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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 14-20, in the reply filed on 5/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-13 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/27/2026.
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 1-7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN113411430A).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Li discloses an electronic device housing, comprising a glass device (Figs. 3-4), the glass device (Fig. 3) comprising a glass body (10) having a first surface (11), the first surface comprising a plurality of first frosted regions (111) distributed spaced apart from each other, two adjacent first frosted regions (111) connected by a second frosted region (112), and each of the first frosted regions and the second frosted region having a shape of a straight strip (Fig. 4), wherein each of the first frosted regions has a plurality of first protruding structures (pits 1111), the second frosted region having a plurality of second protruding structures (roughness).
Li fails to specifically teach a height and length of one of the second protruding structures are less than a height and a length of one of the first protruding structures.
Li teaches the first and second frosted regions having different roughness and the shape of the pits is not limited and can be circular, rectangular and any combination thereof (paragraph [0034]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size and/or shape of the protruding structures of the first and second frosted regions in Li to have the height and length of one of the second protruding structures be less than a height and a length of one of the first protruding structures in order to form the desired anti-glare effect and decorative appearance. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and/or size of the protruding structures. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Li fails to teach each of the first protruding structures and the second protruding structures comprising at least one of a prism, a pyramidal frustum, a cube or a pyramid. Li teaches the shape of the protruding structures is not limited and can be circular, rectangular and any combination thereof (paragraph [0034]).Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the first and second protruding structures in Li to comprise at least one of a prism, a pyramidal frustum, a cube or a pyramid in order to form the desired anti-glare effect and decorative appearance. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the protruding structures. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Li fails to teach the length of the one of the first protruding structures is in a range of 100 µm to 150 µm; and the height of the one of the first protruding structures is in a range of 10 µm to 16 µm. Li teaches the first and second frosted regions having different roughness and the shape of the pits is not limited and can be circular, rectangular and any combination thereof (paragraph [0034]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size and/or shape of the first protruding structures in Li to have the length of the one of the first protruding structures is in a range of 100 µm to 150 µm and the height of the one of the first protruding structures is in a range of 10 µm to 16 µm in order to form the desired anti-glare effect and decorative appearance. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and/or size of the protruding structures. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Li fails to teach the length of the one of the second protruding structures is in a range of 30 µm to 60 µm; and the height of the one of the second protruding structures is in a range of 3 µm to 6 µm. Li teaches the first and second frosted regions having different roughness and the shape of the pits is not limited and can be circular, rectangular and any combination thereof (paragraph [0034]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size and/or shape of the second protruding structures in Li to have the length of the one of the second protruding structures is in a range of 30 µm to 60 µm and the height of the one of the second protruding structures is in a range of 3 µm to 6 µm in order to form the desired anti-glare effect and decorative appearance. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and/or size of the protruding structures. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Li fails to teach a width of one of the first frosted regions being in a range of 100 µm to 500 µm, and a width of the second frosted region is in a range of 100 µm to 500µm. Li teaches the first and second frosted regions can have different shapes and the specific shape is not limited (paragraph [0033]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size and/or shape of the first and second frosted regions in Li to have the width of one of the first frosted regions being in a range of 100 µm to 500 µm, and the width of the second frosted region being in a range of 100 µm to 500µm in order to form the desired anti-glare effect and decorative appearance. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and/or size of the frosted regions. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Li discloses a roughness of the first frosted regions is in a range of 1.5 µm to 4 µm, and a roughness of the second frosted region is in a range of 0.3 µm to 1µm (paragraph [0062]). Thus, the haze of the first frosted regions is inherently in a range of 80% to 90% and the light transmittance of the first frosted regions is inherently in a range of 75% to 93%, and the haze of the second frosted region is inherently in a range of 90% to 95% and the light transmittance of the second frosted region is inherently in a range of 75% to 93% (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Li discloses a roughness of the first frosted regions is in a range of 1.5 µm to 4 µm, and roughness of the second frosted region is in a range of 0.3 µm to 1µm (paragraph [0062]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights