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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Important interview history:
The following are the list of important interview summaries. Examiner will maintain this section in respond to Applicant’s arguments, as need. (in the future office action)
3/27/19: Interview Summary
Applicant request to add Fig 8 to the elected species D (Fig 6-7). Examiner agree Applicant’s suggestion and make this election of restriction final without traverse.
Remark filed on 9/13/19: by Attorney Ryan Schermerhorn:
The response filed by Attorney Ryan further thanks for Examiner’s interview and agree with the above election without any traverse.
Conclusion: Examiner respectively request Applicant to follow one elected embodiment for each application and do not keep on amending the SPEC, drawing, or claims based on the arts cited in the office action. Also, switching the embodiments of the claims (and/or SPEC, drawings) will cause serious search burden.
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.
Claim 42 is 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.
In claim 42, “the plurality of walls having a first end and a second end” are not supported by SPEC/drawing and/or unclear. Further clarification is required. Examiner invite Applicant to explain how many first end and second end in the claim? The scope of the claim language is unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, all the limitations, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and/or the claim objections must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32, 45, 48, 54, 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rothbaum (US 20110192857).
With regard claim 32, Rothbaum discloses A docking accessory system, (abstract, see also fig 1-65) comprising: a platform comprising a mating mechanism for detachably attaching a plurality of types of accessories to a mobile electronic device (at least fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also abstract; Examiner also invite Applicant to review other types of accessories, at least, shown on Fig 29, fig 34, Fig 42, Fig 46, Fig 53, Fig 29, Fig 65); a first accessory type of the plurality of types of accessories configured to detachably attach to the platform by way of the mating mechanism (see fig 1-65; as discussed above, there are many accessory type of the plurality of types of accessories configured to detachably attach to the platform by way of the mating mechanism; one or more first accessory type of the plurality of types of accessories was disclosed as discussed above); and a second accessory type of the plurality of types of accessories, configured to detachably attach to the platform by way of the mating mechanism (see fig 1-65; there are many accessory type of the plurality of types of accessories configured to detachably attach to the platform by way of the mating mechanism), wherein the platform is configured as a case to attach to the mobile electronic device and wherein the mobile electronic device is configured as a mobile phone (abstract), wherein the second accessory type is configured as a grip accessory (fig 1-65, Examiner consider any structure can be gripped by hand is a grip accessory; Examiner also invite Applicant to review other types of accessories, at least, shown on Fig 29, fig 34, Fig 42, Fig 46, Fig 53, Fig 29, Fig 65) configured to allow a user to securely hold the mobile electronic device (at least Fig 29, fig 34, Fig 42, Fig 46, Fig 53, Fig 29, Fig 65), and wherein the first accessory type is a battery configured to charge the mobile electronic device (at least fig 17-20, fig 48-49 fig 57-63; paragraph [255]-[262]). Examiner’s note: Cite art disclosed one or more accessory types which is configured to allow a user to securely hold the mobile electronic device.
Regarding claim 45, Rothbaum further disclosed the mating mechanism is configured to attach the first and/or second accessory type to the platform in a plurality of attachment orientations (fig 1-65).
Regarding claim 48, Rothbaum further disclosed the grip accessory is configured to rotate about an axis when attached to the platform (fig 1-65; see also fig 46-54; one or more accessories is configured to rotate about an axis when attached to the platform).
Regarding claim 54, Rothbaum further disclosed mating mechanism is configured to detachably attach the second accessory type completely flush against the platform (fig 1-65; see also fig 49-58; see other accessory types discussed in the independent claims). Examiner’s note: “Flush” : https://www.thefreedictionary.com/flush.
Regarding claim 62, Rothbaum further disclosed the platform extends along sides of the mobile electronic device so as to form an attachment therewith (see fig 1-65, see also fig 51).
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 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 of this title, 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 41, 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothbaum (US 20110192857) in view of Lin (WO 2011035512 A1).
With regard claim 41, the primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for (as a whole structure): the grip accessory is an extendable accessory configured to extend outward from the mobile device platform and to retract back to the mobile device platform.
Lin teaches a mobile device comprising: an accessory which can be an extendable accessory configured to extend outward from the mobile device platform and to retract back to the mobile device platform retracted back to the mobile device platform (at least fig 3-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include this feature (include the accessory which is extendable outward from the mobile device platform and configured to retract back to the device platform) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to the discussed Primary art’s structure with an accessory which allows the accessory to be extend outward and retracted back to the mobile device platform with a modification of thickness; and still allow the original feature of changing the accessories; The modification including the modification of the shape/size of the accessory, mounting structure, and associated mechanical modifications) so as to further allow more user adjustments or lens’ facing angle; and/or more accessory features for the modified structure.
Regarding claim 64, Rothbaum further disclosed the grip accessory comprises a button in the form of an end cap (at least fig 32-34, fig 59, fig 63, or fig 64; see also Lin’s fig 3-9).
Claims 42-43, 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothbaum (US 20110192857) in view of Lin (WO 2011035512 A1) and further in view of Turner (US 3191513).
With regard claim 42, the primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the extendable accessory comprises a plurality of walls, each pair of adjacent walls joined by a flexible hinge, the plurality of walls having a first end and a second end, the plurality of walls movable for expanding and collapsing along a longitudinal axis of the extendable accessory, the plurality of walls being coupleable to the platform at the first end.
Turner art further teaches an extendable structure: the extendable structure comprises a plurality of walls, each pair of adjacent walls joined by a flexible hinge (at least fig 1-5, see also col. 1, lines 10-24), the plurality of walls having a first end and a second end (at least fig 1-5, a first end and a second end; no label), the plurality of walls movable for expanding and collapsing along a longitudinal axis of the extendable accessory (at least fig 1-5), the plurality of walls being coupleable to the structure/device or the target structure at the first end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include this feature (the above extendable structure) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to the previous discussed accessory structure) so as to have (Rothbaum in view of Lin and Tuner): the extendable accessory (Rothbaum in view of Tuner) comprises a plurality of walls (discussed in Tuner), each pair of adjacent walls joined by a flexible hinge (discussed in Tuner), the plurality of walls having a first end and a second end (discussed in Tuner), the plurality of walls movable for expanding and collapsing (discussed in Tuner) along a longitudinal axis of the extendable accessory (Rothbaum in view of Tuner), the plurality of walls being coupleable to the platform (Rothbaum in view of Tuner) at the first end. The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with the current feature is to protect the modified accessory structure.
Regarding claim 43, the modified art further disclosed the extendable accessory further comprises a disc operatively coupled to the second end of the plurality of walls (at least Lin’s fig 5-9, the disc shape of component operatively coupled to the second end; see also the claims 41-42 modification).
Regarding claim 49, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the disc is configured to tilt at an angle relative to the mobile device and platform (at least Lin’s fig 3-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “In accordance with the new election, Applicant has canceled various claims which may not pertain to the elected species of either a grip accessory or a battery accessory. At the same time, Applicant requests re-joinder of certain previously withdrawn claims which do pertain to the newly-elected species. Specifically, Applicant requests rejoinder of claims 34-35 and 50-52.” (pages 7-8).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
Examiner would like to invite Applicant to review the original election of specie and the interview by Attorney. (see also the above discussion)
The election has been done without traverse in 2019 (more than 5 years).
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “Separately, the claims as amended do not merely recite a "grip accessory." Rather, claim 32 has been amended to more particularly recite a grip accessory that is "configured to allow a user to securely hold the mobile electronic device." Federal Circuit precedent is clear that the phrase "configured to" means "adapted to" or "designed to." See, e.g., Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, there is no teaching or suggestion in Rothbaum that any of its accessories has been adapted or designed to be a grip accessory.” (pages 8 to the end).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
Rothbaum discloses A docking accessory system, (abstract, see also fig 1-65) comprising: a platform comprising a mating mechanism for detachably attaching a plurality of types of accessories to a mobile electronic device (at least fig 57-63; see also paragraph [239]-[255]; see also abstract; Examiner also invite Applicant to review other types of accessories, at least, shown on Fig 29, fig 34, Fig 42, Fig 46, Fig 53, Fig 29, Fig 65); a first accessory type of the plurality of types of accessories configured to detachably attach to the platform by way of the mating mechanism (see fig 1-65; as discussed above, there are many accessory type of the plurality of types of accessories configured to detachably attach to the platform by way of the mating mechanism; one or more first accessory type of the plurality of types of accessories was disclosed as discussed above); and a second accessory type of the plurality of types of accessories, configured to detachably attach to the platform by way of the mating mechanism (see fig 1-65; there are many accessory type of the plurality of types of accessories configured to detachably attach to the platform by way of the mating mechanism), wherein the platform is configured as a case to attach to the mobile electronic device and wherein the mobile electronic device is configured as a mobile phone (abstract), wherein the second accessory type is configured as a grip accessory (fig 1-65, Examiner consider any structure can be gripped by hand is a grip accessory; Examiner also invite Applicant to review other types of accessories, at least, shown on Fig 29, fig 34, Fig 42, Fig 46, Fig 53, Fig 29, Fig 65) configured to allow a user to securely hold the mobile electronic device (at least Fig 29, fig 34, Fig 42, Fig 46, Fig 53, Fig 29, Fig 65), and wherein the first accessory type is a battery configured to charge the mobile electronic device (at least fig 17-20, fig 48-49 fig 57-63; paragraph [255]-[262]). Examiner’s note: Cite art disclosed one or more accessory types which is configured to allow a user to securely hold the mobile electronic device.
Conclusion: cited art successfully disclosed all the limitations including the limitations with “configured to allow a user to securely hold the mobile electronic device”.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights