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
Claims 3-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/29/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B (Fig 4) in the reply filed on 1/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there should not be a burdensome search. This is not found persuasive because the burdensome search is outlined in the restriction requirement mailed on 12/10/2025 which has not been directly responded to or had any error pointed out. Finally, the only proper traversal to an election of species requirement is that the components are obvious variants over one another. Absent such an admission, they are deemed separately patentable and a search burden exists for examining all of the differing species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 8-11 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first blind hole" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the second blind hole" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first blind hole" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the second blind hole" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first blind hole" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the corresponding second blind hole" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the second blind hole" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-11 is/are rejected,. As best understood due to indefiniteness issues, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Machida US 11402158 B2.
Re claim 1, Machida teach a case (152, 153) for an electronic device, comprising an outer surface and an inner surface, wherein the outer surface comprises a plurality of first blind holes (annotated fig), the inner surface comprises a plurality of second blind holes (annotated fig) corresponding to the first blind holes, and each of the first blind holes and the corresponding second blind hole are three-dimensionally overlapped to form a through region (region with holes) extending through the case (fig 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
799
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Machida teach wherein the first blind holes are arranged in an array on the outer surface, and the second blind holes are arranged in an array on the inner surface (fig 11).
2. The case for an electronic device according to claim 1,
Re claim 8, Machida teach wherein the case comprises a thickness along a thickness direction (thickness of 152 ), the first blind hole comprises a first depth along the thickness direction, the second blind hole comprises a second depth along the thickness direction, and a sum of the first depth and the second depth is greater than the thickness (fig 11).
Re claim 9, Machida teach wherein the case comprises a thickness direction, the first blind hole and the corresponding second blind hole are overlapped along the thickness direction, and projection patterns of the first blind hole and the corresponding second blind hole on the outer surface are partially overlapped (figs 11, figs 6).
Re claim 10, Machida teach wherein the first blind hole and the corresponding second blind hole has an overlapped depth along the thickness direction (figs 11, figs 6).
Re claim 11, Machida teach wherein the second blind hole comprises a tapered bottom surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8611089 B2
US 7836597 B2
US 11384993 B2
US 10371461 B2
US 20120208265 A1
US 4516632 A
US 3361195 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights