DETAILED ACTION
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 on 03/02/2026 after final rejection on 12/02/2025. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Claims 1-12 and 16-18 are now pending in this application. Claims 1-3, as currently amended, are presented for examination. Claims 4-12 and 16-18, as previously presented, are now presented again for examination. Claims 13-15 were previously withdrawn from consideration due to a restriction requirement.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. (US Publication 2020/0180076) taken alone.
In re Claim 3, Rogers discloses an electronic device comprising: a housing 100 forming an appearance of the electronic device, wherein the housing includes: a first layer 464 (Figure 4) containing a visible light permeable material (paragraph 0099); and a base material 440 forming a shape of the housing, the base material including a first surface exposed to an outside of the electronic device and a second surface opposite to the first surface (Figure 4), the second surface of the base material disposed on the first layer (Figure 4), wherein the first layer 464 contains an infrared absorption material (paragraph 0168), and the first layer includes a marking area 452a disposed on a side of the first layer adjacent the base material 440, and wherein at least a part of the base material is substantially transparent (paragraphs 0033, 0062).
Rogers does not explicitly disclose wherein the marking area is disposed on a side of the first layer that is opposite the base material. However, Rogers teaches that the marking region may be formed in different layers of the multilayer structure and at different depths (See Figures 7, 8 and 10 for example). Rogers further teaches that a marking region need not extend through the full thickness of the marked layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of device marking at a time before the effective filing date to have changed the location of the marking area as a mere relocation of parts (routine placement and optimization). See MPEP §2144.04 (VI).
In re Claim 18, Rogers discloses wherein the infrared absorption material contained in the second layer absorbs infrared rays (paragraph 0168 disclosing an IR laser) irradiated by a laser to etch and/or discolor the second layer (at the marking area 752a). Rogers, paragraphs 0165-0166.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. (US Publication 2020/0180076) in view of Stroh, III et al. (US Publication 2008/0026319).
In re Claim 1, Rogers discloses an electronic device comprising: a housing 100 forming an appearance of the electronic device, wherein the housing includes: a base material 768 forming a shape of the housing; a first layer 764, 766 disposed on a surface of the base material and containing a color paint (paragraph 0099); and a second layer 762 disposed on the first layer and containing a visible light permeable material (paragraph 0099), wherein the second layer 762 contains an infrared absorption material (paragraph 0168), wherein the second layer includes a marking area 752a visible from an outside of the electronic device (paragraph 0099, marking area 752a viewed through transparent cover 740).
Rogers does not explicitly disclose wherein the marking area is exposed to an external area outside of the electronic device. However, providing such was not new in the art. For example, Stroh, III discloses a layer (“coating layer”, paragraphs 0006, 0051) as the outer layer of a handheld device housing wherein a marking area (See Figure 2a, for example) is exposed to an external area outside of the electrical device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of device marking at a time before the effective filing date to have provided an external marking area, like that disclosed in Stroh, III, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed Rogers so that the laser-reactive layer is provided as an outer exposed layer on the housing, rather than only beneath a transparent cover, in order to permit direct exterior marking of logos/graphics/indicia while still employing a laser-reactive material that changes appearance upon laser radiation. Not providing a cover would reduce the manufacturing costs of the device while still allowing for easy external marking of the outer/second layer. Furthermore, providing a direct marking area would alleviate any concerns of the cover having a negative effect on the energy delivery to the marking area from the laser.
In re Claim 4, Rogers discloses wherein the infrared absorption material has a high absorption rate at a wavelength of 1000 to 1100 nm. Rogers, paragraph 0168 (from about 700 to 1500 nm).
In re Claims 6-8, Rogers discloses wherein the marking area 752a is an etching area, a matte area and/or an embossing area. Rogers, Figures 3 and 11, paragraphs 0060-0061, 0133.
In re Claim 9, Rogers discloses wherein the embossing area 752a comprises an area protruded toward the surface that is exposed to the outside of the housing. Rogers, Figures 3 and 11, paragraphs 0060-0061, 0133 (the laser pulses will inherently ablate the marking area where regions of the surface will protrude toward the surface as craters on minute scale).
In re Claim 10, Rogers discloses wherein the marking area 752a is a discoloration area. Rogers, paragraph 0103.
In re Claim 11, Rogers discloses wherein the first layer 666 may contain an infrared absorption material (paragraph 0168), and the first layer comprises a marking area 652a. See Rogers, Figure 6.
In re Claim 12, Rogers discloses wherein the housing 100 is a protection cover for protecting at least a partial area of the electronic device. See Rogers, Figures 1A, 1B for example.
In re Claim 16, Rogers discloses wherein the infrared absorption material contained in the second layer absorbs infrared rays (paragraph 0168 disclosing an IR laser) irradiated by a laser to etch and/or discolor the second layer (at the marking area 752a). Rogers, paragraphs 0165-0166.
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. (US Publication 2020/0180076), Jarvis (US Publication 2010/0068234) and further in view of Stroh, III et al. (US Publication 2008/0026319).
In re Claim 2, Rogers discloses an electronic device comprising: a housing 100 forming an appearance of the electronic device, wherein the housing includes: a base material 468 forming a shape of the housing; a first layer 464 disposed on the base material and containing a color paint (paragraph 0062); and a second layer 440 disposed on the first layer and containing a visible light permeable material (paragraph 0033), wherein the first layer 464 has a bright color with high brightness (paragraphs 0040-0042), the first layer contains an infrared absorption material 452a (paragraph 0168 disclosing the use of a IR laser for absorption by the first layer), and the first layer includes a marking area 452a (See Figure 4 and associated description).
Rogers does not explicitly disclose wherein the brightness level of the first layer color is in the range of 7 to 10 on the Munsell color system. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of electronic housings to have developed a specific brightness level as their application requires, given that Rogers discloses generally that the first layer color can be bright. See MPEP §2144.04 (I). The change of a color only would amount to a change in design and therefore would not involve a patentable step.
Rogers also does not explicitly disclose the use of diimonium-based compounds in the infrared absorption material. However, providing such was known in the art before the effective filing date. For example, Jarvis discloses a marking area that may comprise diimonium-based compounds so as to change color when ablated by an IR laser. Jarvis, paragraph 0019. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of electronic housings to have used a diimmonium-based compound in a marking area, as taught by Jarvis, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Rogers, to provide a means for changing the color of a marking area by an IR laser. Rogers does suggest various compounds may be used to achieve color changes in the marking area. Rogers, paragraph 0071.
Rogers also does not explicitly disclose wherein the marking area is exposed to an external area outside of the electronic device. However, providing such was not new in the art. For example, Stroh, III discloses a layer (“coating layer”, paragraphs 0006, 0051) as the outer layer of a handheld device housing wherein a marking area (See Figure 2a, for example) is exposed to an external area outside of the electrical device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of device marking at a time before the effective filing date to have provided an external marking area, like that disclosed in Stroh, III, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed Rogers so that the laser-reactive layer is provided as an outer exposed layer on the housing, rather than only beneath a transparent cover, in order to permit direct exterior marking of logos/graphics/indicia while still employing a laser-reactive material that changes appearance upon laser radiation. Not providing a cover would reduce the manufacturing costs of the device while still allowing for easy external marking of the outer/second layer. Furthermore, providing a direct marking area would alleviate any concerns of the cover having a negative effect on the energy delivery to the marking area from the laser.
In re Claim 17, Rogers discloses wherein the infrared absorption material contained in the second layer absorbs infrared rays (paragraph 0168 disclosing an IR laser) irradiated by a laser to etch and/or discolor the second layer (at the marking area 752a). Rogers, paragraphs 0165-0166.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. (US Publication 2020/0180076), Stroh, III et al. (US Publication 2008/0026319) and further in view of JP 2021-026074 (from applicant’s IDS submitted on 05/21/2025).
In re Claim 5, Rogers discloses the limitations as noted above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the infrared absorption material is at least one kind selected from a group consisting of phthalocyanine-based compounds, diammonium-based compounds, sulfonate-group containing hydrophilic cyanine-based dyes, GM-202011-110-1-USOindocyanine green (ICG), cyanine 5.5 (Cy 5.5), and cyanine 7 (Cy 7). However, JP 2021-026074 discloses wherein a near infrared material may be comprised of cyanine, a phthalocyanine-based compound and/or a diammonium compound. JP 2021-026074, paragraph 0045. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of electronic housings at a time before the effective filing date to have provided a cyanine-based material, as disclosed in JP 2021-026074, as the near infrared material as otherwise disclosed in Rogers to allow for improved absorption and better production of a marking feature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ADRIAN S WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841