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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 December 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “the magnetic” should be “the at least one magnetic”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 and 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1: The originally-filed specification does not disclose or ever mention removing attachment mechanism 103a-d from the door 102. There is no disclosure of the adhesive coating that mounts the magnets 103a-d to the door 102 allowing the magnets 103a-d to be removed from the door 102.
The claim recitation “that can be…removed from the interior surface of the cabinet door by virtue of having an adhesive coating on one surface of the magnet” raises the issue of new matter, and necessitates rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
With respect to claim 2: The originally-filed specification does not state that attachment mechanism 103a-d can be removed, and/or that attachment mechanism 103a-d being removed causes no damage.
At page 8 of the reply dated 11 December 2025, the Applicant alleges that [0002] provides support for this limitation. However, the Applicant has quoted only one portion of the Abstract ([0002]), and not the whole Abstract and/or disclosure. The entire abstract and/or disclosure makes perfectly clear that the accessory can be removed without damaging the external appearance of the cabinet.
The claim recitation “wherein the system is damage-free” in claim 2, in combination with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism being removed as in claim 1, raises the issue of new matter, and necessitates rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
With respect to claims 6, 25, and 30: The claim recites “wherein the interior surface of the cabinet door and the exterior surface of the cabinet door are separated by substantially the entire thickness of the cabinet door”. Due to the use of “substantially”, the recitation is open to the interior and exterior surfaces of the door being separated by less than the entire thickness of the door.
The originally-filed specification does not mention the thickness of door 102. The originally-filed specification does not mention the interior and exterior surfaces of door 102 being separated by less than the entire thickness of door 102. The figures do not show the interior and exterior surfaces of door 102 separated by less than the entire thickness of door 102.
The claim recitation “wherein the interior surface of the cabinet door and the exterior surface of the cabinet door are separated by substantially the entire thickness of the cabinet door” raises the issue of new matter, and necessitates rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
With respect to claim 26: The originally-filed specification does not disclose or ever mention removing attachment mechanism 103a-d from the interior surface 105 of the door 102.
The claim recitation “removing the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism from the interior surface of the door” raises the issue of new matter, and necessitates rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
With respect to claim 27: The originally-filed specification does not disclose or ever mention removing attachment mechanism 103a-d from the door 102. The originally-filed specification does not state that attachment mechanism 103a-d can be removed from the door 102 without damaging the door 102.
The originally-filed specification states that the accessory 110 can be removed from the door 102 without damaging the external/outward appearance thereof ([0004], [0008], [0030], [0033], and [0059]). However, there is no mention of not damaging the internal surfaces and/or appearance thereof. There is no disclosure of the adhesive coating, screws, nails, or other penetrating member that mounts the magnets 103a-d to the door 102 allowing the magnets 103a-d to be removed without damaging the door 102.
The claim recitation “removing the damage-free retrofit system including…the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism from the cabinet door without damaging the cabinet door” raises the issue of new matter, and necessitates rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
With respect to claim 28: The originally-filed specification does not disclose or ever mention removing attachment mechanism 103a-d from the door 102. The originally-filed specification does not state that attachment mechanism 103a-d can be removed from the door 102 without tools.
The claim recitation “removing the damage-free retrofit system including…the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism from the cabinet door without tools” raises the issue of new matter, and necessitates rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
With respect to claims 2-10 and 29: The claims is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) at least via dependency.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1: The preamble of the claim recites:
A consumer product set system for retrofitting onto an existing cabinet, the existing cabinet including a cabinet body defining an interior of the cabinet, and a cabinet door, the cabinet door having a surface facing the interior of the cabinet called the interior surface and a surface facing the exterior of the cabinet called the exterior surface, the consumer product set comprising:
The use of “for” denotes the cabinet, etc. are an intended use and/or combination with the consumer product set (system). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 707.07(f).
Due to the use of “for”, the preamble of the claim defines that the claimed invention is to the consumer product set (system) only, and does not include the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, interior surface, and/or exterior surface.
The body of the claim recites:
…with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism applied to the interior surface of the cabinet door and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory applied to the exterior surface of the cabinet door in registration with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism, a magnetic force of the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is transmitted through the cabinet door to hold the magnetic removable cabinet accessory to the cabinet door.
The recitation above positively recites the interior surface of the cabinet door, the exterior surface of the cabinet door, and the cabinet door.
The preamble of the claim excludes the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, interior surface, and/or exterior surface. However, the body of the claim includes the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, interior surface, and/or exterior surface.
The scope of claim 1, as written, is unclear as to whether the invention is to the consumer product set (system) only, or if the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, interior surface, and/or exterior surface is/are included in the claimed invention.
In lines 4-5 of claim 1, the recitation “the consumer product set” lacks antecedent basis. In line 9 of claim 1, the recitation “the magnet” lacks antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 4: The claim recites, “wherein the magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is not received in a drilled hole or divot in the cabinet door”. This positively recites the cabinet door.
The scope of claim 4, as written, is unclear as to whether the invention is to the consumer product set (system) only, or if the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, interior surface, and/or exterior surface is/are included in the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 6: The claim recites, “wherein the interior surface of the cabinet door and the exterior surface of the cabinet door are separated by substantially the entire thickness of the cabinet door”. This positively recites the cabinet door, the interior surface, and the exterior surface.
The scope of claim 4, as written, is unclear as to whether the invention is to the consumer product set (system) only, or if the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, interior surface, and/or exterior surface is/are included in the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 7: The recitation “the…cabinet-door facing surface of the accessory” lacks antecedent basis.
With respect to claims 2-10: The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) at least via dependency on claim 1.
With respect to claim 27: The recitation “the damage-free retrofit system” lacks antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 28: The recitation “the damage-free retrofit system” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As explained in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) made above in this Office action, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. As written, it is unclear if the claim is to the consumer product set system (the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory) only, or if the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, interior surface, and/or exterior surface is/are positively claimed.
These rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is/are made under the interpretation that the claimed invention is to the consumer product set system (the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory) only. These rejections is/are made under the interpretation that the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, interior surface, and exterior surface are not part of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 20 2015 004 789 U1 (Ortuno).
With respect to claim 1: Ortuno discloses a consumer product set system, the consumer product set comprising: at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (ferromagnetic material and/or second magnets 3) that can be (is capable of being) applied to (by gluing (30) with adhesive) and removed (by applying enough force to overcome the adhesive) from the interior surface of a cabinet door by virtue of having an adhesive coating on one surface of the magnet (Ortuno [0024]: “by means of fastenings such as gluing (30) with adhesive”; gluing 30 on one surface of second magnet 3 shown in at least Fig. 2); a magnetic removable cabinet accessory (the “accessory” in [0017]-[0028]; includes first magnets 4, frame 8, housing 9, and panel 10) that can be (is capable of being) applied to and removed from the exterior surface of the cabinet door without the use of tools (attraction between first magnets 4 and second magnets 3 does not require the use of tools) by virtue of having a magnetic coupling system (first magnets 4) to couple the removable cabinet accessory to the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (first magnets 4 magnetically couple to second magnets 3) to apply the magnetic cabinet accessory to the exterior surface of the cabinet door; wherein the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory are arranged such that, with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism applied to the interior surface of the cabinet door and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory applied to the exterior surface of the cabinet door in registration with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism, a magnetic force of the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is transmitted through the cabinet door to hold the magnetic removable cabinet accessory to the cabinet door (similarly to Ortuno Fig. 7). See Ortuno [0001]-[0028] regarding magnetic force/attraction between first magnets 4 and second magnets 3, to thereby mount the “accessory”.
The preamble of the claim recites:
for retrofitting onto an existing cabinet, the existing cabinet including a cabinet body defining an interior of the cabinet, and a cabinet door, the cabinet door having a surface facing the interior of the cabinet called the interior surface and a surface facing the exterior of the cabinet called the exterior surface
Due to the use of “for”, the recitation denotes an intended use of the claimed “consumer product set system”. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 707.07(f).
Ortuno [0001]-[0028] states the invention is for a piece of furniture, and is not particularly limited to a single type or piece of furniture. The piece of furniture is “any movable object used for storage”. In that an existing cabinet with a cabinet door having interior and exterior surfaces is encompassed in Ortuno’s “piece of furniture”, Ortuno’s invention meets “for retrofitting onto an existing cabinet” as claimed.
Ortuno’s second magnets 3 and “accessory” are capable of being retrofitted to the interior and exterior surfaces of a cabinet door of an existing cabinet – as recited in the preamble – with zero modification thereto. Ortuno’s disclosed second magnets 3 and “accessory” meet the claimed consumer product set system.
With zero modification, Ortuno’s second magnets 3 and gluing (30) with adhesive meet and/or are capable of performing “that can be applied to and removed from the interior surface of a cabinet door by virtue of having an adhesive coating on one surface of the magnet” as claimed. As claimed, the “attachment mechanism” can be applied and removed specifically due to having an adhesive coating on one surface of the magnet. Ortuno’s magnets 3 have gluing (30) with adhesive on one surface thereof, and thereby meet the recitation.
With zero modification, Ortuno’s “accessory” having first magnets 4 meet and/or are capable of performing “that can be applied to and removed from the exterior surface of the cabinet door without the use of tools by virtue of having a magnetic coupling system to couple the removable cabinet accessory to the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism to apply the magnetic cabinet accessory to the exterior surface of the cabinet door” as claimed.
Ortuno [0026] states that casing 2 is made of a material permeable to magnetic forces. See Ortuno Fig. 7. Magnets 3 and 4 are disclosed as transmitting magnetic force through a furniture component when in registration with each other on opposite sides of the furniture component. With zero modification, Ortuno’s disclosed invention meets and/or is capable of performing “wherein the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory are arranged such that, with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism applied to the interior surface of the cabinet door and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory applied to the exterior surface of the cabinet door in registration with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism, a magnetic force of the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is transmitted through the cabinet door to hold the magnetic removable cabinet accessory to the cabinet door” as claimed.
Ergo, if the claimed invention is to the “consumer product set” (magnet(s) and accessory) only, Ortuno meets the claimed invention. IE – if the cabinet door, interior surface, and exterior surface are not part of the claimed invention, Ortuno meets the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 6: Ortuno’s disclosed invention, with zero modification, is capable of being applied to a cabinet door that meets “wherein the interior surface of the cabinet door and the exterior surface of the cabinet door are separated by substantially the entire thickness of the cabinet door” as claimed.
Ergo, if the claimed invention is to the “consumer product set” only, Ortuno meets the claimed invention. IE – if the cabinet door, interior surface, and exterior surface are not part of the claimed invention, Ortuno meets the claimed invention.
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.
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.
These rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 is/are made under the interpretation that the claimed invention is to the consumer product set system (the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory) only. These rejections is/are made under the interpretation that the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, interior surface, and exterior surface are not part of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2015 004 789 U1 (Ortuno).
With respect to claim 2: The embodiment of Ortuno Figs. 6-7 does not meet “the system further comprising: a protective coating layer configured to prevent damage to the exterior surface of the cabinet door, wherein the system is damage free” as claimed.
The embodiment of Ortuno Fig. 5 includes a film 13 having a decorated or undecorated front side 13a and a back side 14. The back side 14 is “configured to prevent damage” by virtue of being located over the magnets 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add film 13, including the back side 14 thereof, to the embodiment of Ortuno Fig. 7, in order to cover the magnets 4 of Fig. 7 similarly to what is shown in Ortuno Fig. 5.
The back side 14 of the film 13 meets “the system further comprising: a protective coating layer configured to prevent damage to the exterior surface of the cabinet door, wherein the system is damage free” as claimed.
With respect to claim 3: The Applicant’s claimed “magnetic accessory attachment mechanism” is the disclosed attachment mechanism 103a-d, which is applied to the interior surface 105 of the door 102 with an adhesive. Based on the Applicant, applying magnets with an adhesive results in being able to be applied and removed without damaging the door.
Ortuno’s second magnets 3 are applied by gluing (30) with an adhesive. In the same way as the Applicant’s invention, Ortuno meets “and wherein the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism can be applied to and removed from the interior surface of the cabinet door without damaging the door” as claimed.
Ortuno does not disclose the claim limitations “wherein the protective coating layer has a thickness ranging between about 1 mm to about 10 mm”, in that Ortuno remains silent as to the thickness of film 13.
The Office Action dated 03 February 2025 stated:
OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that it is known in the art to have material thickness between 1 and 10 mm.
The applicant did not traverse the assertion of official notice. As such, the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.03.
Ortuno’s film 13 appears thin, and 1 to 10 mm is a thin material thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the film 13 to have a thickness between about 1 mm to about 10 mm, as an obvious embodiment of the film 13.
With respect to claim 4: Ortuno does not disclose the film 13 made of polymer, and therefore does not meet “prepared from a polymer” as claimed.
The Office Action dated 03 February 2025 stated:
OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that it is known in the art to have a film made of polymer and/or for plastic to be made of a polymer.
The applicant did not traverse the assertion of official notice. As such, the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form film 13 from polymer and/or a plastic polymer, as an obvious way to provide said film 13, using known material.
With respect to claim 7: In Ortuno Fig. 4, back side 14 covers the entire casing 2 facing side of the accessory. In the modification, it is obvious for the back side 14 of the film 13 to cover the entire casing 2 facing side of the accessory. This meets “wherein the protective coating layer covers substantially the entire cabinet-door facing surface of the accessory” as claimed.
With respect to claim 8: The front side 13a and the back side 14 of the film 13 comprise “at least two separated sections of protective coating” as claimed.
With respect to claim 9: Ortuno does not disclose the claim limitations “wherein the removable cabinet accessory configured for application to an external surface of a cabinet door has a weight ranging from about 5 oz to about 10.5 oz”, in that Ortuno remains silent as to the weight of the accessory.
The Office Action dated 03 February 2025 stated:
OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that it is known in the art to have a removable accessory weight 5 to 10.5 oz.
The applicant did not traverse the assertion of official notice. As such, the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ortuno’s accessory to weigh between 5 and 10.5 oz, depending on the size thereof.
With respect to claim 10: Ortuno does not disclose the accessory is prepared from wood.
Ortuno [0018] discloses the piece of furniture 1 has a wooden sideboard, and the casing 2 forms a part of this sideboard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify at least some of the accessory (e.g., frame 8) to be made from wood, because Ortuno is aware of constructing items from wood.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2015 004 789 U1 (Ortuno) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2020/0063412 A1 (Miller).
With respect to claim 5: The Applicant’s claimed “magnetic accessory attachment mechanism” is the disclosed attachment mechanism 103a-d, which is applied to the interior surface 105 of the door 102 with an adhesive. Based on the Applicant, applying magnets with an adhesive results in being able to be applied and removed without the use of tools.
Ortuno’s second magnets 3 are applied by gluing (30) with an adhesive. In the same way as the Applicant’s invention, Ortuno meets “and wherein the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism can be applied to and removed from the interior surface of the cabinet door without the use of tools” as claimed.
Ortuno does not disclose the protective coating layer is prepared from a fabric.
Miller [0033] and Fig. 2 disclose the use of felt pads 75 that prevent ratting and act as a buffer between a panel assembly 2 and sink basin 10. The felt pads are “prepared from a fabric” as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ortuno’s accessory to have Miller’s felt pads 75 on the inner side thereof, in order to prevent rattling and act as a buffer between the accessory and the structure to which it is mounted - similarly to Miller’s invention.
As explained in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) made above in this Office action, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. As written, it is unclear if the claim is to the consumer product set system (the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory) only, or if the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, interior surface, and/or exterior surface is/are positively claimed.
These rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 is/are made under the interpretation that the claimed invention is to the consumer product set system (the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory) and the existing cabinet, door, and interior/exterior surfaces of the door. These rejections is/are made under the interpretation that the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, interior surface, and exterior surface are part of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, and 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2018-0002353 U (Kim) in view of DE 20 2015 004 789 U1 (Ortuno).
With respect to claim 1: Kim discloses a consumer product set system for retrofitting (“remodeling” @ pages 1-4) onto an existing cabinet (“built-in cabinets” and “built-in cabinet” @ page 2; “built-in cabinet” and “a cabinet” @ page 3; “existing” as claimed in that the furniture was initially purchased/installed, and damaged over a period of time during the course of use @ pages 1-2; “door remodeling” @ page 2; “remodeling…furniture that has been used for a long period of time” @ page 4), the existing cabinet including a cabinet door (body 110, disclosed as “a door portion of an opening and closing furniture such as…a cabinet” @ page 3 of the translation), the cabinet door having a surface called the interior surface (Fig. 1: surface of body 110 opposite the surface having magnets 131 thereon) and a surface called the exterior surface (Fig. 1: surface of body 110 having magnets 131 thereon), the consumer product set comprising: at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (magnets 131) that can be applied to and removed from the cabinet door; a magnetic removable cabinet accessory (decorative panel 120 and magnets 132) that can be applied to and removed from the exterior surface of the cabinet door without the use of tools (attraction between magnets 131, 132 does not require the use of tools) by virtue of having a magnetic coupling system (magnets 132) to couple the removable cabinet accessory to the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (magnets 132 magnetically couple to magnets 131) to apply the magnetic cabinet accessory to the exterior surface of the cabinet door.
Kim does not show the “cabinet” having body 110 as the door thereof, as disclosed at pages 2-3 of the translation. Kim does not disclose said cabinet meets “the existing cabinet including a cabinet body defining an interior of the cabinet” as claimed. Kim does not disclose the interior surface of body 110 facing the interior of the cabinet as claimed, and/or the exterior surface of body 110 facing the exterior of the cabinet as claimed.
Kim Fig. 2 shows a cabinet having a cabinet body defining an interior of the cabinet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the “cabinet” having the body 110 as the door thereof to have a cabinet body defining an interior of the cabinet, in order to store items in a cabinet in a conventional manner.
Body 110 as a door and mounted on the cabinet body meets the interior surface of body 110 facing the interior of the cabinet as claimed, and the exterior surface of body 110 facing the exterior of the cabinet as claimed – so that the panel 120 is visible/facing the exterior as taught by Kim.
Kim does not disclose magnets 131 “can be applied to and removed from the interior surface of the cabinet door by virtue of having an adhesive coating on one surface of the magnet” as claimed.
Kim does not disclose “wherein the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory are arranged such that, with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism applied to the interior surface of the cabinet door and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory applied to the exterior surface of the cabinet door in registration with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism, a magnetic force of the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is transmitted through the cabinet door to hold the magnetic removable cabinet accessory to the cabinet door” as claimed.
Kim page 4 discloses selecting different types of magnets based, at least in part, by the magnetic strength (force) required for the particular application or need.
Ortuno Figs. 6-7 shows ferromagnetic material and/or second magnets 3 that are coupled to the interior surface of a casing 2 of a piece of furniture 1. The ferromagnetic material and/or second magnets 3 attract first magnets 4 in the housing 8 of a detachable and decorative accessory (Ortuno [0017]-[0028]). The ferromagnetic material and/or second magnets 3 are “attached superficially to the casing (2) to the piece of furniture (1) by means of surface fastenings such as gluing (30) with adhesive” (Ortuno [0024]). The casing (2) is made of a material permeable to magnetic attraction (Ortuno [0026]).
The embodiment of Ortuno Figs. 6-7 is an alternative to having the ferromagnetic material and/or second magnets 3 on the exterior side of the casing 2 (Ortuno Figs. 2 and 5).
Ortuno shows it is known in the art to have magnets 3 mounted on an interior surface of a furniture structure via gluing (30) with an adhesive coating, such that a magnetic force of the magnets 3 is transmitted through the furniture structure to hold a magnetic removable cabinet accessory on the exterior of the furniture structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s magnets 131 to be mounted the interior surface of body 110 with Ortuno’s gluing (30) with adhesive, because Ortuno shows it is known in the art to have such magnetic attraction means glued/adhered on the interior surface, as an alternative to mounting on the exterior surface.
Kim page 4 makes obvious selecting a magnet type that is strong enough for this application.
This is desirable to have the magnets 131 hidden from view. If/when decorative panel 120 is removed, the magnets 131 would not be visible on the exterior of the cabinet.
Further, moving the magnets 131 to the interior surface of body 110 reduces the gap between the mounted panel 120 and the body 110. For a cabinet in an area of limited space and/or with other furniture items adjacent thereto, this reduces how much the cabinet is enlarged with the addition of the panel 120.
With respect to claim 2: Kim does not disclose “the system further comprising: a protective coating layer configured to prevent damage to the exterior surface of the cabinet door, wherein the system is damage free” as claimed.
The embodiment of Ortuno Fig. 5 includes a film 13 having a decorated or undecorated front side 13a and a back side 14. The back side 14 is “configured to prevent damage” by virtue of being located over the magnets 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add film 13, including the back side 14 thereof, to Kim’s invention, in order to cover the magnets 132 similarly to what is shown in Ortuno Fig. 5.
The back side 14 of the film 13 meets “the system further comprising: a protective coating layer configured to prevent damage to the exterior surface of the cabinet door, wherein the system is damage free” as claimed.
With respect to claim 3: The Applicant’s claimed “magnetic accessory attachment mechanism” is the disclosed attachment mechanism 103a-d, which is applied to the interior surface 105 of the door 102 with an adhesive. Based on the Applicant, applying magnets with an adhesive results in being able to be applied and removed without damaging the door.
Ortuno’s second magnets 3 are applied by gluing (30) with an adhesive. In the same way as the Applicant’s invention, Ortuno meets “and wherein the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism can be applied to and removed from the interior surface of the cabinet door without damaging the door” as claimed.
Ortuno does not disclose the claim limitations “wherein the protective coating layer has a thickness ranging between about 1 mm to about 10 mm”, in that Ortuno remains silent as to the thickness of film 13.
The Office Action dated 03 February 2025 stated:
OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that it is known in the art to have material thickness between 1 and 10 mm.
The applicant did not traverse the assertion of official notice. As such, the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.03.
Ortuno’s film 13 appears thin, and 1 to 10 mm is a thin material thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the film 13 to have a thickness between about 1 mm to about 10 mm, as an obvious embodiment of the film 13.
With respect to claim 4: Kim Fig. 1 shows magnets 131 “not received in a drilled hole or divot” in body 110. Ortuno Fig. 7 shows magnets 3 “not received in a drilled hole or divot”. The relocated magnets 131 in Kim, as modified, meet “and wherein the magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is not received in a drilled hole or divot in the cabinet door” as claimed.
Ortuno does not disclose the film 13 made of polymer, and therefore does not meet “prepared from a polymer” as claimed.
Kim [0020] discloses a plastic surface 20.
The Office Action dated 03 February 2025 stated:
OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that it is known in the art to have a film made of polymer and/or for plastic to be made of a polymer.
The applicant did not traverse the assertion of official notice. As such, the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form film 13 from polymer and/or a plastic polymer, as an obvious way to provide said film 13, using known material.
With respect to claim 6: Kim discloses wherein the interior surface of the cabinet door and the exterior surface of the cabinet door are separated by substantially the entire thickness of the cabinet door (Kim Fig. 1(b): the interior and exterior surface of body 110 are separated by the entire thickness of body 110).
With respect to claim 7: In Ortuno Fig. 4, back side 14 covers the entire casing 2 facing side of the accessory. In the modification, it is obvious for the back side 14 of the film 13 to cover the entire body 110 facing side of the panel 120. This meets “wherein the protective coating layer covers substantially the entire cabinet-door facing surface of the accessory” as claimed.
With respect to claim 8: The front side 13a and the back side 14 of the film 13 comprise “at least two separated sections of protective coating” as claimed.
With respect to claim 9: Kim does not disclose the claim limitations “wherein the removable cabinet accessory configured for application to an external surface of a cabinet door has a weight ranging from about 5 oz to about 10.5 oz”, in that Kim remains silent as to the weight of panel 120.
The Office Action dated 03 February 2025 stated:
OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that it is known in the art to have a removable accessory weight 5 to 10.5 oz.
The applicant did not traverse the assertion of official notice. As such, the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify panel 120 to weigh between 5 and 10.5 oz, depending on the size thereof.
With respect to claim 10: Page 3 of Kim discloses panel 120 made from wood.
With respect to claim 21: By making the same combinations/modifications as in the rejections above, Kim in view of Ortuno meets an assembly comprising: a cabinet (Kim’s cabinet/built-in cabinet) including a cabinet body defining an interior of the cabinet (similarly to the structure Kim Fig. 2) and a cabinet door (Kim’s modified body 110, disclosed as a door of the cabinet @ page 3 of Kim), the cabinet door having a surface facing the interior of the cabinet called an interior surface (Kim Fig. 1(b): surface of body 110 opposite to the surface facing panel 120) and a surface facing the exterior of the cabinet called an exterior surface (Kim Fig. 1(b): surface of body 110 facing panel 120); at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (Kim’s modified magnets 131) including a magnet (magnet 131) having an adhesive coating on a surface of the magnet (Ortuno’s gluing (30) with adhesive, as used to secure Kim’s magnets 131 to the interior surface of body 110), the magnet being adhesively attached to the interior surface of the cabinet door (using gluing (30) with adhesive); and a magnetic removable cabinet accessory (Kim’s panel 120 and magnets 132) disposed on the exterior surface of the cabinet door, the magnetic removable cabinet accessory including a magnetic coupling system (magnets 132) magnetically coupled through the cabinet door to the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (similarly to the configuration of Ortuno Fig. 7); wherein a magnetic force of the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is transmitted through the cabinet door to hold the magnetic removable cabinet accessory on the exterior surface of the cabinet door (similarly to the configuration of Ortuno Fig. 7 and/or using Kim’s disclosure of selecting a magnet with appropriate strength for a given application).
With respect to claim 22: Kim’s panel 120 is separable from the body 110 by using enough force to overcome the magnetic attraction of the magnets 131, 132. This meets “the magnetic removable cabinet accessory…removable from the cabinet door without the use of tools” as claimed.
The Applicant’s claimed “magnetic accessory attachment mechanism” is the disclosed attachment mechanism 103a-d, which is applied to the interior surface 105 of the door 102 with an adhesive. Based on the Applicant, applying magnets with an adhesive results in being able to be applied and removed without the use of tools.
Kim’s modified magnets 131 are applied by gluing (30) with an adhesive. In the same way as the Applicant’s invention, the modification of Kim meets “the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism…removable from the cabinet door without the use of tools” as claimed.
With respect to claim 23: Kim’s panel 120 is separable from the body 110 by using enough force to overcome the magnetic attraction of the magnets 131, 132. This meets “the magnetic removable cabinet accessory…removable from the cabinet door without damaging the cabinet door” as claimed.
The Applicant’s claimed “magnetic accessory attachment mechanism” is the disclosed attachment mechanism 103a-d, which is applied to the interior surface 105 of the door 102 with an adhesive. Based on the Applicant, applying magnets with an adhesive results in being able to be applied and removed without damaging the door.
Kim’s modified magnets 131 are applied by gluing (30) with an adhesive. In the same way as the Applicant’s invention, the modification of Kim meets “the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism…removable from the cabinet door without damaging the door” as claimed.
With respect to claim 24: Kim Fig. 1 shows magnets 131 “not received in a drilled hole or divot” in body 110. Ortuno Fig. 7 shows magnets 3 “not received in a drilled hole or divot”. The relocated magnets 131 in Kim, as modified, meet “wherein the magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is not received in a drilled hole or divot in the cabinet door” as claimed.
With respect to claim 25: Kim discloses wherein the interior surface of the cabinet door and the exterior surface of the cabinet door are separated by substantially the entire thickness of the cabinet door (Kim Fig. 1(b): the interior and exterior surface of body 110 are separated by the entire thickness of body 110).
With respect to claim 26: By making the same combinations/modifications as in the rejections above, Kim in view of Ortuno meets a method of retrofitting an existing cabinet (Kim’s “cabinet”/”built-in cabinet”), the cabinet including a cabinet body defining an interior of the cabinet (similarly to the structure in Kim Fig. 2) and a cabinet door (Kim’s modified body 110, disclosed as a door of the cabinet @ page 3 of Kim), the cabinet door having an interior surface (Kim Fig. 1(b): surface of body 110 opposite to the surface facing panel 120) facing the interior of the cabinet and an exterior surface (Kim Fig. 1(b): surface of body 110 facing panel 120) facing the exterior of the cabinet, the method comprising: providing a consumer product set including at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (Kim’s modified magnets 131) having an adhesive coating on a surface of the magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (gluing (30) by adhesive, as used to attach Kim’s magnets 131) and a magnetic removable cabinet accessory (Kim’s panel 120 and magnets 132) including a magnetic coupling system (magnets 132); adhering the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism to the interior surface of the cabinet door by pressing the adhesive coating against the interior surface of the cabinet door (taking the magnets 131 off the front of Kim’s body 110, applying gluing (30) with adhesive thereon, and then mounting the magnets 131 to the interior surface of body 110 using the gluing (30) with adhesive); applying the magnetic removable cabinet accessory to the exterior surface of the cabinet door in registration with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism such that a magnetic force of the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is transmitted through the cabinet door to hold the magnetic removable cabinet accessory on the exterior surface of the cabinet door (mounting panel 120 to body 110 such that magnets 131, 132 are attracted to each other, using magnets of an appropriate strength for the application as disclosed by Kim); removing the magnetic removable cabinet accessory from the exterior surface of the cabinet door (Kim page 4: “decorative panel 120 can be freely detached and attached”; panel 120 disclosed as detached/detachable throughout the translation of Kim, so that panels 120 of various patterns/textures/colors can be applied).
Kim, as modified, does not disclose “and removing the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism from the interior surface of the cabinet door” as claimed.
Kim page 4 discloses selecting various magnets, depending on the strength thereof, for a given application. Kim pages 1-4 disclose that panels 120 having various patterns/textures/colors can be applied to the body 110.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify body 110 by removing the magnets 131 from the interior surface of the body 110, in order to apply stronger and different magnets to the interior surface of body 110 – as needed for a panel 120 that weighs more.
With respect to claim 27: Kim’s panel 120 is separable from the body 110 by using enough force to overcome the magnetic attraction of the magnets 131, 132. This meets “removing the damage-free retrofit system including the magnetic removable cabinet accessory…from the cabinet door without damaging the cabinet door” as claimed.
The Applicant’s claimed “magnetic accessory attachment mechanism” is the disclosed attachment mechanism 103a-d, which is applied to the interior surface 105 of the door 102 with an adhesive. Based on the Applicant, applying magnets with an adhesive results in being able to be applied and removed without damaging the door.
Kim’s modified magnets 131 are applied by gluing (30) with an adhesive. In the same way as the Applicant’s invention, the modification of Kim meets “removing…the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism…from the cabinet door without damaging the door” as claimed.
With respect to claim 28: Kim’s panel 120 is separable from the body 110 by using enough force to overcome the magnetic attraction of the magnets 131, 132. This meets “removing the damage-free retrofit system including the magnetic removable cabinet accessory…from the cabinet door without tools” as claimed.
The Applicant’s claimed “magnetic accessory attachment mechanism” is the disclosed attachment mechanism 103a-d, which is applied to the interior surface 105 of the door 102 with an adhesive. Based on the Applicant, applying magnets with an adhesive results in being able to be applied and removed without tools.
Kim’s modified magnets 131 are applied by gluing (30) with an adhesive. In the same way as the Applicant’s invention, the modification of Kim meets “removing…the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism…from the cabinet door without tools” as claimed.
With respect to claim 29: Kim Fig. 1 shows magnets 131 “not received in a drilled hole or divot” in body 110. Ortuno Fig. 7 shows magnets 3 “not received in a drilled hole or divot”. The relocated magnets 131 in Kim, as modified, meet “wherein the magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is not received in a drilled hole or divot in the cabinet door” as claimed.
With respect to claim 30: Kim discloses wherein the interior surface of the cabinet door and the exterior surface of the cabinet door are separated by substantially the entire thickness of the cabinet door (Kim Fig. 1(b): the interior and exterior surface of body 110 are separated by the entire thickness of body 110).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2018-0002353 U (Kim) in view of DE 20 2015 004 789 U1 (Ortuno) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2020/0063412 A1 (Miller).
With respect to claim 5: The Applicant’s claimed “magnetic accessory attachment mechanism” is the disclosed attachment mechanism 103a-d, which is applied to the interior surface 105 of the door 102 with an adhesive. Based on the Applicant, applying magnets with an adhesive results in being able to be applied and removed without the use of tools.
Ortuno’s second magnets 3 are applied by gluing (30) with an adhesive. In the same way as the Applicant’s invention, the modification of Kim meets “and wherein the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism can be applied to and removed from the interior surface of the cabinet door without the use of tools” as claimed.
Kim does not disclose the protective coating layer is prepared from a fabric.
Miller [0033] and Fig. 2 disclose the use of felt pads 75 that prevent ratting and act as a buffer between a panel assembly 2 and sink basin 10. The felt pads are “prepared from a fabric” as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s panel 120 to have Miller’s felt pads 75 on the inner side thereof, in order to prevent rattling and act as a buffer between Kim’s panel 120 and body 110 similarly to Miller’s invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, and 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2018-0002353 U (Kim) in view of DE 20 2015 004 789 U1 (Ortuno) and US 9,345,321 B1 (Yennie).
With respect to claim 1: Kim discloses a consumer product set system for retrofitting (“remodeling” @ pages 1-4) onto an existing cabinet (“built-in cabinets” and “built-in cabinet” @ page 2; “built-in cabinet” and “a cabinet” @ page 3; “existing” as claimed in that the furniture was initially purchased/installed, and damaged over a period of time during the course of use @ pages 1-2; “door remodeling” @ page 2; “remodeling…furniture that has been used for a long period of time” @ page 4), the existing cabinet including a cabinet door (body 110, disclosed as “a door portion of an opening and closing furniture such as…a cabinet” @ page 3 of the translation), the cabinet door having a surface called the interior surface (Fig. 1: surface of body 110 opposite the surface having magnets 131 thereon) and a surface called the exterior surface (Fig. 1: surface of body 110 having magnets 131 thereon), the consumer product set comprising: at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (magnets 131) that can be applied to and removed from the cabinet door; a magnetic removable cabinet accessory (decorative panel 120 and magnets 132) that can be applied to and removed from the exterior surface of the cabinet door without the use of tools (attraction between magnets 131, 132 does not require the use of tools) by virtue of having a magnetic coupling system (magnets 132) to couple the removable cabinet accessory to the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (magnets 132 magnetically couple to magnets 131) to apply the magnetic cabinet accessory to the exterior surface of the cabinet door.
Kim does not show the “cabinet” having body 110 as the door thereof, as disclosed at pages 2-3 of the translation. Kim does not disclose said cabinet meets “the existing cabinet including a cabinet body defining an interior of the cabinet” as claimed. Kim does not disclose the interior surface of body 110 facing the interior of the cabinet as claimed, and/or the exterior surface of body 110 facing the exterior of the cabinet as claimed.
Kim Fig. 2 shows a cabinet having a cabinet body defining an interior of the cabinet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the “cabinet” having body 110 as the door thereof to have a cabinet body defining an interior of the cabinet, in order to store items in a cabinet in a conventional manner.
Body 110 as a door and mounted on the cabinet body meets the interior surface of body 110 facing the interior of the cabinet as claimed, and the exterior surface of body 110 facing the exterior of the cabinet as claimed.
Kim does not disclose magnets 131 “can be applied to and removed from the interior surface of the cabinet door by virtue of having an adhesive coating on one surface of the magnet” as claimed.
Kim does not disclose “wherein the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory are arranged such that, with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism applied to the interior surface of the cabinet door and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory applied to the exterior surface of the cabinet door in registration with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism, a magnetic force of the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is transmitted through the cabinet door to hold the magnetic removable cabinet accessory to the cabinet door” as claimed.
Kim page 4 discloses selecting different types of magnets based, at least in part, by the magnetic strength (force) required for the particular application or need.
Ortuno Figs. 6-7 shows ferromagnetic material and/or second magnets 3 that are coupled to the interior surface of a casing 2 of a piece of furniture 1. The ferromagnetic material and/or second magnets 3 attract first magnets 4 in the housing 8 of a detachable and decorative accessory (Ortuno [0017]-[0028]). The ferromagnetic material and/or second magnets 3 are “attached superficially to the casing (2) to the piece of furniture (1) by means of surface fastenings such as gluing (30) with adhesive” (Ortuno [0024]).
The embodiment of Ortuno Figs. 6-7 is an alternative to having the ferromagnetic material and/or second magnets 3 on the exterior side of the casing 2 (Ortuno Figs. 2 and 5).
Ortuno shows it is known in the art to have magnets 3 mounted on an interior surface of a furniture structure via gluing (30) with an adhesive coating, such that a magnetic force of the magnets 3 is transmitted through the furniture structure to hold a magnetic removable cabinet accessory on the exterior of the furniture structure.
Yennie discloses that 3M Command Strips ® are known in the furniture art as a non-damaging and removable double-sided adhesive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s magnets 131 to be mounted the interior surface of body 110 with 3M Command Strips, because Ortuno shows it is known in the art to have such magnetic attraction means glued/adhered on the interior surface, as an alternative to mounting on the exterior surface and because the 3M Command Strips are known damage-free and removable adhesives in the art.
Kim page 4 makes obvious selecting a magnet type that is strong enough for this application.
This is desirable to have the magnets 131 hidden from view. If/when decorative panel 120 is removed, the magnets 131 would not be visible on the exterior of the cabinet.
Further, moving the magnets 131 to the interior surface of body 110 reduces the gap between the mounted panel 120 and the body 110. For a cabinet in an area of limited space and/or with other furniture items adjacent thereto, this reduces how much the cabinet is enlarged with the addition of the panel 120.
With respect to claim 2: Kim, as modified, meets wherein the system is damage free (panel 120 can be removed from body 110 without damage; the 3M Command Strips can be used to detach magnets 131 without damage).
Kim does not disclose “the system further comprising: a protective coating layer configured to prevent damage to the exterior surface of the cabinet door” as claimed.
The embodiment of Ortuno Fig. 5 includes a film 13 having a decorated or undecorated front side 13a and a back side 14. The back side 14 is “configured to prevent damage” by virtue of being located over the magnets 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add film 13, including the back side 14 thereof, to Kim’s invention, in order to cover the magnets 132 similarly to what is shown in Ortuno Fig. 5.
The back side 14 of the film 13 meets “the system further comprising: a protective coating layer configured to prevent damage to the exterior surface of the cabinet door, wherein the system is damage free” as claimed.
With respect to claim 3: As modified, magnets 131 are mounted to body 110 using 3M Command Strips. This meets “and wherein the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism can be applied to and removed from the interior surface of the cabinet door without damaging the door” as claimed.
Ortuno does not disclose the claim limitations “wherein the protective coating layer has a thickness ranging between about 1 mm to about 10 mm”, in that Ortuno remains silent as to the thickness of film 13.
The Office Action dated 03 February 2025 stated:
OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that it is known in the art to have material thickness between 1 and 10 mm.
The applicant did not traverse the assertion of official notice. As such, the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.03.
Ortuno’s film 13 appears thin, and 1 to 10 mm is a thin material thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the film 13 to have a thickness between about 1 mm to about 10 mm, as an obvious embodiment of the film 13.
With respect to claim 4: Kim Fig. 1 shows magnets 131 “not received in a drilled hole or divot” in body 110. Ortuno Fig. 7 shows magnets 3 “not received in a drilled hole or divot”. The relocated magnets 131 in Kim, as modified, meet “and wherein the magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is not received in a drilled hole or divot in the cabinet door” as claimed.
Ortuno does not disclose the film 13 made of polymer, and therefore does not meet “prepared from a polymer” as claimed.
Kim [0020] discloses a plastic surface 20.
The Office Action dated 03 February 2025 stated:
OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that it is known in the art to have a film made of polymer and/or for plastic to be made of a polymer.
The applicant did not traverse the assertion of official notice. As such, the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form film 13 from polymer and/or a plastic polymer, as an obvious way to provide said film 13, using known material.
With respect to claim 6: Kim discloses wherein the interior surface of the cabinet door and the exterior surface of the cabinet door are separated by substantially the entire thickness of the cabinet door (Kim Fig. 1(b): the interior and exterior surface of body 110 are separated by the entire thickness of body 110).
With respect to claim 7: In Ortuno Fig. 4, back side 14 covers the entire casing 2 facing side of the accessory. In the modification, it is obvious for the back side 14 of the film 13 to cover the entire body 110 facing side of the panel 120. This meets “wherein the protective coating layer covers substantially the entire cabinet-door facing surface of the accessory” as claimed.
With respect to claim 8: The front side 13a and the back side 14 of the film 13 comprise “at least two separated sections of protective coating” as claimed.
With respect to claim 9: Kim does not disclose the claim limitations “wherein the removable cabinet accessory configured for application to an external surface of a cabinet door has a weight ranging from about 5 oz to about 10.5 oz”, in that Kim remains silent as to the weight of panel 120.
The Office Action dated 03 February 2025 stated:
OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that it is known in the art to have a removable accessory weight 5 to 10.5 oz.
The applicant did not traverse the assertion of official notice. As such, the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify panel 120 to weigh between 5 and 10.5 oz, depending on the size thereof.
With respect to claim 10: Page 3 of Kim discloses panel 120 made from wood.
With respect to claim 21: By making the same combinations/modifications as in the rejections above, Kim in view of Ortuno meets an assembly comprising: a cabinet (Kim’s cabinet/built-in cabinet) including a cabinet body defining an interior of the cabinet (similarly to the structure Kim Fig. 2) and a cabinet door (Kim’s modified body 110, disclosed as a door of the cabinet @ page 3 of Kim), the cabinet door having a surface facing the interior of the cabinet called an interior surface (Kim Fig. 1(b): surface of body 110 opposite to the surface facing panel 120) and a surface facing the exterior of the cabinet called an exterior surface (Kim Fig. 1(b): surface of body 110 facing panel 120); at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (Kim’s modified magnets 131) including a magnet (magnet 131) having an adhesive coating on a surface of the magnet (3M Command Strips, as used to secure Kim’s magnets 131 to the interior surface of body 110), the magnet being adhesively attached to the interior surface of the cabinet door (using gluing (30) with adhesive); and a magnetic removable cabinet accessory (Kim’s panel 120 and magnets 132) disposed on the exterior surface of the cabinet door, the magnetic removable cabinet accessory including a magnetic coupling system (magnets 132) magnetically coupled through the cabinet door to the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (similarly to the configuration of Ortuno Fig. 7); wherein a magnetic force of the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is transmitted through the cabinet door to hold the magnetic removable cabinet accessory on the exterior surface of the cabinet door (similarly to the configuration of Ortuno Fig. 7 and/or using Kim’s disclosure of selecting a magnet with appropriate strength for a given application).
With respect to claim 22: Kim’s panel 120 is separable from the body 110 by using enough force to overcome the magnetic attraction of the magnets 131, 132. This meets “the magnetic removable cabinet accessory…removable from the cabinet door without the use of tools” as claimed.
Kim’s modified magnets 131 are applied by 3M Command Strips, which are removable without tools. The modification of Kim meets “the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism…removable from the cabinet door without the use of tools” as claimed.
With respect to claim 23: Kim’s panel 120 is separable from the body 110 by using enough force to overcome the magnetic attraction of the magnets 131, 132. This meets “the magnetic removable cabinet accessory…removable from the cabinet door without damaging the cabinet door” as claimed.
Kim’s modified magnets 131 are applied by 3M Command Strips, which are removable without damage. The modification of Kim meets “the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism…removable from the cabinet door without damaging the door” as claimed.
With respect to claim 24: Kim Fig. 1 shows magnets 131 “not received in a drilled hole or divot” in body 110. Ortuno Fig. 7 shows magnets 3 “not received in a drilled hole or divot”. The relocated magnets 131 in Kim, as modified, meet “wherein the magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is not received in a drilled hole or divot in the cabinet door” as claimed.
With respect to claim 25: Kim discloses wherein the interior surface of the cabinet door and the exterior surface of the cabinet door are separated by substantially the entire thickness of the cabinet door (Kim Fig. 1(b): the interior and exterior surface of body 110 are separated by the entire thickness of body 110).
With respect to claim 26: By making the same combinations/modifications as in the rejections above, Kim in view of Ortuno meets a method of retrofitting an existing cabinet (Kim’s “cabinet”/”built-in cabinet”), the cabinet including a cabinet body defining an interior of the cabinet (similarly to the structure in Kim Fig. 2) and a cabinet door (Kim’s modified body 110, disclosed as a door of the cabinet @ page 3 of Kim), the cabinet door having an interior surface (Kim Fig. 1(b): surface of body 110 opposite to the surface facing panel 120) facing the interior of the cabinet and an exterior surface (Kim Fig. 1(b): surface of body 110 facing panel 120) facing the exterior of the cabinet, the method comprising: providing a consumer product set including at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (Kim’s modified magnets 131) having an adhesive coating on a surface of the magnetic accessory attachment mechanism (3M Command Strips) and a magnetic removable cabinet accessory (Kim’s panel 120 and magnets 132) including a magnetic coupling system (magnets 132); adhering the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism to the interior surface of the cabinet door by pressing the adhesive coating against the interior surface of the cabinet door (taking the magnets 131 off the front of Kim’s body 110, 3M Command Strips thereon, and then mounting the magnets 131 to the interior surface of body 110 using the 3M Command Strips); applying the magnetic removable cabinet accessory to the exterior surface of the cabinet door in registration with the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism such that a magnetic force of the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is transmitted through the cabinet door to hold the magnetic removable cabinet accessory on the exterior surface of the cabinet door (mounting panel 120 to body 110 such that magnets 131, 132 are attracted to each other, using magnets of an appropriate strength for the application as disclosed by Kim); removing the magnetic removable cabinet accessory from the exterior surface of the cabinet door (Kim page 4: “decorative panel 120 can be freely detached and attached”; panel 120 disclosed as detached/detachable throughout the translation of Kim, so that panels 120 of various patterns/textures/colors can be applied).
Kim, as modified, does not disclose “and removing the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism from the interior surface of the cabinet door” as claimed.
Kim page 4 discloses selecting various magnets, depending on the strength thereof, for a given application. Kim pages 1-4 disclose that panels 120 having various patterns/textures/colors can be applied to the body 110.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify body 110 by removing the magnets 131 from the interior surface of the body 110 (by releasing the 3M Command Strips according to their normal operation), in order to apply stronger and different magnets to the interior surface of body 110 – as needed for a panel 120 that weighs more.
With respect to claim 27: Kim’s panel 120 is separable from the body 110 by using enough force to overcome the magnetic attraction of the magnets 131, 132. This meets “removing the damage-free retrofit system including the magnetic removable cabinet accessory…from the cabinet door without damaging the cabinet door” as claimed.
Kim’s modified magnets 131 are applied 3M Command Strips, which are removable without damage. The modification of Kim meets “removing…the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism…from the cabinet door without damaging the door” as claimed.
With respect to claim 28: Kim’s panel 120 is separable from the body 110 by using enough force to overcome the magnetic attraction of the magnets 131, 132. This meets “removing the damage-free retrofit system including the magnetic removable cabinet accessory…from the cabinet door without tools” as claimed.
Kim’s modified magnets 131 are applied by 3M Command Strips, which are removable without tools. In the same way as the Applicant’s invention, the modification of Kim meets “removing…the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism…from the cabinet door without tools” as claimed.
With respect to claim 29: Kim Fig. 1 shows magnets 131 “not received in a drilled hole or divot” in body 110. Ortuno Fig. 7 shows magnets 3 “not received in a drilled hole or divot”. The relocated magnets 131 in Kim, as modified, meet “wherein the magnetic accessory attachment mechanism is not received in a drilled hole or divot in the cabinet door” as claimed.
With respect to claim 30: Kim discloses wherein the interior surface of the cabinet door and the exterior surface of the cabinet door are separated by substantially the entire thickness of the cabinet door (Kim Fig. 1(b): the interior and exterior surface of body 110 are separated by the entire thickness of body 110).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2018-0002353 U (Kim) in view of DE 20 2015 004 789 U1 (Ortuno) and US 9,345,321 B1 (Yennie) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2020/0063412 A1 (Miller).
With respect to claim 5: The modification of Kim meets “and wherein the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism can be applied to and removed from the interior surface of the cabinet door without the use of tools” as claimed – due to the 3M Command Strips.
Kim does not disclose the protective coating layer is prepared from a fabric.
Miller [0033] and Fig. 2 disclose the use of felt pads 75 that prevent ratting and act as a buffer between a panel assembly 2 and sink basin 10. The felt pads are “prepared from a fabric” as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s panel 120 to have Miller’s felt pads 75 on the inner side thereof, in order to prevent rattling and act as a buffer between Kim’s panel 120 and body 110 similarly to Miller’s invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) made in the previous Office action is withdrawn because claim 20 is now cancelled. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) made in the previous Office action is not withdrawn because the Applicant’s arguments related thereto are persuasive.
The Applicant’s remarks related to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and “configured to” language in claim 1 are moot, because claim 1 no longer uses “configured to”.
The Applicant’s remarks regarding Ortuno and amended claim 1 are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that the previous Office action takes the position that Ortuno’s magnets 3 are embedded or coupled within the casing 2 of an article of furniture, and that embedded reads over “on”. That is not a position ever taken in an Office action. That is the Applicant’s repeated mischaracterization of the Office actions.
The Office actions, including this one, have taken the position that magnets 3 are on the interior surface of casing 2 in Ortuno Fig. 7. The Applicant has taken the position that magnets 3 are embedded in casing 2 in Ortuno Fig. 7, and then repeatedly falsely accuses the examiner of taking the position that “embedded” and “on” are the same thing.
The Applicant continuing on about “embedded” is a strawman argument, meant to distract from the simple fact that Ortuno Fig. 7 shows magnets 3 on the interior surface of casing 2.
The definition of “embed” is “to enclose closely in or as if in a matrix”. In Ortuno Fig. 7, casing 2 does not surround magnets 3 as if in a matrix. In Ortuno Fig. 7, magnets 3 are on the interior surface of casing 2. The magnets 3 of Fig. 7 are not embedded in casing 2. The Applicant must have a non-standard definition of “embedded” if the Applicant alleges that magnets 3 are embedded in casing 2 in Ortuno Fig. 7.
In some of the arguments, the Applicant refers to Ortuno’s casing 2 and the arm/body of the chair interchangeably. Casing 2 is a covering, and not the entire arm or body of the chair (Ortuno [0019], [0026]). The magnets 3 being in the arm of the chair is not the same thing as magnets 3 being embedded in casing 2.
Two things can be true at the same time. The magnets 3 are inside the arm of the chair. The magnets 3 are also on the interior surface of casing 2, which forms the exterior portion of the arm of the chair.
The Applicant has been unwilling to admit that casing 2 has an inner and outer surface, even though that is exactly what is shown in Ortuno Fig. 7. It appears that whether or not casing 2 has interior and exterior surfaces in Fig. 7 is an impasse.
As explained in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) made above in this Office action, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. As written, it is unclear if the claim is to the consumer product set system (the at least one magnetic accessory attachment mechanism and the magnetic removable cabinet accessory) only, or if the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, interior surface, and/or exterior surface is/are positively claimed.
If the claim is to the consumer product set only, then what the consumer product set “can be” used for or what it is intended to be “for” makes no patentable distinction between the claimed structure and the structure of the prior art. If this is the case, Ortuno anticipates the claim. If the claim is to the consumer product set only – the magnetic accessory attachment mechanism and the magnetic cabinet accessory only – structure that is not positively recited (e.g., an existing cabinet and cabinet door) makes no distinction over the prior art.
If the Applicant is trying to patent a claim for just magnets and an accessory magnetically attracted thereto, arguing that the prior art lacks an existing cabinet and a door and/or a teaching of retrofitting is not persuasive. There is no magic “configured to”, “can be”, and/or functional language that would require reading the structures of an existing cabinet and a door into a claim for just magnets and an accessory. The Applicant characterizes the capability of being retrofit as a structural feature, but this is not the case. A capability of being retrofit to an existing cabinet isn’t claimed structure because the existing cabinet is not claimed.
If the claim is to the magnets and accessory only, then Ortuno’s casing 2 is irrelevant. The combination of Ortuno’s magnets 3 and “accessory” that has magnets 4 – without the casing 2 and armchair – meets the claimed magnets and accessory. Ortuno does not disclose the magnets 3 and accessory only on a chair – Ortuno discloses attachment to any piece of furniture. What is shown in Ortuno Figs. 6-7 is just one, non-limiting example.
If the claim includes the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, and interior/exterior surfaces of the cabinet door, Ortuno is not held to anticipate the claim – thereby rendering moot the Applicant’s arguments that Ortuno does not anticipate the claim. If the existing cabinet, cabinet body, cabinet door, and interior/exterior surfaces are claimed, Kim in view of Ortuno makes obvious the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Applicant incorrectly alleges that Ortuno does not disclose that magnets can be applied. Ortuno [0024] explicitly discloses applying magnets 3 with gluing (30) via adhesive, among other possible attachment means.
The Applicant repeatedly characterizes Ortuno’s casing 2 as upholstery, even though Ortuno’s disclosure does not state casing 2 is upholstery. The word “upholstery” does not appear in Ortuno’s disclosure. Casing 2 being upholstery is the Applicant’s assumption only.
The Applicant incorrectly alleges that the force of magnets 3 is not transmitted through the furniture. Ortuno [0026] specifically states that casing 2 is permeable to magnetic attraction, and that magnets 3 attract the magnets 4. In Ortuno Fig. 7, the magnetic force between magnets 3 and magnets 4 is transmitted through casing 2 – as explicitly disclosed at [0026].
The Applicant’s remarks related to Ortuno anticipating claim 21 are moot because Ortuno is not, and has never been, held to anticipate claim 21.
The Applicant’s remarks related to Ortuno anticipating claim 26 are moot because Ortuno is not, and has never been, held to anticipate claim 26.
The Applicant’s arguments against Kim in view of Ortuno amount to: Kim doesn’t anticipate the claim, and neither does Ortuno according to Applicant’s remarks related to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In the Applicant’s arguments related to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Applicant repeatedly states “Ortuno does not teach” or “Ortuno fails to teach”. It isn’t a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
The Applicant’s position is one that argues for bodily incorporation. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. states:
When a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. states:
If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. states:
Familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. states:
A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
The Applicant’s argument that Ortuno’s magnets 3 are not on a cabinet door means that the claim is unobvious is not persuasive.
The Applicant’s referral to functional language fails to consider that the functional language in the claims has been considered; the Applicant just incorrectly reads structure into functional language.
Claiming “magnets that can be applied to a door” is not the same scope as claiming “magnets applied to a door”. The former requires magnets having a capability of being applied to door, and the latter requires magnets to actually be applied on a door. The structure of the door is only required in the latter – not the former. This is evaluating and considering the functional language – just not in the way the Applicant desires.
In considering the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Applicant has only argued about what Ortuno Figs. 6-7 shows. The Applicant does not consider what the reference teaches as a whole. The Applicant appears blinded by whether or not magnets 3 are embedded in the chair.
In the rejections of record, it is explained that Ortuno shows magnets 3 being either on the interior (Fig. 7) or the exterior (Figs. 2 and 5) of a casing 2 – as functionally-equivalent alternatives to each other. The casing 2 is permeable by magnetic forces ([0026]). Ortuno teaches using gluing (30) with adhesive to attach magnets 3 to casing 2 ([0024]).
Ortuno shows that one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that having the magnets that attract the decorative item on the inside or the outside of the body to which the decorative item is mounted are functionally-equivalent variants of each other.
Kim teaches retrofitting an existing cabinet door (body 110) with a decorative panel 120, in order to remodel damaged cabinets (translation pages 1-3). The interior surface of panel 120 has magnets 132 that are attracted to magnets 131 that are added to the exterior surface of the existing body (door) 110 of the cabinet (translation pages 1-3 and Figs. 1-2). Kim teaches selecting magnets of various strength depending on the application or need (4th page of translation).
In the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is irrelevant if Ortuno anticipates the claimed magnetic attachment element – because it is not an anticipation rejection. In the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Office takes the position that it is obvious to modify Kim’s magnets 131 to be attached to the interior surface of body 110 using Ortuno’s gluing (30) by adhesive, as an obvious and functionally-equivalent variation of having the magnets 131 on the exterior surface of the body 110.
It is obvious for Kim’s body 110 to be permeable to magnetic forces, similarly to Ortuno’s casing 2.
It is obvious to select magnets 131 of appropriate strength to pass through body 110 and still support the panel 120, based on Kim page 4 teaching selecting magnets of appropriate strength for the application.
The Applicant may continue to assert that Ortuno’s magnet 3 is embedded in the chair, but that is not persuasive against the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Arguing that Ortuno’s chair isn’t a door is not persuasive when a door isn’t claimed.
The Applicant has not cited, nor has an examination of the prior art revealed, why a combination of Kim and Ortuno does not make obvious modifying Kim’s magnets 131 to be on the interior side of body 110 instead of the exterior side of body 110.
Arguing that Ortuno’s chair isn’t a door, and that Ortuno doesn’t teach retrofitting doesn’t overcome Kim’s teaching of a door and Kim’s teaching of retrofitting. In that Ortuno shows that one of ordinary skill in the art can have magnets 3 mounted on the interior of a casing 2 that is permeable to magnetic forces to attract an accessory’s magnets 4 on the exterior side of the casing, it is obvious to relocate Kim’s magnets 131 to be on the interior side of body 110 and still have magnets 131 attract the magnets 132 of panel 120 through the body 110. This is further supported by Kim’s disclosure of selecting magnets of appropriate strength for their application (Kim translation, page 4).
This is simply a different mounting location of the magnets 131 that doesn’t change the functionality of magnetically mounting panel 120 on the exterior of body 110, to thereby change the outward appearance of a damaged cabinet body 110.
Ortuno not teaching retrofitting of magnets 3 doesn’t make that modification to Kim unobvious. Ortuno’s magnets 3 being in an arm of a chair doesn’t make that modification to Kim unobvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637