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 .
Amendments to claims 2, 5-7, 9-10, and 12-13 and the addition of claims 20-21, in the response filed May 15, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 2, 4-15, 17-18, and 20-21 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 2, 4-13, and 20-21 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “a first different between a heat shrinkage of the woven glass fiber plate layer and a heat shrinkage of the cover does not exceed 20% of the heat shrinkage of the woven glass fiber plate layer” and “a second difference between the heat shrinkage of the woven glass fiber plate layer and a heat shrinkage of the ink layer does not exceed 20% of the heat shrinkage of the woven glass fiber plate layer.” However, the conditions, including the temperature, under which the heat shrinkage is determine is not specified. The originally field disclosure teaches “[a] heat shrinkage described in this solution means a percentage of a difference between sizes of a film before and after hot processing, including a longitudinal heat shrinkage and a lateral heat shrinkage. A longitudinal heat shrinkage and a lateral heat shrinkage of a woven glass fiber plate are relatively consistent, and are both described in this solution as a heat shrinkage.” However, the conditions, such as temperature and duration, is never specified for the determination.
Claim 2 further recites the limitation “a total light transmittance of the cover layer and the ink layer does not exceed 0.05%, and the total light transmittance is indicative of visible light affecting a visual effect of the cover layer and the ink layer.” It is unclear how the total light transmittance is determine. While claim include “indicative of visible light” the conditions and methodology for light transmittance is unclear and the scope indefinite. The recitation of “the total light transmittance is indicative of visible light affecting a visual effect of the cover layer and the ink layer” only indicated that the total light transmittance is linked to a visual effect.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the first difference and the second difference prevent the woven texture from being rubbed into the woven layer and the ink layer during hot pressing.” It is unclear if the product is intended to be hot pressed, capable of being hot pressed, or hot pressing is part of the method of forming the product.
Claims 6-7, 9-10, and 12 also claim a heat shrinkage difference and are indefinite as the condition under which the shrinkage is determined has not been defined, including temperature.
Additionally, claim 12 recites the limitation “light transmittance of the adhesive layer does not exceed 0.05%, and the total light transmittance is indicative of visible light affecting a visual effect of the adhesive layer” As with claim 2, the methodology and wave length tested is not specified. It is unclear how the total light transmittance is determine. While claim include “indicative of visible light” the conditions and methodology for light transmittance is unclear and the scope indefinite. The recitation of “the total light transmittance is indicative of visible light affecting a visual effect of the cover layer and the ink layer” only indicated that the total light transmittance is linked to a visual effect.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the heat shrinkage of the woven glass fiber plate layer, the heat shrinkage of the cover layer, or the heat shrinkage of the ink layer is determined based on the hot pressing performed at in 80~150C for 30~60 seconds.” The conditions of determining the heat shrinkage is still not specified. The disclosed hot pressing recites a range of condition that would influence the heat shrinkage. Additionally, the heat shrinkage is not determined for all the recited heat shrinkages, only requiring one. It is unclear if “~” is intended to indicate a range, approximation, or other characteristic.
Similarly, claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the heat shrinkage of the woven glass fiber plate layer, the heat shrinkage of the cover layer, or the heat shrinkage of the ink layer is determined further based on at least one cold pressing at temperature at 0~1 MPa for 20~100 second, or softening process for three-dimensional (3D) thermal bending molding at 180~200C for 10~30 minutes.” It is unclear is the conditions for determining the claimed heat shrinkage. It is unclear if the recited additional processing is in conjunction with the hot pressing for determine one of the claimed heat shrinkage or intended to limit one of the other heat shrinkages. As with claim 20, not all the heat shrinkages are referenced. A range of conditions are recited. It is unclear if “~” is intended to indicate a range, approximation, or other characteristic.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claim(s).
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 2, 6-9, 13, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205890061 to Zhang in view of WO 2019/147915 to Hou and CN 205890061 to Watanabe, optionally Internation Polymer Solutions (“IPS” herewithin).
NOTE: Examiner will use Applicant provided translation of Zhang for prior art mapping of CN 205890061 and the English Machine translation of CN 201410378382.
Regarding claim 2, 6-9, 13, and 20-21, Zhang teaches an electronic product (terminal) comprising a housing (housing assembly) comprising a glass fiber sheet 107 (woven glass fiber layer having a woven texture), an adhesive 106 (cover layer, claim 6), and a decorative layer that is laminated, wherein the decorative layer comprising a color ink layer 105, a coating layer 104 (optical coating layer), an UV transfer optical texture layer 103 (texture layer), and a substrate 101 (substrate layer with the ink layer in contact with the cover layer) (Zhang, p. 8-10, Fig. 1). Zhang teaches a thickness of the adhesive 106 (cover layer) not exceeding 0.2 mm and a thickness of the color ink layer not exceeding 0.1 mm (Id., p. 8-9), reading on the cover layer not exceeding 0.2 mm and the ink layer not exceeding 0.1mm. Zhang distinguishes between transparent ink layer and the ground ink layer (Id., p. 8-9). While the total light transmittance of the color ink layer has not been explicitly specified, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a low light transmittance, such as below 0.05%, as the ink layer not being taught as transparent and to ensure high visible of the ink based on the desired aesthetics.
Zhang teaches the substrate 101 being polycarbonate or polyethylene terephthalate (Id., p. 9), which are taught as acceptable in the instant invention. Regarding the claimed tensile strength, in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose the tensile strength of the substrate (plastic substrate layer) being not less than 45 MPa and elongation being not less than 150%, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Alternatively, IPS teaches polycarbonate has a typical tensile strength of 9,500 psi (about 65.5 MPa) tensile strength and elongation at break of 60% (IPS, p. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the product of Zhang, wherein the substrate is polycarbonate having the properties as taught by IPS, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known polycarbonate having typical properties.
Zhang does not explicitly teach the glass fiber sheet being a woven glass fiber sheet.
However, Hou teaches the use of fiber glass cover used in electronic device and housing that is a woven fiberglass layer (Hou, abstract, para 0010, 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the product of Zhang, wherein the glass fiber sheet is a woven glass fiber sheet as taught by Hou, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known glass sheet predictably suitable for use in electronics and housing applications.
The prior art combination is silent with regards to a first different between a heat shrinkage of the woven glass fiber plate layer and a heat shrinkage of the cover does not exceed 20% of the heat shrinkage of the woven glass fiber plate layer” and “a second difference between the heat shrinkage of the woven glass fiber plate layer and a heat shrinkage of the ink layer does not exceed 20% of the heat shrinkage of the woven glass fiber plate layer, specifically 15% (claims 7, 10, 12), such as in the processing conditions discussed (claim 20-21).
However, Watanabe teaches in a laminate during heat treatment curling can occur caused by difference of heat shrinkage of the layers (Watanabe, abstract, para 0021, 0031-0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the product of the prior art combination, wherein the heat shrinkage between the layers is minimized, such as less than 20% and less than 15%, in order to prevent curling that caused by differences in heat shrinkage as taught by Watanabe. Absent evidence to the contrary, the heat shrinkage would be within the claimed range as claimed in claims 20-21 based on the desire to minimize difference in heat shrinkage during the processing of the product.
Examiner would like to note that the limitation “wherein the first difference and the second difference prevent the woven texture from being rubbed into the cover layer and the ink layer during hot pressing” is a limitation with regards to the intend intended use of the product. 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. As the heat shrinkage difference in minimized, such as within the claimed range, the product of the prior art combination would be capable of achieving the claimed effect.
Regarding claims 6, the prior art combination teaches a thickness of the adhesive 106 (cover layer) not exceeding 0.2 mm (Zhang, p. 8-9), reading on the cover layer not exceeding 0.2 mm.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of not exceeding 0.15 mm, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the thickness, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claims 7-9, the prior art combination teaches a thickness of the adhesive 106 (cover layer) not exceeding 0.2 mm (Zhang, p. 8-9), reading on the cover layer not exceeding 0.2 mm. The term “packing” means a material used to protect packed goods” as evidenced by Merriam-Webster (Merriam-Webster, definition 2). As the adhesive would provide a level of protection and no additional details are provided in the instant disclosure associated with the type of material or composition of the cover layer when a packing layer, the adhesive of the prior art would read on the cover layer being a packing layer. The adhesive layer and the packing layer have not been defined as being different or made of the same material and therefore adhesive 106 can read on both the adhesive layer and the packing layer with a total thickness not exceeding 0.2 mm.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of not exceeding 0.15 mm, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the thickness, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the housing assembly is a battery cover of an intelligent terminal” is a limitation with regards to the intended use. 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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205890061 to Zhang in view of WO 2019/147915 to Hou and CN 205890061 to Watanabe, optionally Internation Polymer Solutions (“IPS” herewithin), as applied to claims 2, 6-9, 13, and 20-21 above, in further view of US Pub. No. 2021/0168230 to Baker.
NOTE: Examiner will use Applicant provided translation of Zhang for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 4-5, the prior art combination does not explicitly teach a matter layer disposed at the plastic substrate layer.
However, Baker teaches a housing comprising a cover formed of a glass substrate with a thickness approximately 0.6 mm or less that has been textured to provide the desired surface finish including a matte appearance (matte layer) that can be resistant to collecting buildup of skin, lint, or other debris in combination with a series of cosmetic layers providing a desired optional effect and final color (Baker, para 0144), reading on a matte layer disposed at the plastic substrate layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the product of the prior art combination, wherein the product comprises the matte appearance (matte layer) of Baker, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known materials and layer predictably suitable for use in product including housing in combination with a series of decorative, or cosmetic, layers and to provide a matte appearance that can be resistant to collecting build up of skin, lint, or other debris.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205890061 to Zhang in view of WO 2019/147915 to Hou and CN 205890061 to Watanabe, optionally Internation Polymer Solutions (“IPS” herewithin), as applied to claims 2, 6-9, 13, and 20-21 above, in further view of US Pub. No. 2015/0208536 to You.
NOTE: Examiner will use Applicant provided translation of Zhang for prior art mapping.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination is silent with regards to the adhesive material, such as being a resin and therefore reading on a cover resin layer.
However, You teaches a device comprising a housing and teaches the use of an adhesive layer between a polymer resin layer or glass layer and PET film with a printing layer (You, abstract, para 0017, 0025-0033, 0045, 0049). You teaches the adhesive layer comprising and teaches the adhesive can be part of the opaque portion (Id., para 0049). You teaches the adhesive being a thermosetting film, such as an epoxy-based compound (Id., para 0007-0008), reading on a the adhesive being a resin and therefore a cover resin layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the product of the prior art combination, wherein the adhesive is thermosetting adhesive of You, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known adhesives predictably suitable for use in device and housing to bond layers comprising glass and polymers.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205890061 to Zhang in view of WO 2019/147915 to Hou and CN 205890061 to Watanabe, optionally Internation Polymer Solutions (“IPS” herewithin), as applied to claims 2, 6-9, 13, and 20-21 above, in further view of US Pub. No. 2014/0146448 to Yoo.
NOTE: Examiner will use Applicant provided translation of Zhang for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 11-12, the prior art combination does not teach the product comprising a cover layer that is a unidirectional glass fiber plate layer.
However, Yoo teaches a housing for an electronic device, including a phone comprising a fiber base material, such as a glass fiber base material, that comprises at least one of a unidirectional prepreg, plain weave prepreg, a twill woven prepreg, and a satin weave prepreg (Yoo, abstract, para 0005, 0045-0052, 0080), reading on a combination of woven glass fiber material (woven glass fiber plate layer) and a unidirectional prepreg (cover layer that is a unidirectional glass fiber plate layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the product of the prior art combination, wherein the combination of woven glass fiber material and unidirectional prepreg is used as the glass fiber sheet, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known glass fiber material predictably used for use in electronic and housing applications.
The prior art combination teaches the thickness of the glass mat being 0.3 mm (Zhang, p. 3). If the thickness is spilt between the woven glass fiber material and the unidirectional fiber, the unidirectional fiber would be 0.15 mm, reading on the woven layer not exceeding 0.2 mm. The prior art combination teaches a thickness of the adhesive 106 (cover layer) not exceeding 0.2 mm (Id., p. 8-9), reading on the cover layer not exceeding 0.2 mm.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of not exceeding 0.15 mm, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the thickness, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2010/0028616 to Yamanouchi teaches difference in heat shrinkage between layer may result in crack generation of curl in a fiber reinforced plastic .
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 JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights