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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 13, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11, 18, 19 and 22-26 in the reply filed on January 13, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art does not recognize that heat shrinkage difference and thickness of the cover layer are a result effective parameter, or that these values and the light transmission are not taught by the prior art. This is not found persuasive because, as set forth below the shared technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-11, 18-19 and 22-26 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.
Claims 1, 5-10, 18, 22 and 25 comprise the limitation “a heat shrinkage difference,” however no parameters or measurement methods are required such as temperature, time, measured direction etc. In efforts to further the prosecution the limitations will be interpreted as requiring any heat shrinkage difference.
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) 1-11, 18-19, 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205890061 to Zhang in view of US Pub No. 2014/0146448 to Yoo and CN-104185547 to Matsuo.
Regarding Claims 1-9, 18 and 22-25
Zhang teaches a housing assembly / terminal comprising a housing assembly (electronic product) comprising in order, a glass fiber plate, adhesive layer which meets the limitations of “cover layer,” “packing layer,” “cover resin layer,” and “high-filling coating layer,” ink layer, hard coat layer (optical layer), UV transfer optical grain (texture layer), substrate layer (plastic layer) and transparent ink layer (highlight layer) (Zhang, abstract, fig. 2, paragraph [0034]). Zhang teaches that the adhesive layer may be less than 0.15 mm such as 8-12 micrometers and the ink layer may be less than 0.1 mm such as 4-15 micrometers (Id., paragraphs [0030]-[0031]). Zhang teaches that the ink layer may be a metal ink layer which is necessarily opaque/light reflecting and would meet the limitations of a light transmittance less than 0.05% (Zhang, paragraph [0041]).
Zhang does not specify the specific arrangement of the glass fibers. Therefore, it would have been necessary and obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to look to the prior art for exemplary glass fiber plate used in electronic device housing. Yoo provides this conventional teaching, showing an electronic device housing comprising a glass fiber base material which may be in the form of a woven material (Yoo, abstract, paragraphs [0080], [0084], claims 8, 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the housing of Zhang, and to use the specific woven glass fiber plate material, as taught by Yoo, motivated by the desire to form a conventional housing comprising glass fiber base materials which are known in the art to be predictably suitable for use in electronic device housing applications.
Zhang does not specifically teach the heat shrinkage values or differences between the glass fiber plate layer, cover layer and ink layer. However, Matsuo teaches a multilayer laminate for phone cases, computer cases and other electronic products, which is controlled to have a difference in heat shrinkage of less than 0.5% in order to prevent wrinkles, peeling, and bad appearance (Matsuo, abstract, paragraphs [0006], [0022], [0023], [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the housing of Zhang and to ensure that the layers do not vary in thermal expansion by greater than 20% such as taught by Matsuo, motivated by the desire to form a conventional electronics housing having improved appearance with no wrinkles, and no peeling which would result in delamination and failure of the product.
Zhang does not specifically teach that the cover layer has a light transmittance less than 0.05%. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide an opaque adhesive/cover layer based on the desired aesthetic properties of the housing, since applicant has not disclosed that the light transmittance of the cover layer solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a fully opaque cover layer [MPEP 2144.04].
Zhang teaches that the plastic layer may be polycarbonate which applicant’s specification (Applicant’s Specification, paragraphs [0045] and [0105]) denotes as suitable for use as the plastic layer (Id., paragraph [0025]). Although the prior art does not disclose the specific elongation and tensile strength of the plastic layer, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the prior art combination 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.
Regarding Claim 10
Zhang does not teach that the cover layer comprises a unidirectional glass fiber plate layer. However, Yoo teaches that the fiber plate is at least one glass fiber layer wherein the layers may be unidirectional prepreg, or woven. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize multiple glass fiber layers such as a unidirectional and a woven layer as taught by Yoo, motivated by the desire to form a conventional housing comprising glass fiber base materials which are known in the art to be predictably suitable for use in electronic device housing applications.
Regarding Claims 11 and 26
The limitations of the housing being a battery cover of an intelligent terminal is an intended use limitation. 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.
Regarding Claim 19
Regarding the limitations of the housing being “obtained by” the claimed processing steps, these limitations are product-by-process limitations. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM 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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights