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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are currently pending, of which claims 13-18 and 21-22 are withdrawn. Claim 1 is currently amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/22/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ha et al. (US 2020/0045155).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Ha discloses an electronic device comprising a housing (110) having a front cover glass (110A) defining at least a portion of a front exterior surface (Fig. 1A, 0043) and a rear cover glass (110B) defining at least a portion of a rear exterior surface (Fig. 1B, 0103). The rear glass comprising colored glass (0031) and in an embodiment comprising a glass substrate (1103) having a first portion having a first thickness and a second thickness different from the first thickness, such that the first thickness is less than the second thickness, wherein the first portion varies in thickness from the first thickness to the second thickness and is disposed at an area of the color glass distal from an edge portion of the housing; wherein a portion of the color glass between the first portion and the edge portion of the housing has the first thickness (see annotated figure below); a protective layer (1125; instant attaching layer) disposed under the glass and an optical pattern layer (1120; instant printed layer) disposed under the protective layer such that the protective layer is disposed between the glass substrate and pattern layer and attached to the respective surfaces (Fig. 11, 0107 and 0130).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Ha teaches where the surfaces of the protective layer are parallel (Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ha teaches that the first portion of the glass substrate includes a first boundary defined by the first thickness and a second boundary defined by the second thickness and connected by an inclined connection part (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10, Ha teaches a camera (112) partially covered by the rear cover glass (Fig. 1B, 0033).
Regarding claim 11, Ha teaches a display (101) at least partially covered by the front cover glass (Fig. 1A, 0034).
Regarding claim 12, Ha teaches wherein a surface of the pattern layer faced the glass and the surfaces of the pattern layer are parallel (Fig. 11).
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.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Ha discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Ha does not teach thicknesses for the protective layer, pattern layer, or glass. However, as the present specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been an obvious modification to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the thickness of the protective layer based on routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing operation of the device. Said obvious modifications including, selecting a thickness required for a given end use including having the thickness of the protective layer being different form a thickness of the pattern layer (as claimed in claim 6) and different from the first and second thicknesses of the first portion of the glass (as claimed in claim 7). Such modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2D 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is no patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary the protective layer thickness to create a device with a thickness required for a given end use.
Regarding claim 8, Ha teaches that the glass substrate includes colored glass (0031) and the protective layer may include light transmissive PET (0080). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that colored glass will have a different color from and PET layer.
Regarding claim 9, Ha teaches the glass including a colored layer (0031) and that the pattern layer includes a color (0138), Ha does not expressly teach the colored glass having a different color from the pattern layer, however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” to adjust the color of the components to be different as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ha does not teach or suggest wherein a portion of the color glass between the first portion and the edge portion has the first thickness as Ha merely discloses a structure with a portion having a constant thickness which is the same as the second thickness.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is again noted that as applicant has not defined which edge of the housing the first portion is distal from, there exists an edge e.g., the opposite edge of the housing from which the first portion is distal and, there exists a portion between the first portion and the edge which has the same thickness as the first thickness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Akieda et al. (US 2009/0068404) discloses a decorative casing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781