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 § 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0044185) in view of Wang (US Pub. No. 2010/0301717) . Regarding claim 1, the Troy et al. (hereinafter Troy) reference discloses a grip system configured for assisting holding of an electronic device by a user (Figs. 1-5D) , the grip system comprising: a protective case (Fig. 3A) configured for receiving the electronic device and covering at least a portion of a housing of the electronic device when the electronic device is installed in the protective case ; and a grip (grip in Fig. 3A) apparatus attached to the back surface of the protective case, the grip apparatus comprising: a base (4) attached to the protective case in the cavity of the back surface of the protective case; two flexible straps (11,15) each formed from a bendable material and having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of each is attached to the base; and a cap (13) slidably attached to the two flexible straps, wherein the cap is proximate the base of the grip when in a stowed position, wherein the cap is extendable away from the base when the cap is pulled outward to extend the cap to an extended position (Fig. 1A). However, the Troy reference fails to explicitly disclose , the protective case having a back surface which includes a cavity; and wherein each flexible strap slides outward from a slot in the cap when the grip apparatus is transitioned from the stowed position to the extended position and slides into the slot when the grip apparatus is transitioned back to the stowed position, and wherein a stop feature proximate the second end of each flexible strap establishes a maximum extension length and prevents the each flexible strap from fully exiting the slot. The Wan g reference, a grip for an electronic device, discloses provid ing the grip in a cavity of the case (Fig. 2A) and wherein each flexible strap (154,153) slides outward from a slot (156) in the cap when the grip apparatus is transitioned from the stowed position to the extended position and slides into the slot when the grip apparatus is transitioned back to the stowed position (Figs. 2A,2B) , and wherein a stop (e.g. hinge portions connected to 153,154) feature proximate the second end of each flexible strap establishes a maximum extension length and prevents the each flexible strap from fully exiting the slot (Fig. 2B) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a cavity and modify the straps in the Troy reference in view of the teachings of the Wang reference in order to be used in different devices while the cap can be flat with the case surface. Regarding claim 2, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses the cap is in the cavity of the back surface of the protective case when in the stowed position (e.g. Troy, Fig. 3A and Wang, Fig. 2A) . Regarding claim 3, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses t he cap is substantially flush with the back surface of the protective case when in the stowed position (e.g. Troy, Fig. 3A and Wang, Fig. 2A) . Regarding claim 4, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses the base is rotatable relative to the protective case (Troy, Figs. 3A,3B) . Regarding claim 5, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses the base is removably attachable to the protective case (Troy, Fig. 3A) . Regarding claim 9, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses each flexible strap is substantially planar when the grip apparatus is in the stowed position and bends to slide into and out of the slot in the cap when transitioning the grip apparatus between the stowed position and the extended position (Wang, Paras. [0035]-[0036]) . Regarding claim 10, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses the slot in the cap is two slots and each of the flexible straps slides in a separate one of the two slots in the cap (Wang, Figs. 1-4) . Regarding claim 11, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses the cap and the flexible straps are configured for receiving one or more fingers of a user for holding the grip apparatus and the protective case when the grip apparatus is in the extended position (Troy, Fig. 2A-2C) . Regarding claim 12, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses the cap is further capable of serv ing as a stand for the protective case when the grip apparatus is in the extended position or in a partially extended position (Troy, Figs) . Regarding claim 13, the Troy reference discloses a grip apparatus adapted for holding an electronic device (Figs. 1-5D) , the grip apparatus comprising: a base (4) adapted to attach to a back surface of the electronic device or to a back surface of a case for the electronic device (Figs. 2A,2B) ; two flexible strips (11,15) each formed from a bendable material, each flexible strip having a first end and a second end (Figs. 5A-5D) , wherein the first end of each flexible strip is attached to the base (e.g. Figs. 1-5D) ; and a cap (13) slidably attached to the two flexible strips, wherein the cap is proximate the base of the grip apparatus when in a stowed position (Fig. 1B) , wherein the cap is extendable away from the base and away from the electronic device or the case when the cap is pulled outward from the base to extend the cap to an extended position (Fig. 1A). However, the Troy reference fails to explicitly disclose each flexible strip is adapted to slide outward from a slot in the cap when the grip apparatus is transitioned from the stowed position to the extended position and adapted to slide into the slot when the grip apparatus is transitioned from the extended position to the stowed position, and wherein the second end of each flexible strip includes a stop feature. The Wan g reference, a grip for an electronic device, discloses each flexible str i p (154,153) slides outward from a slot (156) in the cap when the grip apparatus is transitioned from the stowed position to the extended position and adapted to slide into the slot when the grip apparatus is transitioned from the extended position to the stowed position (Figs. 2A,2B), and wherein the second end of each flexible strip includes a stop feature (e.g. hinge portions connected to 153,154). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the str i ps in the Troy reference in view of the teachings of the Wang reference in order to be used in different devices while the cap can be flat with the case surface. Regarding claim 14 and 15, the modified Troy reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 13. However, the modified Troy reference fails to explicitly disclose the straps containing two different materials having different stiffnesses. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use different materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical expedience and in order to provide for a longer last strip. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claim 16, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 13, discloses the base is circular (Troy, Fig. 3A) and sized to fit within a recess of the case (Wang, Figs. 1-9) . Regarding claim 17, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 13, discloses each flexible strip is substantially planar when the grip apparatus is in the stowed position (Troy, Figs. 1B,1C) and bends to slide into and out of the slot in the cap when transitioning the grip apparatus between the stowed position and the extended position (Wang, Figs. 1-9) . Regarding claim 18, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 13, discloses the slot in the cap is two slots and each of the flexible strips slides in a separate one of the two slots in the cap (Wang, Figs. 1-9) . Regarding claim 19, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 13, discloses the cap and the flexible strips are adapted for receiving one or more fingers of a user for holding the grip apparatus and one or more of the electronic device and the case (Troy, Figs. 2A-2C) . Regarding claim 20, the Troy reference, as modified in claim 13, discloses the case wherein the grip apparatus is removably attachable to the case (Troy, Fig. 3A) such that the grip apparatus is flush with a back surface of the case when in the stowed position (Wang, Figs. 1-9) . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,433,391 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the terms strip and strap are interchangeable . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GILBERT Y LEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5894 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8am-430pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Christine Mills can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8322 . 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. /GILBERT Y LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675