Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/706,163

RECORDING DEVICE, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR, AND HOUSING

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Examiner
KRIM, PETER
Art Unit
2841
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Nhk Spring Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
76 granted / 92 resolved
+14.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
130
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 92 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claims 1-2, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino (JP2008232167; “Ogino” hereinafter), in view of Kobayashi et al (US 20020112870; “Kobayashi” hereinafter). Regarding claim 1, Ogino teaches: a recording device, comprising: a base (2, fig. 1) for a housing (1, fig. 1) accommodating a recording medium (¶[0001], ¶[0033]); a cover (3, fig. 1) attached to the base to close a space (as shown in fig. 5) of the housing accommodating the recording medium (¶[0033]); a gasket (7, fig. 1) attached to one of the base and the cover and being in contact with the other of the base and the cover so as to be interposed between the base and the cover in a compressed state (¶[0020]-[0022]); and a recessed portion (6, fig. 1) comprising an opening (opening portion of 6, fig. 1), opening edges (outer edges of 8, see annotated fig. 1 below), and inner face (4a, fig. 1), provided on said other of the base and the cover so that part of the gasket in the compressed state is entered into the recessed portion in a compressing direction (¶[0019]-[0022]), wherein PNG media_image1.png 239 373 media_image1.png Greyscale the gasket is in contact with at least one of opening edges in the width direction of the recessed portion and a bottom face (see annotated fig. 1 below) of a bottom-most portion (see annotated fig. 1 below) of the recessed portion in the compressed state (¶[0019]-[0022]). Ogino does not explicitly disclose: wherein the gasket fully fills an inside of the recessed portion in the compressed state. However, Kobayashi teaches: a gasket (9) fully fills an inside of a recessed portion (59) in a compressed state (as disclosed upon examination of fig.14, ¶[0007]-[0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Kobayashi’s teaching into Ogino, such that the gasket fully fills an inside of the recessed portion in the compressed state, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Kobayashi. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143). Regarding claim 2, Ogino in view of Kobayashi teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Ogino further discloses: wherein the gasket is in contact with both the opening edges in the width direction of the recessed portion (¶[0021]-[0022]). Regarding claim 11, Ogino teaches: a housing (1) comprising: a base (2, fig. 2b) and a cover (3, fig. 2b) attached to the base (¶[0003]); a gasket (7, fig. 2b) attached to one of the base and the cover and being in contact with the other of the base and the cover so as to be interposed between the base and the cover in a compressed state (fig. 1 ¶[0020]-[0022]); and a recessed portion (6, fig. 2b) comprising an opening (opening portion of 6, fig. 1), opening edges (outer edges of 8, see annotated fig. 1 below), and inner face (4a, fig. 1), provided on said other of the base and the cover so that part of the gasket in the compressed state is entered into the recessed portion in a compressing direction (¶[0019]-[0022]), wherein PNG media_image1.png 239 373 media_image1.png Greyscale the gasket is in contact with at least one of opening edges in the width direction of the recessed portion and a bottom face (see annotated fig. 1 below) of a bottom-most portion (see annotated fig. 1 below) of the recessed portion in the compressed state (¶[0019]-[0022]). Ogino does not explicitly disclose: wherein the gasket fully fills an inside of the recessed portion in the compressed state. However, Kobayashi teaches: a gasket (9) fully fills an inside of a recessed portion (59) in a compressed state (as disclosed upon examination of fig.14, ¶[0007]-[0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Kobayashi’s teaching into Ogino, such that the gasket fully fills an inside of the recessed portion in the compressed state, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Kobayashi. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143). Claims 5-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino (JP2008232167; “Ogino” hereinafter), in view of Mase et al (JP 5880395; “Mase”, hereinafter), and further in view of Kobayashi et al (US 20020112870; “Kobayashi” hereinafter). Regarding claim 5, Ogino teaches: a manufacturing method for a recording device that attaches a cover to a base for a housing accommodating a recording medium to close a space of the housing accommodating the recording medium (¶[0011], ¶[0017], ¶[0019]), comprising: facing the cover and the base mutually and bringing an end portion (distal end portion) of a gasket (7, fig. 1) provided on one of the cover and the base into contact with a bottom face (see annotated fig. 1 below) of a bottom-most portion (see annotated fig. 1 below) of a recessed portion (6, fig. 1) provided on the other of the cover and the base (¶[0019]-[0022]); and approaching the cover and the base to each other to compress the gasket (¶[0019]-[0022]), thereby swelling part of the gasket in a width direction intersecting a compressing direction while said part of the gasket in a compressed state is entered into the recessed portion in the compressing direction and bringing the gasket into contact with at least one of opening edges in the width direction of the recessed portion to conduct the closing (see at least ¶[0009]-[0010], ¶[0019]-[0020]). PNG media_image1.png 239 373 media_image1.png Greyscale Ogino does not explicitly teach: the gasket comprising a tip end portion, and fully filling the recessed portion with the gasket entered into the recessed portion. However, Mase discloses: PNG media_image2.png 353 380 media_image2.png Greyscale a gasket (1) comprising a tip end portion (see annotated fig. 5 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Mase into Ogino, such that the gasket comprising a tip end portion, because the particular known technique (gaskets with tip ends) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Mase. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).The modification would enhance insertion stability of the gasket. Ogino in view of Mase does not explicitly disclose: the gasket fully filling the recessed portion with the gasket entered into the recessed portion. However, Kobayashi teaches: a gasket (9) fully filling a recessed portion (59) in a compressed state (as disclosed upon examination of fig.14, ¶[0007]-[0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Kobayashi’s teaching into Ogino as modified by Mase, such that a tip end of the gasket in a compressed state is entered into the recessed portion in the compressing direction and bringing the gasket into contact with at least one of opening edges in the width direction of the recessed portion to conduct the closing; and fully filling the recessed portion with the gasket entered into the recessed portion, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Kobayashi. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143). Regarding claim 6, Ogino in view of Mase and Kobayashi teaches the limitations of claim 5, and Ogino further discloses: wherein the tip end portion of the gasket comes into contact with a bottom portion of the recessed portion at the time of the facing of the cover and the base (as disclosed upon examination of ¶[0019]-[0020]). Regarding claim 7, Ogino in view of Mase and Kobayashi teaches the limitations of claim 6, and Ogino further discloses: wherein the gasket comes into contact with both the opening edges in the width direction of the recessed portion at the time of the closing (as disclosed upon examination of ¶[0019]-[0020]). Regarding claim 9, Ogino in view of Mase and Kobayashi teaches the limitations of claim 5, and Ogino further discloses: wherein a width of an opening of the recessed portion is greater than a corresponding width of the gasket in the free state, and the corresponding width is a width in the gasket in the free state at an apart position apart from said one of the base and the cover by a distance, the distance being from said one of the base and the cover to the opening of the recessed portion in the closed state (as understood by the disclosure of ¶[0019]-[0022], where “the gasket 7 which is the seal portion 4 of the base 2 in this example, is formed in an uneven shape 6 so as to change a compression amount in a widthwise direction of the gasket 7”). Regarding claim 10, Ogino in view of Mase and Kobayashi teaches the limitations of claim 9, and Mase further discloses: wherein a volume of the gasket on a tip end side from the apart position in the compressing direction in the free state is greater than a volumetric capacity of the recessed portion (as disclosed upon examination of annotated fig. 5 below). PNG media_image3.png 267 430 media_image3.png Greyscale Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5, 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm. 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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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. /ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 17, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596399
Cases for Electronic Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598904
ROLLABLE DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING ROTATABLE SUPPORTING PARTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594831
DISPLAY DEVICE AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593393
SELF-CONTAINED BALLAST DRIVER FOR RETROFITTING A LIGHTING SYSTEM WITH LED LIGHTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585421
INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM KEYBOARD MEMBRANE WITH SPEAKER INTERFACE
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+1.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 92 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