Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 7/28/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15 and 19 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 9, 12-13 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 9 & 12-13 depends on claim 8 that recites an attachment and thus, the apparatus of claim 8 in claim 9, the convex device case of claim 9 in claim 12 and the convex device case of claim 9 shall be read as the attachment of claim 8 and the attachment of claim 9 accordingly. Claim 19 depends on claim 16 which is cancelled. Appropriate corrections are required. See 37 CFR 1.126.
Response to Arguments
3. In Remarks, applicant presents the arguments for the amended claim limitations “wherein the mirrored surface defines an outermost rear surface of the case, the mirrored surface extending continuously from one side of the case to an opposing side of the case, and from a top end to a bottom end of the case, the mirrored surface curving outward from substantially all edges of the back side of the case toward a highest portion located substantially at a central midpoint of the case”.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If reasonably interpretation is given, the amended claim recites the feature of convex. See MPEP 2111. With reasonable interpretation, if the simple definition of convex is compared to the amended claim limitations, the difference would be the change in size or the optimum value for convex. Herein, it’s recommended to recite the claims in light of this instant application, for instance, par. 0040-0041 of PG PUB. Accordingly, with the standard definition of convex, the amended claim limitations could be obvious to one of ordinary skill in art if considered as change in size or finding an optimum value for convex because 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, or t has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 CCPA 1980.
However, to advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. See fig. 6-7 of Gorilovsky that renders the amended claim limitations in combining with the previously applied prior art. See greater details in the claim rejection section set forth below.
It’s to note that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4.Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fathollahi et al. Pub. No.: US 2015/0180527 A1 in view of Mongan et al. Pub. No.: US 2012/0019920 A1 and Gorilovsky et al. Pub. No.: US 2013/0222208 A1.
Claim 1
Fathollahi discloses a case (a protective case for mobile device in fig. 1-8) for a mobile device (fig. 1-8 and par. 0022 for cellular and smart phone), the case comprising:
a front side and a back side (front and back face walls 210 & 220 in fig. 1-5 in par. 0028-0029);
PNG
media_image2.png
672
1448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a receiving section on the front side (see fig. 3A & 4A for receiving mobile device 100 as depicted in fig. 1-2 and see par. 0042) sized to receive the mobile device (see fig. 3A).
Although Fathollahi does not explicitly show: “a mirrored surface on the back side; wherein the mirrored surface defines an outermost rear surface of the case, the mirrored surface extending continuously from one side of the case to an opposing side of the case, and from a top end to a bottom end of the case, the mirrored surface curving outward from substantially all edges of the back side of the case toward a highest portion located substantially at a central midpoint of the case”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “a mirrored surface on the back side”, recall that Fathollahi discloses additional convex lens on the back size (296 in fig. 8 and par. 0029). Since 296 in fig. 8 of Fathollahi covers a region on the back side, it could have rendered the address claim limitations obvious. Additionally, claim does not specifically define what are required to be the mirror surface such as a specific material, and thus, any reflective surface could be a mirror such as glass or a display screen. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Mongan teaches a use of convex surface to redirect the reflection of light outside of the capture area or scope of the lens (fig. 5 and par. 0021) and selecting the material used for case or lens jacket or flash jacket is from glass or mirror (fig. 7 and par. 0024 and see claim 10 and 12 on page 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
192
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify radar data processing of Fathollahi by providing flash insert for mobile phone case as taught in Mongan to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a case to insert a flash for a camera or image or video recorder so that interference of the case and the light departing would be dramatically reduced as suggested in par. 0007-0009 of Mongan.
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the amended claim limitations “wherein the mirrored surface defines an outermost rear surface of the case, the mirrored surface extending continuously from one side of the case to an opposing side of the case, and from a top end to a bottom end of the case, the mirrored surface curving outward from substantially all edges of the back side of the case toward a highest portion located substantially at a central midpoint of the case”, recall that Fathollahi discloses additional convex lens on the back size (296 in fig. 8 and par. 0029) and Mongan discloses the glass or mirror for the case or insert or jacket (par. 0024). Herein, it’s important to note that the claim limitations are merely defining the meaning of convex on the rear surface the case. It means change in size or finding an optimum value for convex. Changing in size or finding the optimum value for convex without a particular involvement could have been considered a routing skill in the art and see the case laws mentioned in the above section. To advance the prosecution, evidence is provided herein. In particular, Gorilovsky teaches the bar form factor display device (par. 0155) having a convex rear face (see fig. 6-7) and the size back screen with bi-stable could be occupied as necessary or according to a particular need (see par. 0149-0150 that reads on the amended claim limitations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify radar data processing of Fathollahi in view of Mongan by providing a device with display screens as taught in Gorilovsky to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a display device to have a first display on a front face and a second display on a back face so that a user could view on the display device regardless of open configuration or close configuration as suggested in par. 0007-0009 of Gorilovsky.
Claim 2
Fathollahi, in view of Mongan and Gorilovsky, discloses the convex device case of claim 1, wherein mirrored surface has a radius of curvature of 225mm (Fathollahi, camera lens and a flash in par. 0027, convex lens 296 in fig. 8 and par. 0029; Mongan, mirrored surface in par. 0020, mirror material in par. 0024; fig. 6-7 of Gorilovsky; the claim featured radius of curvature of 250 mm is reasonably interpreted as finding an optimum value; it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 CCPA 1980; see radius of curvature in par. 0021, radium in millimeters in par. 0045 in Rondinelli et al. Pu
Claim 3
Fathollahi, in view of Mongan and Gorilovsky,, discloses the convex device case of claim 1, wherein mirrored surface comprises a magnification less than 1 (Fathollahi, camera lens and a flash in par. 0027, convex lens 296 in fig. 8 and adjusting the magnification in par. 0029; Mongan, mirrored surface in par. 0020, mirror material in par. 0024; again, magnification less than 1 is considered as finding an optimum value; it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 CCPA 1980).
Claim 5
Fathollahi, in view of Mongan and Gorilovsky, discloses the convex device case of claim 1, wherein the mirrored surface is detachable with the back side of the case (Fathollahi, opening 224 at the back of the case in fig. 1-5 and see opening for convex lens 296 in fig. 8 and par. 0029; Mongan, mirrored surface in par. 0020, mirror material and convex in par. 0024; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 6
Fathollahi, in view of Mongan and Gorilovsky, discloses the convex device case of claim 1, wherein the back side comprises a camera opening (Fathollahi, opening 224 for camera in fig. 1-5 and see opening for convex lens 296 in fig. 8 and par. 0029; Mongan, mirrored surface in par. 0020, mirror material and convex in par. 0024; hence, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 8
Fathollahi discloses an attachment (a protective case for mobile device in fig. 1-8) for providing a mirrored, minimized virtual image (fig. 8, the convex lens allows user to manually focus or adjust the magnification as explained in par. 0029) for a user of a rear camera (camera feature on and cellular telephone in fig. 1-8 and par. 0026) of a mobile device (fig. 1-8 and par. 0022 for cellular and smart phone), the attachment comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
482
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a securing element (226 or 228 in fig. 4B, fig. 1-8) configured to attached the body to at least one of the mobile device and a mobile device case (see fig. 1-4 and 226 in fig. 2B), wherein the body spans substantially an entire rear portion of the at least one of the mobile device and the mobile device case (secure element could be reasonably interpreted as one of the user interface module compartment 226 on the back face wall or screws 352 in par. 0037, the EVA padding components 283 or 293, or lens accessory secured to the aperture in claim 28 on pg. 7).
Although Fathollahi does not explicitly show: “a body comprising a mirrored surface defining an outermost rear surface of the body, the mirrored surface extending continuously from one side of the body to an opposing side of the body, and from a top end to a bottom end of the body, the mirrored surface curving outward from substantially all sides of the body toward a highest portion located substantially at a central midpoint of the body”, the claimed limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “a body comprising a mirrored surface”, recall that Fathollahi discloses additional convex lens on the back size (296 in fig. 8 and par. 0029). Since 296 in fig. 8 of Fathollahi covers a region on the back side, it could have rendered the address claim limitations obvious. Additionally, claim does not specifically define what are required to be the mirror surface such as a specific material, and thus, any reflective surface could be a mirror such as glass or a display screen. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Mongan teaches a use of convex surface to redirect the reflection of light outside of the capture area or scope of the lens (fig. 5 and par. 0021) and selecting the material used for case or lens jacket or flash jacket is from glass or mirror (fig. 7 and par. 0024 and see claim 10 and 12 on page 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
192
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify radar data processing of Fathollahi by providing flash insert for mobile phone case as taught in Mongan to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a case to insert a flash for a camera or image or video recorder so that interference of the case and the light departing would be dramatically reduced as suggested in par. 0007-0009 of Mongan.
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the amended claim limitations “a mirrored surface defining an outermost rear surface of the body, the mirrored surface extending continuously from one side of the body to an opposing side of the body, and from a top end to a bottom end of the body, the mirrored surface curving outward from substantially all sides of the body toward a highest portion located substantially at a central midpoint of the body”, recall that Fathollahi discloses additional convex lens on the back size (296 in fig. 8 and par. 0029) and Mongan discloses the glass or mirror for the case or insert or jacket (par. 0024). Herein, it’s important to note that the claim limitations are merely defining the meaning of convex on the rear surface the case. It means change in size or finding an optimum value for convex. Changing in size or finding the optimum value for convex without a particular involvement could have been considered a routing skill in the art and see the case laws mentioned in the above section. To advance the prosecution, evidence is provided herein. In particular, Gorilovsky teaches the bar form factor display device (par. 0155) having a convex rear face (see fig. 6-7) and the size back screen with bi-stable could be occupied as necessary or according to a particular need (see par. 0149-0150 that reads on the amended claim limitations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify radar data processing of Fathollahi in view of Mongan by providing a device with display screens as taught in Gorilovsky to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a display device to have a first display on a front face and a second display on a back face so that a user could view on the display device regardless of open configuration or close configuration as suggested in par. 0007-0009 of Gorilovsky.
Claim 9
Fathollahi, in view of Mongan and Gorilovsky, discloses the apparatus of claim 8 [objected for typographic error], wherein the securing element comprises at least one of an adhesive, a magnet, a flexible lip and a hook-and-loop element (Fathollahi, clips, adhesive, snaps in par. 0037 in view fig. 1-8; Mongan, fig. 1-5; and thus, the combined prior art meets the claim condition).
Claim 12
Fathollahi, in view of Mongan and Gorilovsky, discloses the convex device case of claim 9 [objected for typographic error], wherein the mirrored surface (Fathollahi, fig. 1-8; Mongan, mirror in par. 0020 & 0024) comprises a radius of curvature of 225mm (the claim featured radius of curvature of 250 mm is reasonably interpreted as finding an optimum value; fig. 6-7 of Gorilovsky; it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 CCPA 1980; see radius of curvature in par. 0021, radium in millimeters in par. 0045 in Rondinelli et al. Pub. No.: US 2012/0262540 A1) .
Claim 13
Fathollahi, in view of Mongan and Gorilovsky, discloses the convex device case of claim 9 [objected for typographic error], wherein the mirrored surface emulates a camera (Fathollahi, camera in fig. 1-8 and convex lens 296 in fig. 8) comprising a focal length of approximately 26 mm (Fathollahi, adjusting the focal points in par. 0029, 0068; Mongan, fig. 1-5; the claim featured a focal length of 26 mm is reasonably interpreted as finding an optimum value for focal point with a radius; it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 CCPA 1980; see radius of curvature in par. 0021, radium in millimeters in par. 0045 in Rondinelli et al. Pub. No.: US 2012/0262540 A1).
Claim 15
Fathollahi discloses a convex device case (a protective case for mobile device in fig. 1-8) comprising:
a body (protective enclosure 200 in fig. 1-5) comprising a front side and a back side (front and back face walls 210 & 220 in fig. 1-5 in par. 0028-0029); and
a receiving section on the front side (see fig. 3A & 4A for receiving mobile device 100 as depicted in fig. 1-2 and see par. 0042).
Although Fathollahi does not explicitly show: “a mirrored surface on the back side; the mirrored surface extending continuously from one side of the case to an opposing side of the case, and from a top end to a bottom end of the case, the mirrored surface curving outward from substantially all edges of the back side of the case toward a highest portion located substantially at a central midpoint of the case”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “a mirrored surface on the back side”, recall that Fathollahi discloses additional convex lens on the back size (296 in fig. 8 and par. 0029). Since 296 in fig. 8 of Fathollahi covers a region on the back side, it could have rendered the address claim limitations obvious. Additionally, claim does not specifically define what are required to be the mirror surface such as a specific material, and thus, any reflective surface could be a mirror such as glass or a display screen. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Mongan teaches a use of convex surface to redirect the reflection of light outside of the capture area or scope of the lens (fig. 5 and par. 0021) and selecting the material used for case or lens jacket or flash jacket is from glass or mirror (fig. 7 and par. 0024 and see claim 10 and 12 on page 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
192
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify radar data processing of Fathollahi by providing flash insert for mobile phone case as taught in Mongan to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a case to insert a flash for a camera or image or video recorder so that interference of the case and the light departing would be dramatically reduced as suggested in par. 0007-0009 of Mongan.
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the amended claim limitations “the mirrored surface extending continuously from one side of the case to an opposing side of the case, and from a top end to a bottom end of the case, the mirrored surface curving outward from substantially all edges of the back side of the case toward a highest portion located substantially at a central midpoint of the case”, recall that Fathollahi discloses additional convex lens on the back size (296 in fig. 8 and par. 0029) and Mongan discloses the glass or mirror for the case or insert or jacket (par. 0024). Herein, it’s important to note that the claim limitations are merely defining the meaning of convex on the rear surface the case. It means change in size or finding an optimum value for convex. Changing in size or finding the optimum value for convex without a particular involvement could have been considered a routing skill in the art and see the case laws mentioned in the above section. To advance the prosecution, evidence is provided herein. In particular, Gorilovsky teaches the bar form factor display device (par. 0155) having a convex rear face (see fig. 6-7) and the size back screen with bi-stable could be occupied as necessary or according to a particular need (see par. 0149-0150 that reads on the amended claim limitations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify radar data processing of Fathollahi in view of Mongan by providing a device with display screens as taught in Gorilovsky to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a display device to have a first display on a front face and a second display on a back face so that a user could view on the display device regardless of open configuration or close configuration as suggested in par. 0007-0009 of Gorilovsky.
Claim 19
Fathollahi, in view of Mongan and Gorilovsky, discloses the convex device case of claim 16 (16 is cancelled, this is only for examining purpose), wherein the mirrored surface has a magnification less than 1 (Fathollahi, camera lens and a flash in par. 0027, convex lens 296 in fig. 8 and adjusting the magnification in par. 0029; Mongan, mirrored surface in par. 0020, mirror material in par. 0024; fig. 6-7 of Gorilovsky; again, magnification less than 1 is considered as finding an optimum value; it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 CCPA 1980) and produces a virtual and upright reflection (see image produced in fig. 7A-E of Fathollahi; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Conclusion
7. 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.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary, Examiner, Art Unit 2643