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 .
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.
Claim 9 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.
Claim 9 currently depends from “any one of claim 1-8” however claims 2, 6, and 7 have been canceled. It is unclear how claim 9 is to be interpreted where it depends from claims 2, 6, or 7, or whether claim 9 should be interpreted as an independent claim where the claims from which it depends have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it depends from claims that do not exist. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim is not been further treated on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the gaps must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
While the claims “gaps” are discussed in the present specification it is unclear from the drawings and from applicant’s arguments with respect to the claimed “gaps” where or what elements of the present application constitute the claimed “gaps” recited in the claims.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Misra et al. (US 2024/0373575).
Regarding claim 1 Misra discloses:
A machine housing applied to a mobile electronic terminal, the machine housing comprising:
an inner shell (e.g. 524 FIG.5) comprising an inner shell body and an accommodating groove (e.g. plural grooves shown FIG.5) formed by recessing from one side of the inner shell body (e.g. shown FIG.5) ; and
an outer shell (e.g. 522 FIG.5) in an annular shape (e.g. forming annulus shown FIG.3), wherein the housing extends around a periphery of the inner shell body and is fixed to the inner shell body (e.g. indicated via dotted lines FIG.3); wherein
the outer shell is made of a titanium alloy material (e.g. described paragraph [0039]), the inner shell body is made of a metal material other than the titanium alloy material (e.g. described paragraph [0037]); and
the outer shell and the inner shell body are fixedly molded into an integrated structure by a hot isostatic pressing process (e.g. shown FIG.7)(see product by process recitation below); wherein
the outer shell comprises a first outer shell body provided around a part of the periphery of the inner shell body (e.g. 408 FIG.4) and a second outer shell body provided around other parts of the periphery of the inner shell body (e.g. 412 FIG.4);
two gaps are respectively formed at connections of two ends of the first outer shell body and two ends of the second outer shell body (e.g. shown FIG.4/FIG.7);
two opposite sides of the inner shell body are respectively provided with two reinforcing portions (e.g. protruded section of 724 with 726 thereon FIG.7) that protrude and extend outward (e.g. shown protruding FIG.7);
the two reinforcing portions respectively pass through the two gaps and are fixed to the outer shell (e.g. as would be understood from the structure of 408/412 FIG.4 with the ends shown FIG.7); wherein
the reinforcing portion comprises two parallel first protruding portions formed by protruding and extending from the periphery of the inner shell body (e.g. two portions of 724 shown at 726 end FIG.7) and a second protruding portion connecting a middle position of the two first protruding portions (e.g. ends of 410 connecting 408 and 412 FIG.4), and the two first protruding portions and the second protruding portion jointly enclose two grooves located on two opposite sides of the second protruding portion (e.g. as shown via dotted lines FIG.4);
two ends of the first outer shell body and two ends of the second outer shell body are respectively provided with an inserting portion formed by protruding and extending outward (e.g. flange section of 722 shown FIG.7), and two inserting portions located at two adjacent ends of the first outer shell body and the second outer shell body are respectively sandwiched in two corresponding grooves of a same reinforcing portion (e.g. as indicated via dotted lines FIG.4).
(regarding the limitation "hot isostatic pressing process: “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) see MPEP 2114
Additionally: “[E]ven 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) see MPEP 2113)
Regarding claim 3 Misra discloses:
a periphery of the inner shell body protrudes and extends to form a step portion (e.g. step portion of 1002 shown FIG.10B, described paragraph [0085]);
a concave portion is formed by recessing at a position of an inner periphery of the outer shell corresponding to the step portion (e.g. 1002 in recess in 1004 shown FIG.10B); and
the step portion extends into the concave portion (e.g. shown FIG.10B).
Regarding claim 4 Misra discloses:
a plurality of step portions and a plurality of concave portions are provided (e.g. shown FIG.10B, “pattern” described paragraph [0085]), the plurality of step portions are arranged at intervals along the periphery of the inner shell body (e.g. shown FIG.10B), the plurality of concave portions are arranged at intervals along an inner periphery of the outer shell (e.g. shown FIG.10B), and the plurality of step portions each extends into one corresponding concave portion of the plurality of concave portions (e.g. shown FIG.10B).
Regarding claim 5 Misra discloses:
the plurality of step portions are arranged at equal intervals (e.g. line/dot pattern described paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 8 Misra discloses:
the housing body is made of an aluminum metal material (e.g. described paragraph [0006]);
a transition layer is sandwiched at a joint between the outer shell and the inner shell body (e.g. described paragraph [0006]);
a portion of the transition layer close to the housing body is made of the aluminum metal material (e.g. described paragraph [0006]), and a portion of the transition layer close to the outer shell is made of a titanium alloy material (e.g. described paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 9 Misra discloses:
An electronic device, wherein a housing of the electronic device is a machine housing as described in claim 1 (e.g. described abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-01-08 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As a first matter, the present claims of record only incorporate the limitations of former claims 6 and 7, it does not appear that any new limitations have been added. No “mechanical interlock connection” is recited in the prior claims of record, and no “mechanical interlock connection” is recited in the present claims of record, and it is unclear from the arguments what specific limitations of the claim(s) map to applicants argued “mechanical interlock connection”.
Regarding the arguments with respect to methods, applicant is reminded that the current claims of record are apparatus claims and so: “[E]ven 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(MPEP 2113). It is unclear what limitations of the actual claims of record are mapped to from applicant’s method arguments.
Regarding applicants arguments with respect to the drawings, applicant fails to cite any authority for their argument that “features that are not clearly and unambiguously described in the specification cannot be considered as being disclosed merely because they might be inferred from the drawings”. Instead applicant is directed to MPEP 2125: “When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979)”(emphasis added), which appears to directly contradict applicant’s arguments. As applicant provides no authority for their assertion while the MPEP cites specific authority for utilization of drawings, even where the specification does not explain the drawings, then the current rejection of the claims of record appears to be entirely appropriate to rely on the drawings of the prior art. The rejection of record puts forth a reasonable interpretation what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the prior art and how it discloses the current claims of record.
Regarding the arguments against the claimed “gaps” and how Misra reads on the claimed “gaps”: It must be noted that claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification without importing limitations from the specification into the claims (MPEP 2111), and that the prior art may disclose the claimed device in whatever manner so long as the interpretation is within the broadest reasonable interpretation(MPEP 2111), and is proper when given the plain meaning (MPEP 2111.01) of the claim limitations in light of the specification. In the prior art, as shown in FIG.4 the ends of 410 pass through (e.g. indicated by dotted line construction) the gap between the ends of 410 and 414, thereby closing the gap between 410 and 414. Indeed in applicant’s own application the two elements 112 of FIG.2 passes through and closes the gap shown between it and the two 24a/24b shown in order to form the final component in which the gaps shown in FIG.2 between 1 and 2 is closed. Further, applicant’s arguments with respect to the claimed gaps now raises the issue of what actually constitutes the claimed “gaps” in the drawings as there are no “gaps” expressly shown or labeled in the drawings. As noted above “The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2125), however the arguments filed 2026-01-08 call into question precisely what elements of the present specification constitute the claimed “gaps” and what the drawings of record actually reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As there is no rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify is needed.
All remaining arguments are already responded to above or addressed in the body of the rejection and so will not be repeated here.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THERON S MILLISER whose telephone number is (571)270-1800. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
Limited examiner interviews are available.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. Hayman can be reached at (571) 270-5528. 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.
/THERON S MILLISER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/IMANI N HAYMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights