Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/317,937

MANUFACTURING METHOD OF HOUSING STRUCTURE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 16, 2023
Examiner
LEE, EDMUND H
Art Unit
1744
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nanpao New Materials Technology (Huaian) Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
790 granted / 1143 resolved
+4.1% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1184
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
73.4%
+33.4% vs TC avg
§102
6.2%
-33.8% vs TC avg
§112
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1143 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claims 3 and 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/3/25. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-2,4-5, and 10-13 in the reply filed on 11/3/25 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 10-13 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. The phrase “stacking a first structural layer…to form a random texture pattern” (cl 1:3-6) is indefinite because it is grammatically confusing. The phrase “the first structural layer painting layer” (cl 1:3-4) lacks antecedent basis. The phrase “the layer stacked” (cl 1:5) lacks antecedent basis. The phrase “after the painting layer washes and squeezes” (cl 1:5) is indefinite because it is confusing since there are previous steps of washing or squeezing. The phrase “the flowing painting layer” (cl 1:6) lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Also, the phrase is confusing since there is no previous step of flowing the painting layer. The phrase “the outer surface of the second structural layer” (cl 5:2) lacks antecedent basis. Corrections are required. 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) 1-2, 4-5, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starr et al (USPN 3773886) in view of KR1019970003396. Regarding claim 1, Starr et al teach: 1. A manufacturing method of a building material/furniture, comprising: stacking a first structural layer (Starr et al: gel coating; fig 1), a painting layer (Starr et al: colored veining composition and spatter composition; fig 1), and a second structural layer (Starr et al: matrix composition; fig 1), and the first structural layer painting layer is located between the first and the second structural layers, wherein the layer stacked after the painting layer washes and squeezes at least a portion of the flowing painting layer to form a random texture pattern (Starr et al: col 2:29-67; col 5:11-19; col 6:17-26 and 51-68; col 7:37-43 and col 7:61-col 8:22; fig 1; Starr et al teach applying the colored veining composition and colored spatter composition onto the gel composition, then applying the matrix composition onto the colored veining composition and colored spatter composition while the colored veining composition and colored spatter composition are still wet such that the compositions bleed into each other to create a marbled effect). However, Starr et al do not teach molding a housing structure of electronic device. It should be noted that Starr et al teach molding building material/furniture like a vanity top having a marbled pattern (Starr et al: col 8:28-30; figs 1-2). KR1019970003396 teaches forming a 3D marble pattern on a substrate, wherein the substrate can be a building material, furniture, or an electronic case. Since Starr et al and KR1019970003396 are analogous with respect to marbled pattern articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the molding process of Starr et al to mold a marble patterned electronic case as suggested by KR1019970003396 in order to efficiently mold a variety of marble patterned articles. Regarding claim 2, such is taught by Starr et al since the colored veining composition and the spatter composition are in liquid form when applied and remain wet during the subsequent application of the matrix composition (col 7:37-43; col 7:61-col 8:22). Regarding claim 4, Starr et al (modified) do not teach the intended uses of the structural layers. However, electronic cases having layers of gel coat and a matrix material are well-known in the electronic case art for its strength and protection. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the marbled product of Starr et al (modified) and its layers as indented by the claims in order to form a desirable and recognizable electronic case. Regarding claim 5, Starr et al (modified) does not teach the outer surface of the second structural layer being wavy or rough. Since electronic cases having wavy or rough outer surfaces are well-known in the electronic case art for its aesthetic appeal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the outer surface of Starr et al (modified) to have a wavy or rough form in order to form an aesthetically pleasing case. Regarding claim 10, such is taught by Starr et al (Starr et al: col 2:67-col 3:1; col 7:19-24; the matrix material is filled in the mold in the same manner as the gel coat, which is spraying). Regarding claim 11, Starr et al do not teach a pressurizing and driving the second structural layer with an indenter. Since it is well-known in the decorative and electronic case arts to impart a design into a layer using a stamp or male mold, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to pressurize and drive the matrix material of Starr et al with a stamp or male mold in order to create an aesthetic texture or design into the matrix material of Starr et al. Regarding claim 12, Starr et al do not teach the outer surface of the second structural layer being wavy or rough. Since electronic cases having wavy or rough outer surfaces are well-known in the electronic case art for its aesthetic appeal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the outer surface of Starr et al (modified) to have a wavy or rough form in order to form an aesthetically pleasing case. Regarding claim 13, Starr et al do not teach injection molding the first and second structural layers. Since injection molding of composite countertops and electronic cases is well-known in the molding art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to injection mold the gel coating composition and matrix compositions of Starr et al instead of spraying in order to improve efficiency, precision, and production. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach molding variegated patterned articles: USP20030038402; JPH0818345; GB2237238; and USPN5820799. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM. 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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. EHL /EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 16, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 02, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 30, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 07, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 07, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594725
AUTONOMOUS FABRICATION OF MECHATRONIC SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589526
GOLF BALL MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589540
MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR MOLDED ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583176
THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583153
OVERMOLDING SPECIALTY TOOLING AND METHODS OF MAKING FLEXIBLE SUBSTRATE COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+18.2%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1143 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