DETAILED ACTION
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on February 5, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection is/are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
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 .
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) 1-4, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (US 2020/0181007 A1) (“Marshall”), in view of Wilson et al. (US 10537023 B2) (“Wilson”) and Northcott et al. (US 10,466,395 B1) (“Northcott”).
With respect to claim 1, Marshall discloses a portable electronic device comprising a portable electronic device housing having an interior region - implied (abstr., 0005), a camera in the housing (0022)), and a transparent layer mounted to the housing that overlaps the camera (0020, 0021), wherein the transparent layer comprises glass (0021, 0022, 0025). Marshall discloses that the transparent layer has a surface curvature (0022). Marshall is silent with respect to the glass layers and a polymer layer as recited in the claim. Wilson discloses a portable electronic device including components within a housing comprising a transparent layer (abstr., col. 2, lines 44-54), wherein the transparent layer comprises a first glass layer having a first thickness (col. 4, lines 27-29), a second glass layer having a second thickness that is less than the first thickness, wherein the second thickness is from 20 to 250 microns (col. 7, lines 19-30). The second thickness falls within the recited range. Wilson discloses an adhesive layer – element 60 - between the first glass layer and the second glass layer, wherein the first glass layer is between the adhesive layer and the interior region (col. 7, lines 19-33, Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the transparent layer of Marshall of the transparent layers of Wilson, as the layer of Wilson is suitable for portable electronic devices (col. 3, lines 20-30), such as those disclosed in Marshall (0017).
Wilson is silent with respect to the adhesive layer being a polymer layer. Northcott discloses that in electronic devices such as portable electronic devices (col. 1, lines 16-20) including a camera (abstr., col. 1, lines 30-32), polymer adhesive layer is used in combination with glass layers (col. 8, lines 35-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the adhesive layer in Wilson of a polymer layer as it is known in the art of portable electronic devices to use polymer adhesive layers in combination with glass layers.
Regarding the first and second glass layers having compound surface curvature, since Marshall discloses that the transparent layer has a surface curvature including glass layers with bends along peripheral edges, which have been interpreted by the Examiner as glass layers having compound surface curvature (0022), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first and second glass layers in the device of Marshall, Wilson and Northcott would have a compound surface curvature.
Regarding claim 2, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the electronic device of claim 1. Wilson discloses the second thickness of less than 500 micrometers (col. 7, lines 58-64). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 2; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 3, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 1. Wilson discloses a polymer film – element 48 - attached to a glass layer – element 24 - with adhesive, element 50 being a polymeric layer (col. 7, lines 4-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a polymer film to the first glass layer with adhesive in the device of Marshall, Wilson and Northcott as it is known in the art of portable electronic devices to include polymer films next to glass layers.
With respect to claim 4, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 3. Wilson discloses the first thickness of 0.2-5 mm (col. 4, lines 27-30). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 4; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 1. Wilson discloses the second thickness is at least 30 micrometers (col. 7, lines 58-60), which overlaps the recited range. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 9, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 8. Wilson discloses the polymer layer used in portable electronic devices, having a thickness of 50 -150 micrometers or less than 500 micrometers (col. 8, lines 53-58). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 9, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Changes in size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
With respect to claim 10, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 9. Wilson discloses the first thickness of 0.2-5 mm (col. 4, lines 27-30). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 10; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 1. Marshall discloses the device housing comprises a head-mounted device housing (0017, 0020). Wilson discloses the second thickness of less than 500 micrometers (col. 7, lines 58-64). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 11; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 12, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 11. Marshall discloses a display configured to display images through the transparent layer (0021).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall, in view of Wilson and Northcott, and further in view of Inoue et al. (US 10678081 B2) (“Inoue”).
With respect to claim 5, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 4, but are silent with respect to the first glass layer comprising aluminosilicate glass. Inoue discloses a cover glass for an electronic device (abstr., col. 3, lines 30-35), wherein the glass includes aluminosilicate glass (col. 6, lines 38-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first glass layer of the transparent layer according to Marshall, Wilson and Northcott of aluminosilicate glass, as aluminosilicate glass has been known to be used in electronic devices. It has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)
Regarding claim 6, Marshall, Wilson, Northcott, and Inoue teach the device of claim 5. Wilson discloses the second glass layer being laminated to the first glass layer with the polymer layer (col. 7, lines 13-15, Fig. 6).
As to claim 7, Marshall, Wilson, Northcott and Inoue teach the device of claim 5. Wilson discloses the second glass layer comprises an inorganic dielectric coating (col. 5, lines 6-11), and the second thickness of at least 30 micrometers (col. 7, lines 58-60), which overlaps the recited range. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (US 2020/0181007 A1) (“Marshall”), in view of Wilson et al. (US 10537023 B2) (“Wilson”) and Northcott et al. (US 10,466,395 B1) (“Northcott”).
With respect to claim 13, Marshall discloses a portable electronic device housing (abstr., 0005), a display in the housing (0005, 0021), and a transparent layer mounted to the housing that overlaps the display (0020, 0021), wherein the display is configured to display an image through the transparent layer – implied (0020, 0021, 0025), wherein the transparent layer comprises glass (0021, 0022, 0025). Marshall discloses that the transparent layer has a compound surface curvature – the transparent layer having bends along peripheral edges has been interpreted as having compound surface curvature (0022).
Marshall is silent with respect to the transparent layer having a first glass layer and a second glass layer as recited in the claim. Wilson discloses a portable electronic device including components within a housing comprising a transparent layer (abstr., col. 2, lines 44-54), wherein the transparent layer comprises a first glass layer having a first thickness (col. 4, lines 27-29), a second glass layer having a second thickness that is less than the first thickness (col. 7, lines 19-30).
Wilson discloses an adhesive layer – element 60 - between the first glass layer and the second glass layer, wherein the first glass layer is between the adhesive layer and the interior region (col. 7, lines 19-33, Fig. 7).
Wilson is silent with respect to the adhesive layer being a polymer layer. Northcott discloses that in electronic devices such as portable electronic devices (col. 1, lines 16-20) including a camera (abstr., col. 1, lines 30-32), polymer adhesive layer is used in combination with glass layers (col. 8, lines 35-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the adhesive layer in Wilson of a polymer layer as it is known in the art of portable electronic devices to use polymer adhesive layers in combination with glass layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the transparent layer of Marshall of the transparent layer of Wilson and Northcott, as the layer of Wilson is suitable for portable electronic devices (col. 3, lines 20-30), such as those disclosed in Marshall (0017). Regarding the first and second glass layers having compound surface curvature, since Marshall discloses that the transparent layer has compound curvature – glass layers having bends along peripheral edges have been interpreted as glass layers having compound curvature (0022) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first and second layers in the device of Marshall, Wilson and Northcott would have a compound surface curvature.
Regarding claim 14, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 13. Marshall discloses a portable electronic device comprising a portable electronic device housing having an interior region - implied (abstr., 0005). Wilson discloses a polymer layer – element 50 - between the first glass layer and the second glass layer, wherein the first glass layer is between the polymer layer and the interior region (col. 7, lines 13-15, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Marshal, Wilson and Northcott teach the electronic device of claim 1. Wilson discloses the second thickness of less than 500 micrometers (col. 7, lines 58-64). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 15; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claim 16, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 15. Wilson discloses the first thickness of 0.2-5 mm (col. 4, lines 27-30). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 16; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Marshall discloses the device housing comprises a head-mounted device housing (0017, 0020).
As to claim 17, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 16. Wilson discloses the polymer layer having a thickness of 50 -150 micrometers or less than 500 micrometers (col. 8, lines 53-58). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 17, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (US 2020/0181007 A1) (“Marshall”), in view of Wilson et al. (US 10537023 B2) (“Wilson”).
With respect to claim 18, Marshall discloses a head-mounted device comprising a head-mounted housing that separates an interior region from an exterior region - implied (abstr., 0005, 0017), a display and a camera (0021, 0022), and a cover layer coupled to the housing, the cover layer overlapping the camera and the display (0020, 0021, 0023), wherein the cover layer comprises a glass layer having an inner surface facing the interior region and an exterior surface facing the exterior region (0021, 0022, 0025). Regarding the glass layer having compound surface curvature, since Marshall discloses that the transparent layer has a surface curvature including a glass layer with bends along peripheral edges, which has been interpreted by the Examiner as a glass layer having compound curvature (0022) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the glass layer of Marshall has a compound surface curvature.
Marshall is silent with respect to polymer layers as recited in the claim.
Wilson discloses a portable electronic device including components within a housing comprising a cover layer (abstr., col. 2, lines 44-54). Wilson discloses an adhesive layer – element 60 - between the first glass layer and the second glass layer, wherein the first glass layer is between the adhesive layer and the interior region, the glass layer having an inner surface facing the interior region, the adhesive layer attached to the inner surface (col. 7, lines 19-33, Fig. 7).
Wilson is silent with respect to the adhesive layer being a polymer layer. Northcott discloses that in electronic devices such as portable electronic devices (col. 1, lines 16-20) including a camera (abstr., col. 1, lines 30-32), polymer adhesive layer is used in combination with glass layers (col. 8, lines 35-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the adhesive layer in Wilson of a first polymer layer as it is known in the art of portable electronic devices to use polymer adhesive layers in combination with glass layers.
Regarding a second polymer layer attached to the exterior surface, Wilson discloses a polymer film – element 48 - attached to an exterior surface of a glass layer – element 24 - with adhesive, element 50 being a polymeric layer (col. 7, lines 4-10, Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a polymer film to the exterior surface of the glass layer with adhesive in the device of Marshall, Wilson and Northcott as it is known in the art of portable electronic devices to include polymer films next to the glass layers.
Regarding claim 19, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 18. Wilson discloses a thickness of the glass layer of 0.2-5 mm (col. 4, lines 27-30). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 19; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Wilson discloses an additional glass layer, wherein the glass layer is between the polymer layer and the interior region (col. 7, lines 13-15, Fig. 6), the second polymer layer contacting the glass layer and an additional glass layer (col. 7, lines 35-50, Fig. 7) in the combined embodiments of Wilson. Wilson discloses a thickness of less than 500 micrometers of the additional glass layer (col. 7, lines 58-64). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 19; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 20, Marshall, Wilson and Northcott teach the device of claim 19. Marshall discloses the cover layer – an additional glass layer - has compound surface curvature - Marshall discloses that the transparent layer has a surface curvature – the layer includes a glass layer with bends along peripheral edges, which have been interpreted by the Examiner as a glass layer having compound curvature (0022)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief filed on Feb. 5, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 1, the Appellant argued that Wilson does not disclose multiple glass layers and a polymer layer between the glass layers. The Examiner notes in the present rejection the Examiner relied on the embodiment of Fig. 7 of Wilson including adhesive layer 60 between two glass layers. Reference of Northcott is cited for teaching of a polymer adhesive layer in combination with glass layers in portable electronic devices, as discussed above, thus, Appellant’s argument regarding Marshall and Wilson not teaching two glass layers and a polymer layer in between became moot.
Regarding coatings 56 and 58 the Appellant argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Marshall’s transparent layer overlapping a camera because the coatings provide specific reflectivity or shiny appearance. The Examiner notes Marshall discloses that a rear portion of the housing may be formed of the transparent layer (0022), thus, the transparent layer would be overlapping the camera even if it is part of the rear portion of the housing, as it would be overlapping the camera from the bottom side of the housing. Furthermore, Wilson discloses that coatings 56 and 58 are optional (col. 7, lines 19-39).
The Appellant argued that in Wilson layer 54 is textured to provide a matte appearance, so the embodiment including that layer is not suited for overlapping a camera. The Examiner notes, as shown in Fig. 7, there is an area in the middle of layer 54 which is not textured, and thus, suitable to overlay the camera from top. If layer 54 is part of the rear layer of the housing of Marshall matte appearance would not interfere with functional aspect of the camera.
The Appellant argued none of the cited references discloses a transparent layer having multiple glass layers with compound surface curvature, the Appellant referring to “glass members with curved cross-sectional profiles” disclosed in Marshall. The Examiner notes Marshall discloses that the transparent layer has a surface curvature including glass layers with bends along peripheral edges, which have been interpreted by the Examiner as glass layers having compound surface curvature (0022), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first and second layers in the device of Marshall, Wilson and Northcott would have a compound surface curvature. The Appellant also mentioned “a transparent layer with multiple glass layers that each have compound curvature” (p. 12 of the Appeal Brief). The Examiner notes the claim recites “the first and second glass layers have compound surface curvature.”
The Appellant further argued that Wilson fails to disclose a polymer layer between two glass layers, wherein the polymer layer has a thickness between 50 microns and 400 microns (pp. 12-13 of the Appeal Brief). The Appellant argued the rejection relied on a polymer layer of Fig. 13 which is not between two glass layers. The Examiner notes the rejection relied on a thickness of a polymer layer of Wilson as such, used in portable devices, Wilson disclosing polymer layer thickness overlapping the recited range; changes in size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
With respect to claim 12, the Appellant argued that a stack of glass/polymer layers of Wilson is not compatible with overlapping a display, as given Wilson’s teachings that the glass/polymer layers have a matte and/or reflective appearance, it would interfere with functionality of the display of Marshall (p. 13-14 of the Appeal Brief). The Examiner notes Marshall discloses that the display may be formed on the front face of the device or other portion of the device (0021). Wilson discloses that the coatings are optional (col. 7, lines 19-39) and a matte surface does not cover the totality of the surface of the glass layer (Fig. 7), thus, the transparent layer of Wilson would not interfere with functionality of the display of Marshall.
Regarding claim 13, the Appellant presented the same arguments as with respect to claim 1 (pp. 14 and 15 of the Appeal Brief), regarding lack of disclosure of a polymer layer between two glass layers in Wilson as well as a decorative appearance of the glass layers which would hinder the display capabilities of Marshall’s display, and also lack of multiple glass layers with compound surface curvature. The Examiner thus hereby reiterates the response to the above arguments.
Regarding claim 14, the Appellant argued the references do not teach the first glass layer between the polymer layer and the interior region (pp. 15-16 of the Appeal Brief). The Examiner notes in the present Office Action rejection of claim 14 has been clarified. Marshall discloses a portable electronic device comprising a portable electronic device housing having an interior region – implied (abstr., 0005). Wilson and Northcott disclose a polymer layer – element 60 – polymeric adhesive layer according to Wilson and Northcott, as discussed above, and the first glass layer - element 24 is between the polymer layer and the interior region (Wilson, col. 7, lines 19-50, Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 18, the Appellant presented similar arguments as with respect to claim 1 (p. 17 of the Appeal Brief), regarding lack of disclosure of a polymer layer between two glass layers in Wilson as well as a decorative appearance of the glass layers which would hinder the display capabilities of Marshall’s display, and also lack of a cover layer having compound surface curvature in an electronic device. The Examiner thus hereby reiterates the response to the above arguments.
Regarding claim 19, the Appellant argued that in the rejection it was suggested that Wilson discloses polymer layer 50 between two glass layers and one of the glass layers between polymer layer 50 and the interior of the device, however, the Appellant argued, Wilson fails to show multiple glass layers and a polymer layer between them. That argument was addressed above in the discussion of claim 1. The Appellant argued Wilson fails to show or suggest a glass layer between a polymer layer and an interior region. The Examiner notes Fig. 7 shows a first glass layer 24 between a polymer layer – polymeric adhesive layer according to Wilson and Northcott – and an interior region, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 20, the Appellant argued that Marshall fails to teach glass members with a compound curvature as recited in claim 20. The Examiner notes Marshall discloses glass layers having bends along the peripheral edges of the device (0022), which were interpreted as glass layers having compound surface curvature, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights