DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 26 and 35, the limitation “is a polygon” should be changed to “has the shape of a polygon” or something similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26, 32-37, 39-44, 46, 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26 and 35, there is no support for “the magnetic connector having a thickness less than [a thickness of] the depression in the back wall” in claim 26 and, “the connector having a thickness less than a [thickness of] a depression on a back side of the case in claim 35.
[0062] disclosed: the magnet can have a thickness of about 1-3 mm, when the thickness of the magnet and the depression are given later in [0062] the thickness of the magnet and the depth of the depression are equal. There is no disclosure of a comparison of the two dimensions that discloses “the magnetic connector having a thickness less than the depression in the back wall” as claimed
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from a rejected claim.
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 26, 32-37, 39-44, 46, 47 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 26, “the case is less than 3.5mm” is indefinite because it is not clear what aspect of the case is less than 3.5 mm. Which dimension is less than 3.5 mm or is there some other meaning of “the case is less than 3.5 mm”?
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the shape of the magnetic connector" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the shape of the connector" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 26 and 35, “having a thickness less than a depression” is unclear – the thickness of the connector/magnet should be compared to a specific dimension of the depression.
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 and 37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest available prior art is Radzwill in combination with the other cited art. Radzwill teaches, fig. 10, a pocket 1008 for holding glasses having a magnetic member 1012 and a mounting member 1002 having a magnet 1010 within a depression 1014. The magnetic attachment means is the same as claimed except that instead of the depression being on the pocket, the depression is on the mounting member. Radzwill does not teach the relative thickness/depth of the magnet and depression.
Claims 33 and 37 are interpreted as essentially claiming that the back wall has a depression and a recess surrounding the depression (two depressions), when a mount having a magnet on a plate is attached to the back wall of the case, the recess houses the plate and the depression houses the magnet such that the remainder of the back wall of the case is flush with the object that the mounting plate is attached to.
The available prior art discloses either magnets attached flush with other magnets where the magnets are embedded or a projecting magnet mounted in a recess, but not a magnet on a plate, the plate larger than the magnet, the plate and magnet nested within a recess surrounding a depression as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights