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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 12005656 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant independent claim 1 is broader in scope and thus encompasses the subject of conflicting claim 1; instant dependent claims 2-16 are equal in scope and thus encompass the subject of conflicting claims 2-16 respectively; instant dependent claims 17-18 are disclosed by conflicting claim 1, thus encompass the subject of conflicting claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (US 20220140852 A1) in view of SEYBOTH (US 20140308869 A1).
For claim 1. Zeng discloses (Abstract, figures 4-5, [0019]-[0023]) A protective case for electronic device, comprising: an inner shell (figure 5 layer 12); an outer shell (layer 13); and a magnetic interlayer (base plate 11) disposed between and in contact with the inner shell and the outer shell, wherein: the magnetic interlayer includes an interlayer base material (base plate 11) and a magnetic part (figure 5, magnet 3), the interlayer base material including an inner side wall defining a through-hole ([0021] hollow part 110), and the magnetic part fixed in the through-hole ([0021]), the interlayer base material having a base material thickness defining a depth of the through-hole ([0021]), the interlayer base material comprising a hot-melt base material ([0023] the base plate 11 is a polycarbonate), the hot-melt base material disposed in contact with the magnetic part along the inner side wall of the through-hole to fix the magnetic part in the through-hole ([0021]).
Zeng fails to mention reinforcing fiber yarn embedded in the hot-melt base material.
This teaching is disclosed by SEYBOTH ([0002], [0011], [0015], [0018], [0020], [0028], [0032], woven fiber sheet (reinforcing fiber yarn) is imbedded in a thermoplastic or thermoset resin (hot-melt base material)…suitable thermoplastic resins include polycarbonate, the woven fiber sheet, such as a woven glass fiber sheet, is utilized to provide mechanical strength and rigidity in a composite material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by SEYBOTH into the art of Zeng as to add woven fiber sheet to improve strength of the polycarbonate plate 11.
For claim 2. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 1, Zeng discloses wherein the inner shell and the outer shell have substantially the same ductility level as the reinforcing fiber yarn (figure 5, [0023]-[0025]).
For claim 3. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 2, Zeng discloses wherein the inner shell, the outer shell and the reinforcing fiber yarn have substantially the same degree of compatibility with resin (figure 5, [0023]-[0025]).
For claim 4. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 1, SEYBOTH discloses the reinforcing fiber yarn is a glass fiber yarn, and the hot-melt base material is made of resin ([0015], [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by SEYBOTH into the art of Zeng as modified by SEYBOTH as to add glass fiber sheet to improve strength of the polycarbonate plate 11.
But fails to mention wherein the inner shell and the outer shell are made of aramid fiber.
Official notice is taken that an electronic device shell made with aramid fiber is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques into the art of Zeng as modified by SEYBOTH as to improve strength of the shells with aramid fiber.
For claim 5. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 1, Zeng discloses wherein the magnetic interlayer is produced according to the following steps: S100: opening the through-hole in the interlayer base material; S200: laying a first release film on an upper surface of a lower shaping mold; S300: laying the interlayer base material obtained in step S100 on the first release film; S400: embedding the magnetic part in the through-hole in the interlayer base material to obtain a magnetic part and interlayer base material subassembly; S500: laying a second release film on an upper surface of the magnetic part and interlayer base material subassembly obtained in step S400; S600: putting an upper shaping mold on an upper surface of the second release film to obtain a molding subassembly including the interlayer base material, the magnetic part, the first release film, the lower shaping mold, the second release film, and the upper shaping mold; S700: putting the molding subassembly obtained in step S600 into a first flexible container; S800: performing air extraction processing on the first flexible container, and sealing the first flexible container after the air extraction processing is completed; S900: putting the first flexible container and the molding subassembly inside of the first flexible container into an autoclave, sealing the autoclave, inflating and pressurizing the autoclave, and heating the first flexible container and the molding subassembly inside of the first flexible container obtained in step S800 for a predetermined duration; S1000: stopping the heating after performing the heating for the predetermined duration, waiting for the first flexible container and the molding subassembly inside of the first flexible container to cool to a preset temperature to obtain a semi-finished magnetic interlayer product between the first release film and the second release film, taking out the semi-finished magnetic interlayer product; S1100: cutting the semi-finished magnetic interlayer obtained in step S1000 to a preset shape and size to obtain the magnetic interlayer (This limitation stating how the product is made. The applicant is referred to MPEP 2113, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. The prior art product meets this limitation because, for reasons detailed with respect to claim 1 above, the prior art product has the same structure and material properties as applicant’s claimed product.).
For claim 6. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 5, Zeng discloses wherein the reinforcing fiber yarn is a glass fiber yarn, and the hot-melt base material is made of resin; wherein, in the step S900, the heating of the first flexible container and the molding subassembly inside of the first flexible container for a preset duration includes: heating the first flexible container and the molding subassembly inside of the first flexible container from an initial temperature to 125 degrees Celsius and maintaining the temperature at 125 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes, then heating to 135 degrees Celsius and maintaining the temperature at 135 degrees Celsius for 40 minutes (This limitation stating how the product is made. The applicant is referred to MPEP 2113, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. The prior art product meets this limitation because, for reasons detailed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above, the prior art product has the same structure and material properties as applicant’s claimed product.).
For claim 7. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 5, Zeng discloses wherein the reinforcing fiber yarn is a glass fiber yarn, and the hot-melt base material is made of resin; wherein, in the step S900, the heating of the first flexible container and the molding subassembly inside of the first flexible container for a preset duration includes: heating the assembly obtained in step S800 from the initial temperature to between 100-130 degrees Celsius and maintaining the temperature of between 100-130 degrees Celsius for between 10-20 minutes, then heating to between 130-160 degrees Celsius and maintaining the temperature of between 130-160 degrees Celsius for between 30-50 minutes (This limitation stating how the product is made. The applicant is referred to MPEP 2113, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. The prior art product meets this limitation because, for reasons detailed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above, the prior art product has the same structure and material properties as applicant’s claimed product.).
For claim 8. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 5, Zeng discloses wherein, in the step S900, inflating and pressurizing the autoclave includes: inflating and pressurizing the autoclave so that a pressure in the autoclave is within a range of 0.4 MPa to 0.8 MPa (This limitation stating how the product is made. The applicant is referred to MPEP 2113, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. The prior art product meets this limitation because, for reasons detailed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above, the prior art product has the same structure and material properties as applicant’s claimed product.).
For claim 9. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 8, Zeng discloses wherein the lower shaping mold and the upper shaping mold are both plate-shaped (This limitation stating how the product is made. The applicant is referred to MPEP 2113, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. The prior art product meets this limitation because, for reasons detailed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above, the prior art product has the same structure and material properties as applicant’s claimed product.).
For claim 10. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 9, Zeng discloses wherein the first flexible container is a metal foil bag, and when the first flexible container is in an empty exhaust state, the first flexible container is sheet-shaped (This limitation stating how the product is made. The applicant is referred to MPEP 2113, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. The prior art product meets this limitation because, for reasons detailed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above, the prior art product has the same structure and material properties as applicant’s claimed product.).
For claim 11. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 10, Zeng discloses wherein the first flexible container is a tin foil bag (This limitation stating how the product is made. The applicant is referred to MPEP 2113, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. The prior art product meets this limitation because, for reasons detailed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above, the prior art product has the same structure and material properties as applicant’s claimed product.).
For claim 12. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 5, Zeng discloses wherein the interlayer base material comprises a plurality of stacked sheets (polycarbonate sheet and woven fiber sheet), the sheets include the hot-melt base material and the reinforcing fiber yarn contained in the hot-melt base material; the through-hole is an annular hole, and the step S100 further includes: Step S110: stacking the plurality of sheets to form the interlayer base material having a preset thickness; Step S120: punching through each sheet of the plurality of sheets to form the annular hole (This limitation stating how the product is made. The applicant is referred to MPEP 2113, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. The prior art product meets this limitation because, for reasons detailed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above, the prior art product has the same structure and material properties as applicant’s claimed product.).
For claim 13. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 12, Zeng discloses wherein the magnetic part comprises a main adsorption part, the main adsorption part includes a plurality of main magnetic attracting parts and an annular film connecting the plurality of main magnetic attracting parts into a ring shape (figures 4-5, [0019]-[0023]); and the step S400 includes: embedding the main adsorption part in the annular hole of the interlayer base material; and removing the annular film (This limitation stating how the product is made. The applicant is referred to MPEP 2113, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. The prior art product meets this limitation because, for reasons detailed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above, the prior art product has the same structure and material properties as applicant’s claimed product.).
For claim 14. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 1, Zeng discloses wherein the magnetic interlayer is produced according to the following steps: S100: opening the through-hole in the interlayer base material; S200: laying the interlayer base material obtained in step S100 on a lower shaping mold; S300: embedding the magnetic part in the through-hole of the interlayer base material to obtain a magnetic part and interlayer base material subassembly; S400: putting an upper shaping mold on an upper surface of the magnetic part and interlayer base material subassembly obtained in step S300; S500: putting the magnetic part and interlayer base material subassembly and upper shaping mold into a first flexible container; S600: performing air extraction processing on the first flexible container, and sealing the first flexible container after the air extraction processing is completed; S700: putting the first flexible container including the magnetic part and interlayer base material subassembly and upper shaping mold inside the first flexible container into an autoclave, sealing the autoclave, inflating and pressurizing the autoclave, and heating the first flexible container including the magnetic part and interlayer base material subassembly and upper shaping mold inside the first flexible container for a predetermined duration; S800: stopping the heating after performing the heating for the predetermined duration, waiting for the first flexible container including the magnetic part and interlayer base material subassembly and upper shaping mold inside the first flexible container to cool to a preset temperature to obtain a semi-finished magnetic interlayer product; S900: cutting the semi-finished magnetic interlayer obtained in step S800 to a preset shape and size to obtain the magnetic interlayer (This limitation stating how the product is made. The applicant is referred to MPEP 2113, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. The prior art product meets this limitation because, for reasons detailed with respect to claim 1 above, the prior art product has the same structure and material properties as applicant’s claimed product.).
For claim 15. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 1, Zeng discloses the hot-melt base material is made of resin (polycarbonate).
But fails to mention wherein the inner shell, the outer shell and the reinforcing fiber yarn are made of aramid fiber.
Official notice is taken that an electronic device shell made with aramid fiber is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques into the art of Zeng as modified by SEYBOTH as to improve strength of the shells with aramid fiber.
For claim 16. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 1, Zeng discloses wherein a thickness of the inner shell is 0.25 mm-0.5 mm, a thickness of the outer shell is 0.25 mm-0.5 mm, and a thickness of the magnetic interlayer is 0.1 mm-0.5 mm (figures 4-5, [0019]-[0023], [0028]: “Those skilled in the art can obtain various other corresponding changes and transformations according to the structure and principle disclosed in the present disclosure, and all these changes and transformations fall within the protection scope of the present disclosure”. It is a design choice to one ordinary skilled in the art).
For claim 17. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 1, Zeng discloses wherein the magnetic part has a magnetic part thickness that is equal to the base material thickness and the depth of the through-hole (figures 4-5, [0019]-[0023]).
For claim 18. Zeng in combination with SEYBOTH substantially teaches the protective case for electronic device according to claim 1, Zeng discloses wherein the magnetic part is fixed in the through-hole and the magnetic interlayer is flattened by applying heat and pressure to the magnetic interlayer to melt the hot-melt base material (figures 4-5, [0019]-[0023], the base plate polycarbonate (PC) sheet 11, also see MPEP 2113).
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300, submitted online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only, Registered users of the USPTO's EFS-Web system may submit a response electronically through EFS-Web at https://efs.uspto.gov/TruePassSample/AuthenticateUserLocalEPF.html), or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rui Meng Hu whose telephone number is 571-270-1105, email is ruimeng.hu@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on (571)272-3965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Rui Meng Hu/
R.H./rh
June 9, 2026
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights