Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/786,982

ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 29, 2024
Examiner
SHRESTHA, SAGAR
Art Unit
2841
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
DENSO CORPORATION
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
393 granted / 471 resolved
+15.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
493
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.2%
+11.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§112
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 471 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 § 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)(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pandey et al. (US 20190098778: “Pandey” hereinafter). Regarding claim 1, Pandey discloses an electronic device comprising: a first housing member (118) that houses a first circuit board (116); a second housing member (114) that houses a second circuit board (104) and is assembled to the first housing member (first housing 118 and the second housing 114 are connected together via a connector 108; fig. 4B and par. [0037]); and a connector (connector 108, “second connector” annotated fig. 4B) that electrically connects the first circuit board and the second circuit board (fig. 4B and par. [0037]), wherein the second housing member is formed with a second opening (opening through which second connector extends out of the housing 114) in which the connector (“second connector”, annotated fig. 4B) is disposed (annotated fig. 4B), and includes a groove part (“groove part”, annotated fig. 4B) provided at a position facing the first housing member and surrounding a periphery of the second opening (annotated fig. 4B), and the first housing member is formed with a first opening (“first opening”, annotated fig. 4B) in which the connector (108) is disposed (annotated fig. 4B), and includes a protruding part (“protruding part”, annotated fig. 4B ) provided at a position facing the second housing member (annotated fig. 4B), surrounding a periphery of the first opening, and disposed in the groove part (annotated fig. 4B). PNG media_image1.png 484 794 media_image1.png Greyscale 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. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey in view of Chen (US 6877995; “Chen” hereinafter). Regarding claim 2, Pandey discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1. Pandey does not explicitly disclose the protruding part has a first folded portion that protrudes in a direction opposite to the first opening. Chen teaches an electronic device comprising a connector housing (10); the front portion of the connector housing (10) has a folded portion (“folded portion”, annotated fig. 4A) that protrudes in a direction opposite to an opening of the connector housing (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Pandey to incorporate a folded portion that protrudes in a direction opposite to the first opening as suggested by Chen because such modification provides support to the connector housing or protruding part. PNG media_image2.png 720 528 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey in view of Baltrusch et al. (US 20220386492 ; “Baltrusch” hereinafter) and further view of Chen. Regarding claim 3, Pandey discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1. Pandey does not explicitly disclose wherein the second housing member includes an inner wall portion and an outer wall portion that define the groove part, and the inner wall portion has a second folded portion that protrudes in a direction opposite to the second opening. Baltrusch teaches an electronic device comprising a housing (2); wherein the housing member includes an inner wall portion (13, 14) and an outer wall portion (wall portion of the housing 2 that lines with the sealing groove 15 opposite to the portions/walls 13 and 14) that define a groove part (15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Pandey to include an inner wall portion and an outer wall portion that define the groove part as taught by Baltrusch because such modification helps to hermetically seal the connection element to the housing (par. [0047]). Pandey in view of Baltrusch does not explicitly disclose the inner wall portion has a second folded portion that protrudes in a direction opposite to the second opening. Chen teaches an electronic device comprising a connector housing (10); an inner wall (“inner wall”, annotated fig. 4A) of the connector housing (10) has a folded portion (“folded portion”, annotated fig. 4A) that protrudes in a direction opposite to an opening (opening of the terminal groove 11) of the connector housing (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Pandey in view of Baltrusch to have the inner wall portion incorporate a second folded portion that protrudes in a direction opposite to the second opening as suggested by Chen because such modification provides support to the connector housing or protruding part. Regarding claim 4, Pandey in view of Baltrusch and Chen discloses the device as claimed in claim 3. Pandey in view of Baltrusch does not explicitly disclose wherein the outer wall portion is inclined or curved. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the groove part of Pandey in view of Baltrusch and Chen to have the outer wall portion is inclined or curved, since changing the shape of the outer wall portion appears to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Regarding claim 5, Pandey in view of Baltrusch and Chen discloses wherein the protruding part (3, Baltrusch, fig. 1) is disposed to face the inner wall portion (13, 14, Baltrusch, fig. 1). Claim(s) 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey in view of Baltrusch et al. (US 20220386492 ; “Baltrusch” hereinafter). Regarding claim 6, Pandey discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1. Pandey does not explicitly disclose wherein the groove part have open ends at opposite ends thereof, the open ends opening on an end of the second housing member. Baltrusch teaches an electronic device comprising a groove part (15) having open ends at opposite ends thereof (the groove 15 has open ends at the lower end of each of the two lateral portions 17, figs. 1, 4), the open ends opening on an end of a housing member (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Pandey to such modification helps to hermetically seal the connection element to the housing (par. [0047]). Regarding claim 7, Pandey in view of Baltrusch discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 6, and Baltrusch further teaches wherein the groove part (15) includes two first facing regions (17) and a second facing region (16) in communication with the two first facing regions (fig. 1), the two first facing regions include the open ends and are disposed on opposite sides of the connector (the groove 15 has open ends at the lower end of each of the two lateral portions 17, figs. 1, 4). Pandey in view of Baltrusch does not explicitly disclose a bottom surface of the groove part in the second facing region has a curved portion a center of which protrudes toward the first housing member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify groove part of Pandey in view of Baltrusch to have the bottom surface of the groove part in the second facing region including a curved portion at a center of which protrudes toward the first housing member, since changing the shape of the bottom surface of the groove part appears to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Regarding claim 8, Pandey in view of Baltrusch discloses wherein the groove part (15, Baltrusch) includes two first facing regions (17, Baltrusch) and a second facing region (16, Baltrusch) in communication with the two first facing regions (fig. 1, Baltrusch), the two first facing regions include the open ends and are disposed on opposite sides of the connector (the groove 15 has open ends at the lower end of each of the two lateral portions 17, figs. 1, 4, Baltrusch), and a bottom surface of the groove part (15, Baltrusch) in each first facing region has an inclined portion (“two lateral portions 17 running substantially obliquely to the peripheral wall 8”, par. [0046], figs. 1, 4) that is inclined so as to be away from the first housing member (Pandey and Baltrusch combinedly teaches this limitation). Regarding claim 9, Pandey in view of Baltrusch discloses the device as claimed in claim 7. Pandey in view of Baltrusch does not explicitly disclose wherein the groove part is curved from the center toward the open ends in the second facing region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the groove part of Pandey in view of Baltrusch to have the groove part curved from the center toward the open ends in the second facing region, since changing the shape of the groove part appears to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Regarding claim 10, Pandey in view of Baltrusch discloses wherein the groove part is inclined toward the open ends in the second facing region (“two lateral portions 17 running substantially obliquely to the peripheral wall 8”, par. [0046], figs. 1, 4). Pandey in view of Baltrusch does not explicitly disclose the groove part is inclined from the center toward the open ends. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the groove part of Pandey in view of Baltrusch to have the groove part inclined from the center toward the open ends, since changing the shape of the groove part appears to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey in view of Kim et al. (US 20250168995; “Kim” hereinafter). Regarding claim 11, Pandey discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1. Pandey does not explicitly disclose wherein the first housing member and the second housing member, assembled to each other, define a hollow part between facing surfaces thereof, a sealing member is disposed between the first housing member and the second housing member to surround the hollow part, and the groove part is disposed outside of the sealing member. Kim teaches an electronic device comprising a first housing member (100) and a second housing member (200), assembled to each other, define a hollow part (hollow part between the connector 112 and the rib 122, fig. 7) between facing surfaces thereof (figs 1-10), a sealing member (150) is disposed between the first housing member and the second housing member to surround the hollow part (par. [0067], [0074]; figs. 7-10), and a groove part (128) is disposed outside of the sealing member (150) (figs 7-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Pandey to have the first housing member and the second housing member, assembled to each other, define a hollow part between facing surfaces thereof, a sealing member is disposed between the first housing member and the second housing member to surround the hollow part, and the groove part is disposed outside of the sealing member as taught by Kim because such modification helps to seal between the two housings and prevent water from entering the connector (par. [0067], [0074]). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 1 and claim 11, a combination of limitations that wherein the hollow part allows a liquid refrigerant to flow. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed in the form 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1236. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-6:30 pm, Monday-Friday. 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 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. /SAGAR SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 29, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 02, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 02, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604424
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602085
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604425
ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING LINK STRUCTURE AND CAPABLE OF SLIDING OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588154
FOLDABLE DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578763
Deformable Electronic Devices and Methods for Constructing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+13.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 471 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