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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification (39 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. For an example, the “out” plate should be read the “outer” plate. See the claims 1-21 the “outer” plate. Paras. 184-185, 191, 195, 199-200 discloses “planarization region 215…” and Para. 183 discloses “planarization region 125”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1 limitation “a hole-filling member” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
First, "member" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "member" is modified by functional language including “configured to transmit light from the LEDs…”; and third, the "member" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "hole-filling" preceding member describes the function, not the structure of the member.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The preamble of claim 1 is “a refrigerator”. From this preamble, it appears Applicant is seeking protection for the refrigerator. However, in the body of claim 1, there is nothing to claim a refrigerating feature. It appears to claim a cabinet, a door and a display in the door. As recited in claim 1, line 2 “a cabinet defining a storage space configured to store foods in a cooled state”. What is a constitution of the cooled state? Can a room temperature be considered as a cooled state?
Thus, it is unclear what to interpret to the preamble, a general appliance (not necessary a refrigerator) or a refrigerator. If an art discusses a food pantry having a cabinet, a door including a display on the door, it meets the preamble, right? See Applicant’s specification, Para. 3 for defining a refrigerator.
All claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 2017/0089633 A1) hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kim shows a refrigerator (Figure 1 and Para. 9 “a refrigerator”) comprising:
a cabinet (Para. 61 “a cabinet which forms a storage space and a refrigerator door 10 which is installed at the cabinet to open and close the storage space”) defining a storage space configured to store foods in a cooled state; and
a door (10, 20 Figures 1-2, 17) configured to open and close the storage space; wherein the door includes an outer plate (27, Figure 17 and Para. 144 “) that (i) defines a front surface of the door (Figure 2), (ii) is made of a metal material (Para. 97 “the stored stainless steel plate 27”), and (iii) includes a display part (11, 12, Figure 2), the display part including:
a plurality of through holes (see three holes in the bottom picture of Figure 17 for receiving a hole-filling member 22), that are defined in the outer plate,
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs 313, Figure 9) that are configured to transmit light through the plurality of through holes to thereby displaying information, and
a hole-filling member (22, Figures 9 and 17) provided in the plurality of through holes and configured to transmit light from the LEDs therethrough, wherein a front surface of the hole-filling member protrudes beyond a front surface of the outer plate (see the bottom picture of Figure 17, the hole filling member 22 protrudes beyond a top surface of the steel plate 27),
a planarization region (see the region in Figure 17 below, it has a flat surface of outer plate and a flat surface of the coating layer 272) disposed at a rear surface of the outer plate, the planarization region being disposed around each of the plurality of through holes and having a predetermined width (a width between the holes) extending outward from a circumference of each of the plurality of through holes (see Figure 17 below), and
wherein the planarization region includes a surface (a surface of a rear surface coating layer 272) that is worn (cutout to a hole for filling material 22, Figure 17) and flattened (see the surface of the coating layer 272) and that has a different color than a surrounding region of the rear surface of the outer plate that surrounds the planarization region (see Figure 17 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
601
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kim shows that a diameter (D1, Figure 17) of a through hole of the plurality of through holes at the front surface of the outer plate is smaller than a diameter (D2) of the through hole at the rear surface of the outer plate (see the top picture of Figure 17 above).
Regarding claim 5, Kim shows that the circumference of one of the through holes at the rear surface of the outer plate corresponds to an inner circumference of the planarization region (see Figure 17 above that the inner circumference of the planarization region forms the through hole), and a circle around the through hole corresponds to an outer circumference of the planarization region (see the rear surface coating layer 272 having a circle hole, Figure 17 and Para. 199).
Regarding claim 7, Kim shows that a diameter (D2, Figure 17) of one of the through holes at the rear surface of the outer plate is greater than a diameter (D1) of the through hole at the front surface of the outer plate, and a diameter of an outer circumference of the planarization region is greater than the diameter (D2) of the through hole at the rear surface of the outer plate (this is inherent limitation since the planarization region forms the through hole, therefore, any diameter of the planarization region can be greater than the greater than the diameter of the through hole).
Regarding claim 8, Kim shows that a diffusion sheet is attached on the rear surface of the outer plate and configured to shield the plurality of through holes and/or the entire rear surface of the outer plate (Para. 135 “A diffusion sheet 250 may be attached to the rear surface of the front panel 20 in which the first through-holes 21 are formed” and see Kim’s claim 13).
Regarding claim 10, Kim shows that the hole-filling member protrudes beyond the front surface of the outer plate by 50 µm or less (see the last picture of Figure 19, the hole-filling member 22 protrudes beyond the front surface of the outer plate 27 by a thickness of the coating layer 271. In Para. 234 “each of the coating layers 271 and 272 may be formed to have a thickness of 5 μm or more so that the thickness is formed as thin as possible and the stainless steel plate 27 is effectively protected”).
Regarding claim 11, Kim shows that a first protective film (271, Figure 19) is provided at the front surface of the outer plate and configured to shield the entire front surface of the outer plate except for the plurality of through holes (Figure 19).
Regarding claims 12-13, Kim shows that the hole filling member (22, Figure 19) is provided in the through hole of the plurality of through holes and has a height corresponding to the first protective film (271, Figure 19), wherein the hole filling member (22) is provided in the through hole based on the diffusion sheet and the first protective film being attached to the outer plate (see Figure 19 and Para. 135 “A diffusion sheet 250 may be attached to the rear surface of the front panel 20 in which the first through-holes 21 are formed”).
Regarding claim 14, Kim shows that after the hole filling member is provided in the through hole, the first protective film is removed from the outer plate (see Figure 9, after all parts are assembled, there is no protective film or layer 271 that means it is removed from the displaying unit and see Para. 222 “ the stainless steel plate 27 has to be provided in a state of being located at an exact processing position before the coating layer is removed and also to be prevented from being shaken while the coating layers 271 and 272 are removed” and also, see the protect film 274 which can be removed later as discussed in Para. 242.
With regards to the step of removing the first protect film after the hole filling member is provided in the through hole has been considered and given weight inasmuch as it infers end structures in the device or refrigerator. It is a product by process claim. See MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 15, Kim shows that the hole-filling member is provided in the through hole of the plurality of through holes to have a height corresponding to the first protective film (see Figures 17 and 19).
Regarding claims 16-17, Kim shows a second protective film (274, Figure 19) is provided at the front surface of the outer plate and configured to shield the entire front surface of the outer plate including a front surface of the hole-filling member (Figure 19), wherein the second protective film (274) is provided at an operation part defined on the front surface of the outer plate (as it is written, it is unclear what an operation part is and its function, therefore, the protecting film 274 is an operation part; it can protect the displaying unit or the plate 27 as discussed in Para. 241).
Regarding claim 18, Kim shows that the hole-filling member is made of an acrylate-based resin material (Para. 90 “an acrylic resin ink”).
Regarding claims 19 and 21, Kim shows one of the plurality of through holes has a diameter of 0.4 mm to 0.7 mm (Para. 82 “Each of the first through-holes 21 …the front surface groove 21a may be finely formed to have a diameter of 0.15 to 0.3 mm…0.8 to 1.5mm”, therefore, looking at Figure 17, the diameter between the grooves 21a, 21b can be met the claimed range of 0.4 mm to 0.7 mm), wherein the outer plate is made of a stainless steel plate (see the plate 27 is stainless steel as disclosed in Kim’s specification).
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 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 20, Kim shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the outer plate has a thickness of 0.3 mm to 0.7 mm.
The thickness of an outer plate for refrigerators between of 0.3 mm to 0.7 mm is well-known in the art. Examiner takes Official Notice that it has long been known to have a thickness of an outer plate for refrigerators to be of 0.3 mm to 0.7 mm. Examples can be provided if challenged, as they are numerous. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to have a thickness of the outer plate within the claimed range, in order to allow the outer plate can be firmed (Not flexible) and it can be cost effectiveness.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have a thickness of the outer plate of any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges depending on the thickness of the outer plate (proper strength of the door) requirements to be manufactured without wasting material.
Applicant has not challenged this taking of office notice, and thus it is now considered to be admitted prior art as per MPEP. 2144.03. See the last paragraph of the section C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons below:
With regards to “Kim does not describe or suggest that "the planarization region includes a surface that is worn and flattened and that has a different color than a surrounding region of the rear surface of the outer plate that surrounds the planarization region", this argument is acknowledged, but it is persuasive because as this is written, it is unclear whether the surrounding region is formed on the rear outer plate surface or any flat region near the hole. As it is written, also, it is unclear whether the surface “that is worn and flattened” refers to the surface of the surrounding region (the rear outer plate surface) or any surface near the surrounding region or the hole, therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation, the surface is a surface of the rear surface coating layer 272, which is worn or cutout and flattened and meets this limitation.
Setting aside the above issues, if Applicant would like to float any claims amendments to overcome the rejections by the art such as “wherein the planarization region is worn or burred on the rear outer plate surface. Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner any time to float ideas on how to amend the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/14/2026
Prosecution Insights