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 .
This communication is in response to the claim’s amendment dated 7/6/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Issues raised by the Applicant:
a) The Office action appears to rely on an annotated portion of FIG. 1 of Chen as allegedly corresponding to the claimed first groove. However, Chen describes a different structure. The first bezel first bezel 30 of Chen includes an extension portion 31 "in an arc shape extending toward the middle portion of the first bezel 30," with a free end disposed opposite to a sidewall of the display panel 20. Chen further explains that this arc-shaped extension portion forms a smooth transition between the display panel and the first bezel. Chen does not describe any groove formed in the first bezel 30 or in the extension portion 31 at an inner side of a corner formed by an inner bent wall and a vertical wall. Nor does Chen describe any groove that extends in a circumferential direction of a housing for purposes of locally plastically deforming a first corner or reducing a radius of a first rounded corner, as recited in claim 1.
(b) To the extent Chen discloses "a first groove 93 and a second groove 94," those grooves are expressly disclosed in a different component and for a different purpose. Chen states that the first groove 93 and second groove 94 are disposed on the top plate 91 and side plate 92 of the second bezel 90, respectively, so that an upper end of the vertical plate 81 of the backplane 80 is inserted into the first groove 93 and an elastic hook 81 a is embedded in the second groove 94. Thus, the grooves 93 and 94 of Chen are engagement features for assembling the backplane 80 to the second bezel 90. Unlike the first grove in claim 1, the grooves 93 and 94 in Chen are not arranged on an inner side of the first corner formed by the inner bent wall and the vertical wall, and are not disclosed as extending in a circumferential direction of the housing.
As the foregoing illustrates, Chen fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1. Therefore, Chen cannot anticipate or render obvious claim 1.
The Examiner’s Position:
a) The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. From the below comparison between figure 1 of Chen and figure 8 of the current application, it appear the groove of Chen and the groove 251 of the current application are positioned in similar position and both extend in same direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
509
339
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
729
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
b) The Applicant’s argument appears not relating to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and therefore, not persuasive.
Note: Claim 8 was non-elected as indicated in the previous Office Action. The Applicant is reminded to change the status of claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEN et al. U.S. Pub. 2016/0357053.
PNG
media_image3.png
655
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, CHEN et al. teaches a housing (see above figure 1), comprising a bottom wall (see above annotated figure 1); and
a side wall (30; figure 1), wherein the side wall is bent (see above annotated figure 1) and connected to an edge (see above figure 1) of the bottom wall,
wherein a part (see above annotated figure 1) of the side wall (30) away from the bottom wall is bent inward (see figure 1) to form an inner bent wall (31; figure 1), and a part (see above annotated figure 1) of the side wall located between the inner bent wall and the bottom wall is a vertical wall (see above annotated figure 1); and
a first corner (see above annotated figure 1) formed by (see figure 1) the inner bent wall and the vertical wall is provided with a first structural portion (see above annotated figure 1) formed by pressure machining (see below explanation), so that plastic deformation (see above figure 1) occurs at a first rounded corner (see above annotated figure 1) located on an outer side (see above figure 1) of the first corner, to reduce a radius of the first rounded corner.
wherein the first structural portion comprises a first groove (see below annotated figure 1), wherein the first groove is arranged on an inner side (see below figure 1) of the first corner and extends in a circumferential direction (see below figure 1) of the housing.
Regarding the above claimed “pressure machining” process: The claim is a product-by-process claim and that the product itself does not depend on the process for making it. The examiner only needs to provide some rationale which supports the conclusion that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art. From figure 9 of this application and figure 1 of CHEN et al., the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art. The applicant will need to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
PNG
media_image2.png
729
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, CHEN et al. teaches the housing according to claim 1, wherein the first structural portion further comprises a first extrusion surface (see above annotated figure 1), wherein the first extrusion surface is located on an outer side (see above figure 1) of the inner bent wall and is connected to the first rounded corner.
Regarding claim 3, CHEN et al. teaches the housing according to claim 1, wherein the first groove (see above annotated figure 1) is arranged at a junction (see above figure 1) between the vertical wall (see above annotated figure 1) and the inner bent wall (31; figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, CHEN et al. teaches a terminal device, comprising:
a housing (see above figure 1) comprising a bottom wall (see above annotated figure 1) and a side wall (30; figure 1);
wherein the side wall is bent (see above annotated figure 1) and connected to an edge (see above figure 1) of the bottom wall;
wherein a part (see above annotated figure 1) of the side wall away from the bottom wall is bent inward (see figure 1) to form an inner bent wall (31; figure 1), and a part (see above annotated figure 1) of the side wall located between the inner bent wall and the bottom wall is a vertical wall (see above annotated figure 1); and
a first corner (see above annotated figure 1) formed by the inner bent wall and the vertical wall is provided with a first structural portion (see above annotated figure 1) formed by pressure machining (see above explanation), so that plastic deformation (see above figure 1) occurs at a first rounded corner (see above annotated figure 1) located on an outer side (see above figure 1) of the first corner, to reduce a radius of the first rounded corner;
wherein the first structural portion comprises a first groove (see below annotated figure 1), wherein the first groove is arranged on an inner side (see below figure 1) of the first corner and extends in a circumferential direction (see below figure 1) of the housing.
Regarding the above claimed “pressure machining” process: The claim is a product-by-process claim and that the product itself does not depend on the process for making it. The examiner only needs to provide some rationale which supports the conclusion that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art. From figure 9 of this application and figure 1 of CHEN et al., the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art. The applicant will need to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. U.S. Pub. 2016/0357053.
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above, CHEN et al. teaches the housing according to claim 3, wherein a wall thickness of the vertical wall is d1 (see figure 1), and a groove depth of the first groove is h1 (see figure 1).
Even though, CHEN et al. does not specifically teach wherein h1=(0.125 to 0.1875) d1, however, since the specification of the instant application does not show any criticality as to why the groove depth and the wall thickness have to follow such relationship, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to derive such relationship, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, CHEN et al. teaches the housing according to claim 1. The structures in the limitation “wherein a second corner formed by the side wall and the bottom wall is provided with a second structural portion formed by pressure machining, so that plastic deformation occurs at a second rounded corner located on an outer side of the second corner, to reduce a radius of the second rounded corner.” are merely the same structures that might be on the opposite end of the housing.
Even though, figure 1 of CHEN et al. does not clearly show those same structures on the other end/side of the housing, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide such same structures on the other side/end of said housing to achieve the same purpose, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 6, CHEN et al. teaches the housing according to claim 5, wherein the second structural portion comprises a second groove, wherein the second groove is arranged on an inner side of the second corner and extends in the circumferential direction of the housing, for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, CHEN et al. teaches the housing according to claim 1. Even though, CHEN et al. does not specifically teach the wall thicknesses of the bottom wall, the vertical wall, and the inner bent wall are equal, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide equal wall thickness for the bottom wall, the vertical wall, and the inner bent wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change (or not change) in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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 HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6PM..
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, 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/IMANI N HAYMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights