Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/143,159

EXTERIOR MATERIAL FOR HOME APPLIANCE AND REFRIGERATOR COMPRISING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 04, 2023
Examiner
TRAN, HANH VAN
Art Unit
3637
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
910 granted / 1231 resolved
+21.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1265
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1231 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . In view of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/04/2025, the following is a Non-Final Office action from the examiner in charge of this application. Any inconvenience is regretted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries 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. Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011-136566 A to Fukaya et al (hereinafter Fukaya) in view of EP 3118343 to Temizel, JP 2007-14911 to Sato et al (hereinafter Sato) and JP 2006-346934 to Nomura et al (hereinafter Nomura). Fukaya discloses (Claim 1). An exterior material of a home appliance comprising: a steel sheet (SUS 430) having a yield strength of 205 MPa; a base coating layer on the steel sheet; and a clear coating layer on the base coating layer resulting in the exterior material, wherein a surface of the exterior material includes embossments that include bosses having a depth about 1 to 10 µm; (Claim 2). The exterior material of claim 1, wherein the steel sheet includes between 0.08 to 0.18 wt% of carbon based on an entire weight of the steel sheet (SUS 430, [0061]); (Claim 3). The exterior material of claim 1, wherein the steel sheet has an elongation of 20% or higher (SUS 430, [0061]); (Claim 4). The exterior material of claim 1, wherein the base coating layer includes between 2.5 to 4.0 wt% of silica based on an entire weight of the base coating layer ([0015], 0.1-30% wt% of silica); (Claim 5). The exterior material of claim 1, wherein the clear coating layer includes between 2.0 to 5.0 wt% of beads and silica based on an entire weight of the clear coating layer ([0015]); (Claim 6). The exterior material of claim 1, wherein beads are included in the clear coating layer and the beads have a size of 20 to 50 µm (Fukaya: [0055] 6-30 µm); (Claim 9). A method of manufacturing an exterior material for a home appliance, the method comprising: forming a base coating layer on a steel sheet (SUS 430), the base coating layer including between 2.5 to 4.0 wt% of silica based on an entire weight of the base coating layer ([0015], 0.1-30% wt% of silica); forming a clear coating layer including between 2.0 to 5.0 wt% of beads and silica based on an entire weight of the clear coating layer ([0015]) on the base coating layer so as to form the exterior material; and forming embossments that include bosses having a depth of 1 to 10 µm; (Claim 11). The method of claim 9, wherein the steel sheet includes between 0.08 to 0.18 wt% of carbon based on an entire weight of the steel sheet (SUS 430, [0061]); (Claim 12). The method of claim 9, wherein the beads have a size of 20 to 50 pm (Fukaya: [0055] 6-30 µm). The differences being that Fukaya fails to clearly disclose the limitations in (i) Claims 1 and 10 of the steel sheet having a yield strength of between 350 to 410 MPa; (ii) Claims 1 and 9 of the bosses raised from an outer surface of the exterior material so that a depth between the bosses and the outer surface of the exterior material from which the bosses are raised is about 70 to 90 µm; (iii) Claim 7. Regarding (i), Temizel discloses providing home appliances, including refrigerators, with an exterior steel sheet made of HSLA having a yield strength between 250-700 MPa, which meets the claimed range of between 350 to 410 MPa. Regarding (ii), Sato, and Nomura both disclose an exterior material for a home appliance, wherein a surface of the exterior material includes embossments that include bosses raised from an outer surface of the exterior material; wherein Sato discloses the embossments having a depth between 1-100 µm, and Nomura discloses the average embossment diameter is 10-500 µm, preferably 20-200 µm. Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art, in view of Temizel, Sato, and Nomura, to modify Fukaya to include the limitations in (i) Claims 1 and 10 of the steel sheet having a yield strength of between 350 to 410 MPa; (ii) Claims 1 and 9 of the bosses raised from an outer surface of the exterior material so that a depth between the bosses and the outer surface of the exterior material from which the bosses are raised is about 70 to 90 µm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the exterior material. Regarding (iii), it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art to modify Fukaya to include the limitations in (iii) Claim 7 of wherein a gloss at 850 is 10 GU or less with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the exterior material, since having a gloss as claimed appears to be a matter of engineering design choice. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukaya, as modified, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0388460 to Teipel et al (hereinafter Teipel). Fukaya, as modified, discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations in claim 8. However, Teipel discloses a steel sheet for a home appliance having an exterior material, wherein a thickness of the exterior material is 0.4 mm or less ([0011], lines 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art, in view of Teipel, to modify Fukaya, as modified, to include the limitations in Claim 8 of wherein a thickness of the exterior material is 0.4 mm or less with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the exterior material. Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukaya in view of EP 3118343 to Temizel, JP 2007-14911 to Sato et al (hereinafter Sato), JP 2006-346934 to Nomura et al (hereinafter Nomura) and USP 10739057 to Segawa et al (hereinafter Segawa). Fukaya discloses (Claim 13). An exterior material to form a home appliance, the exterior material comprising: a steel sheet (SUS 430) having a yield strength of 205 MPa, a base coating layer on the steel sheet, and a clear coating layer on the base coating layer resulting in the exterior material, and a surface of the exterior material includes embossments that include bosses raised from an outer surface of the exterior material, wherein a depth of embossments on a surface of the exterior material is about 1 to 10 µm; (Claim 14). The exterior material of claim 1, wherein the steel sheet includes between 0.08 to 0.18 wt% of carbon based on an entire weight of the steel sheet (SUS 430, [0061]); (Claim 15). The exterior material of claim 1, wherein the steel sheet has an elongation of 20% or higher (SUS 430, [0061]). The differences being that Fukaya fails to clearly disclose the limitations in Claim 13 of (i) the home appliance being a refrigerator comprising: a cabinet arrangeable at an outermost portion of the refrigerator; a cavity configured to form an inner wall of the refrigerator; and urethane between the cabinet and the cavity, wherein the cabinet includes the exterior material to form the home appliance; (ii) the steel sheet having a yield strength of between 350 to 410 MPa; and (iii) a depth between the bosses and the outer surface of the exterior material from which the bosses are raised is about 70 to 90 µm. Regarding (i), Segawa discloses a refrigerator comprising: a cabinet 101 arrangeable at an outermost portion of the refrigerator; a cavity configured to form an inner wall 108 of the refrigerator; and urethane between the cabinet and the cavity, wherein the cabinet includes an exterior material 107 to form a home appliance. Regarding (ii), Temizel discloses providing home appliances, including refrigerators, with an exterior steel sheet made of HSLA having a yield strength between 250-700 MPa, which meets the claimed range of between 350 to 410 MPa. Regarding (iii), Sato, and Nomura both disclose an exterior material for a home appliance, wherein a surface of the exterior material includes embossments that include bosses raised from an outer surface of the exterior material; wherein Sato discloses the embossments having a depth between 1-100 µm, and Nomura discloses the average embossment diameter is 10-500 µm, preferably 20-200 µm. Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art, in view of Segawa, Sato, and Nomura, to modify Fukaya to include the limitations in Claim 13 of (i) the home appliance being a refrigerator comprising: a cabinet arrangeable at an outermost portion of the refrigerator; a cavity configured to form an inner wall of the refrigerator; and urethane between the cabinet and the cavity, wherein the cabinet includes the exterior material to form the home appliance; (ii) the steel sheet having a yield strength of between 350 to 410 MPa; and (iii) a depth between the bosses and the outer surface of the exterior material from which the bosses are raised is about 70 to 90 µm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the refrigerator. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH VAN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30. 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, 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. 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. HVT January 12, 2026 /HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 04, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 04, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 04, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 11, 2025
Response Filed
May 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595959
REFRIGERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590753
REFRIGERATION APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590754
REFRIGERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578139
REFRIGERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571425
SLIDE RAIL ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+14.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1231 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month