Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/631,971

IN-MOLD ENCAPSULATION OF MULTIPLE MOLDED PARTS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 01, 2022
Examiner
VAN SELL, NATHAN L
Art Unit
1783
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Covestro LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
450 granted / 841 resolved
-11.5% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
77 currently pending
Career history
918
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
65.3%
+25.3% vs TC avg
§102
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§112
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 841 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment Amendments to the claims, filed on 8/15/25, have been entered in the above-identified application. Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 13, 17, 18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade (US 2017/0274564 A1) in view of Tabeya et al (US 2012/0282424 A1). Wade teaches an encapsulation comprising a substrate having an outside surface; a cured reaction injection molding (RIM) (e.g., a reactive coating composition injected in a mold) coating located on the outside surface of the assembly, wherein the reaction injection molding (RIM) coating composition comprises (i) a first polymeric component including a polymer comprising isocyanate-reactive group(s) (e.g., polyol and/or polycarbonate polyols) and (ii) a second polymeric component including a polyisocyanate e.g., diisocyanates), wherein at least the substrate comprises polycarbonate; wherein the first polymeric component is a polyether polyol or a polycarbonate polyol; wherein the second polymeric component comprises one selected from the group consisting of a diisocyanate, polyisocyanurates, and biuret groups; wherein the reaction injection molding (RIM) coating composition further comprises an internal mold release agent (abstract; para 4, 6, 8, 22, 27, 36, 45). Regarding the limitations “wherein the reaction injection molding (RIM) coating flows 360° around the outside surface of the assembly, such that when the coated assembly is rotated 360° about an axis, the reaction injection molding (RIM) coating may be seen as applied to a portion of the outside surface of the assembly at any degree about that axis;” and “wherein the outside surface of the assembly comprises one or more portions that are not coated and one or more other portions that are coated;” Wade teaches the coating has high quality finish exhibiting good physical properties, such as scratch resistance, stain resistance, and chemical resistance (para 6); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the location of the coating on the molded assembly to provide any of these properties as necessary per the required application. Wade fails to teach the substrate comprises a first plastic molded part; a second plastic molded part, wherein the first molded part and the second molded part fit together to form an assembly; wherein the first plastic molded part and the second plastic molded part comprise one or more notches. However, Wade teaches the use of its coating in applications such as housings of electrical equipment (para 67). Tabeya teaches injection molded articles for use in the housings of electric or electronic devices (para 2-3); wherein the molded articles comprise polycarbonate; and further comprise a first plastic molded part; a second plastic molded part, wherein the first molded part and the second molded part fit together to form an assembly; wherein the first plastic molded part and the second plastic molded part comprise one or more notches (para ; 56-63, 89-90; figs 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the molded article of Tabeya for the substrate of Wade, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). Furthermore, motivation is given by the fact that the electronic housing of the combination of Wade and Tabeya would have a high quality finish exhibiting good physical properties, such as scratch resistance, stain resistance, and chemical resistance. Regarding the limitation “wherein the first plastic molded part and the second plastic molded part are held together solely by the cured coating, and not any other adhesives or structures;” Tabeya teaches it molded part comprises only two parts (para 56-63; figs 1-3); and Wade teaches coating the substrate(s) (i.e., the two parts of Tabeya) (para 2-6); wherein the coating comprises a binder and becomes part of the substrate surface itself (para 24); so the combination of Wade and Tabeya would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the coating that acts as a binder and is part of the surface of the molded parts holding the two parts together (i.e., wherein the first plastic molded part and the second plastic molded part are held together solely by the cured coating, and not any other adhesives or structures), or the coatings form and act as the integral bond between the two molded parts. In addition, Wade suggests the use of multi-cavity molds (para 4-6) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a multi-state mold for forming the parts, coating the parts, and adjoining the parts. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 8/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the limitation “wherein the first plastic molded part and the second plastic molded part are held together solely by the cured coating, and not any other adhesives or structures;” Tabeya teaches it molded part comprises only two parts (para 56-63; figs 1-3); and Wade teaches coating the substrate (i.e., the two parts of Tabeya) (para 2-6); wherein the coating comprises a binder and becomes part of the substrate surface itself (para 24); so the combination of Wade and Tabeya would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the coating that acts as a binder and is part of the surface of the molded parts holding the two parts together (i.e., wherein the first plastic molded part and the second plastic molded part are held together solely by the cured coating, and not any other adhesives or structures), or the coatings form and act as the integral bond between the two molded parts. In addition, Wade suggests the use of multi-cavity molds (para 4-6) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a multi-state mold for forming the parts, coating the parts, and adjoining the parts. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm. 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. NATHAN VAN SELL Primary Examiner Art Unit 1783 /NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 01, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 12, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 24, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 15, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600080
DIGITAL PRINTED 3-D PATTERNED EMBLEM WITH GRAPHICS FOR SOFT GOODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602080
STACKED BODY FOR FLEXIBLE DISPLAY DEVICE, STACKED BODY FOR DISPLAY DEVICE AND FLEXIBLE DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594747
BEZELS FOR FOLDABLE DISPLAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595178
FILM-LIKE GRAPHITE, MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR SAME, AND BATTERY USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596408
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+24.2%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 841 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month