradation effect” the Applicant argued that because the amended claim 7 now recites a configuration wherein “the colored coating material” undergoes a “polishing operation” to expose the metal substrate, thereby forming a “collinear” uppermost surface, an original and high-contrast gradation effect where the metallic texture of the exposed convex peaks and the color of the adjacent filled concave regions smoothly coexist on a single continuous plane is reliably manifested. The Examiner notes the collinear uppermost surface is taught by the combined references as discussed above. A specific “high-contrast aesthetic gradation effect” discussed by the Applicant as being formed by the metallic texture of the exposed convex peaks and the color of the filled concave regions is not claimed in claim 7. For example, a specific profile of some of the convex peaks as shown in Fig. 3c of the instant application is not recited in the claims.
The Applicant argued that the combination of Sung and Weber produces at beast a film that merely conforms to and follows the contours of the underlying metal sheet and such a combination can never produce a seamless, collinear polished surface formed by the simultaneous abrading of two heterogeneous materials. The Examiner maintains that the combination of the references teaches the metal sheet of claim 7. And further, the process steps do not include a step of simultaneous abrading of two heterogeneous materials.
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 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