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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/08/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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 (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 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass, Jr. US Patent No. 10,211,875 B1 in view of Gao et al. CN 207461592 U and further in view of Yamada JP 2004024638 A
Claim 1, Glass discloses (fig 3, abstract: mobile device carrying case) cell phone case comprising:
a first bracket fixedly (col 4, line 5-10, The loop shaped mount fasteners, 101, is secured onto or into entry holes, 103) protruding from a surface of a top end of the cell phone case (fig 3 bracket 101) wherein the first bracket (fig 3 bracket 101), a plurality of prongs (fig 3 brackets 101) comprises a plurality of prongs ([claim 3] each of the loop fasteners have a split to allow the loop fasteners to be installed and removed through the pair of entry holes) configured to couple the cell phone case to a first attachment device (fig 3 bracket 101), a plurality of prongs (fig 3 brackets 101, [claim 3] each of the loop fasteners have a split to allow the loop fasteners to be installed and removed through the pair of entry holes); and
but Glass does not explicitly disclose,
a second bracket fixedly protruding from a surface of a bottom end of the cell phone case wherein the second bracket (fig 3 bracket 101) comprises a plurality of prongs configured to couple the-cell phone case to a second attachment device;
However, as Glass also discloses a second bracket fixedly (col 4, line 5-10, The loop shaped mount fasteners, 101, is secured onto or into entry holes, 103) protruding from a surface of a bottom end of the cell phone case (fig 3 bracket 101) wherein the second bracket comprises a plurality of prongs ([claim 3] each of the loop fasteners have a split to allow the loop fasteners to be installed and removed through the pair of entry holes) configured to couple the-cell phone case to a second attachment device (fig 3 bracket 101), a plurality of prongs (fig 3 brackets 101, [claim 3] each of the loop fasteners have a split to allow the loop fasteners to be installed and removed through the pair of entry holes);
That is, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art to recognize the teaching of the two brackets 101 on top and to adapt it by adding the two brackets on the bottom end for more securing of the phone holder.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Glass invention to include the claimed limitation(s) so as to allow to attach of brackets on each of top and bottom of a phone holder on in order to provide a firm support for holding the phone holder in certain position as necessary.
But is silent on,
U-shape,
wherein the first attachment device and the second attachment device are each configured to join the cell phone case to a user’s clothing.
However, the U-shape mount is considered an obvious replacement of the loop shaped fastener as it is well known in the art for the mounting and attaching purpose.
Further, as Gao discloses U-shape (fig 1 [claim 2] wherein the handle (5) is provided with antiskid U-shape structure).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Glass invention with Gao invention to include the claimed limitation(s) so as to allow to use a U-shaped handles on a phone bag in order to provide a firm support to secure the phone bag.
But Glass and Gao invention does not explicitly disclose,
wherein the first attachment device and the second attachment device are each configured to join the cell phone case to a user’s clothing.
However, as Yamada discloses wherein the first attachment device (fig 2, [0005] clip pin: 4 is attached to the end) and the second attachment device (fig 2, [0005] clip pin: 4 is attached to the end) are each configured to join the cell phone case to a user’s clothing ([0004] the back plate is fixed to the clothing with a clip pin).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Glass and Gao invention with Yamada invention to include the claimed limitation(s) so as to allow the use safety pin to attach the phone bag the user’s cloth in order to provide a firm support to secure the phone bag.
Claim 2, Yamada as modified discloses the cell phone case of claim 1, wherein the first attachment device is a first safety pin (Yamada fig 2, pin 4), and the second attachment is a second safety pin (Yamada fig 2, pin 4). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Glass and Gao invention with Yamada invention to include the claimed limitation(s) so as to allow the use safety pin to attach the phone bag the user’s cloth in order to provide a firm support to secure the phone bag.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass, Jr. US Patent No. 10,211,875 B1 in view of Gao et al. CN 207461592 U and further in view of Yamada JP 2004024638 A in view of Yoder US 2024/0039572.
Claim 3, see claim 1 and 2 for the rejection, Glass discloses a method of using a cell phone case comprising:
providing the cell phone case of claim 2;
affixing the first safety pin to the user’s clothing;
affixing the second safety pin to the user’s clothing; and
but Glass, Gao and Yamada invention is silent on,
recording a video with a cell phone housed in the cell phone case.
However, as Yoder discloses recording a video with a cell phone housed in the cell phone case ([0025] the case 12 is secured to the brim 56 thereby facilitating the smart phone 14 to be oriented for recording video footage).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Glass, Gao and Yamada invention with Yoder invention to include the claimed limitation(s) so as to allow a smart phone in a case to be secured firmly in order to facilitate the smart phone for recording video.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3196. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM M-F.
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, Alison T. Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/DINH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647