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
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. US PGPUB 2018/0358826 in view of Breiwa et al. US Patent 9,773,601.
Regarding claim 1, Allen discloses a wireless charging stand for a mobile device [fig. 2A-2B], comprising:
a foldable frame having a top end and a bottom end, the foldable frame including a base panel extending generally in a first plane and an upper panel extending generally in a second plane [figs. 2A-2D; see annotated figs. 2A-2C below], the base panel and the upper panel connected by a hinge such that the base panel and the upper panel can be folded with the upper panel against and overlying the base panel and the first and second planes generally parallel [fig. 2A; folded position via hinge 126; pars. 70 & 73-75];
a wireless charger included in the upper panel and arranged facing an upper surface of the upper panel to charge the mobile device when the mobile device is received against the upper surface of the upper panel [see annotated figs. 2A-2C below; pars. 70 & 73-75].
PNG
media_image1.png
774
1026
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allen does not explicitly disclose a magnetic mounting system included in the upper panel adjacent the wireless charger to hold the mobile device against the upper surface of the upper panel; and a suction cup secured to a lower surface of the base panel and directed away from the lower surface of the base panel to releasably mount the wireless charging stand to an environmental surface.
However, Breiwa discloses a wireless charging system and device holder for a portable device [abs.; fig. 19A] including a magnetic mounting system included in the upper panel adjacent the wireless charger to hold the mobile device against the upper surface of the upper panel [fig. 19A, device 161 has a magnetic mating attachment 107 on the upper panel 167; column 7, lines 34-55]; and
a suction cup secured to a lower surface of the base panel and directed away from the lower surface of the base panel to releasably mount the wireless charging stand to an environmental surface [column 15, lines 50-65; suction cup 159 on base of holder].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Allen to further include a magnetic mounting system included in the upper panel adjacent the wireless charger to hold the mobile device against the upper surface of the upper panel and a suction cup secured to a lower surface of the base panel and directed away from the lower surface of the base panel to releasably mount the wireless charging stand to an environmental surface for the purpose of holding the portable device and attaching the device to a surface, as taught by Breiwa (column 7, lines 34-55 & column 15, lines 50-65).
Regarding claim 2, Allen discloses wherein the upper panel and the base panel are each generally planar panels, and the foldable frame folds flat with the upper panel against and overlying the base panel [figs. 2A-2C; pars. 67-69; flat panels, that can fold flat against each other (fig. 2B)].
Regarding claim 3, Allen discloses wherein the upper panel and the base panel each have a maximum length, a maximum width, and a maximum depth, and for each of the upper and base panels the maximum depth is less than about 25% of the lesser of the maximum width and the maximum length [figs. 1A-2D & 4A-4C; the width and length are significantly greater than the depth (the depth is illustrated as about the same as a portable device like a cell phone, while the width and length are both larger than the width and length of the cell phone)].
Regarding claim 4, Allen discloses wherein the base panel has a consistent depth across generally the entire panel, the consistent depth equal to the maximum depth of the base panel [figs. 2A-2C; consistent depth].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Allen and Breiwa does not explicitly disclose wherein the suction cup includes a circular cup with a diameter between about 5 cm and about 10 cm.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the charging arts to use a suction cup of about 2-4 inches (5cm-10cm) since this is a common size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Allen and Breiwa to further include wherein the suction cup includes a circular cup with a diameter between about 5 cm and about 10 cm for the purpose of using a suction cup that provides enough traction without increasing costs, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Allen and Breiwa does not explicitly disclose wherein the diameter of the circular cup is between about 6 cm and about 7 cm.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the charging arts to use a suction cup of about 3 in (6-7 cm) since this is a common size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Allen and Breiwa to further include wherein the diameter of the circular cup is between about 6 cm and about 7 cm for the purpose of using a suction cup that provides enough traction without increasing costs, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Allen and Breiwa does not explicitly disclose wherein the circular cup is a transparent plastic cup.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the charging holder arts to include the circular cup is a transparent plastic cup since it’s a common aesthetic choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Allen and
Breiwa to further include wherein for the purpose of matching a variety of aesthetic environments and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Allen and Breiwa does not explicitly disclose wherein the suction cup is secured to the base panel via a threaded fastener and a washer, with the washer and a head of the threaded fastener positioned in an inner cup region of the suction cup.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the charging holder arts to include wherein the suction cup is secured to the base panel via a threaded fastener and a washer, with the washer and a head of the threaded fastener positioned in an inner cup region of the suction cup, since this is a common attachment technique. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Allen and Breiwa to further include wherein the suction cup is secured to the base panel via a threaded fastener and a washer, with the washer and a head of the threaded fastener positioned in an inner cup region of the suction cup for the purpose of using a standard attachment technique and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Allen discloses wherein the upper panel includes a protective pad on the upper surface around the wireless charger [see annotated fig. 2C].
PNG
media_image2.png
302
565
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Allen discloses a method of using the wireless charging stand of claim 1 comprising:
a. folding the wireless charging stand with the upper panel against the base panel, such that the bottom of the base and the wireless charger each face out from the foldable frame [figs. 1B & 2A-2D; the wireless charging face (outer face of upper panel) faces outward when it folds with the base (with the bottom facing outward, see fig. 2A; pars. 70-72].
Allen does not explicitly disclose the base includes a suction cup.
Allen does not explicitly disclose inserting the folded wireless charging stand into a pocket of an item of clothing.
However, Breiwa as applied in claim 1, discloses the base includes a suction cup [column 15, lines 50-65; suction cup 159 on base of holder].
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. US PGPUB 2018/0358826 in view of Breiwa et al. US Patent 9,773,601, and further in view of Haug et al. US Patent 12,081,035.
Regarding claim 5, Allen discloses wherein the upper panel includes a metal plate [fig. 2C; ferromagnetic material (metallic) 130 in upper panel; par. 70].
The combination of Allen and Breiwa does not explicitly disclose the base panel includes a metal plate.
However, Haug discloses a wireless charging system and device holder wherein the upper panel includes a metal plate [figs. 1-2; 220 and 300 both can be formed of aluminum; column 7, lines 57-column 8, line 2; column 8, lines 15-24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Allen and Breiwa to further include wherein the upper panel includes a metal plate for the purpose of allowing the use of CNC machining or metal-injection-molding, as taught by Haug (column 2, lines 21-27).
Regarding claim 6, Allen does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper panel and the base panel each include an aluminum plate.
However, Haug discloses a wireless charging system and device holder wherein the upper panel and the base panel each include an aluminum plate [figs. 1-2; 220 and 300 both can be formed of aluminum; column 7, lines 57-column 8, line 2; column 8, lines 15-24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Allen and Breiwa to further include wherein the upper panel and the base panel each include an aluminum plate for the purpose of allowing the use of CNC machining or metal-injection-molding, as taught by Haug (column 2, lines 21-27).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. US PGPUB 2018/0358826 in view of Breiwa et al. US Patent 9,773,601, and further in view of Tan US PGPUB 2010/0317412.
Regarding claim 12, Allen does not explicitly disclose wherein the hinge includes a first cylindrical portion having a first longitudinal axis, and the hinge includes a second cylindrical portion having a second longitudinal axis, and wherein the first and second cylindrical portions are arranged with the first and second longitudinal axes each coaxial with an axis of rotation of the hinge, and the first and second cylindrical portions are rotatable relative one another about the axis of rotation.
However, Tan discloses a phone charging and holding device [abs.; fig. 1] wherein the hinge includes a first cylindrical portion having a first longitudinal axis, and the hinge includes a second cylindrical portion having a second longitudinal axis, and wherein the first and second cylindrical portions are arranged with the first and second longitudinal axes each coaxial with an axis of rotation of the hinge, and the first and second cylindrical portions are rotatable relative one another about the axis of rotation [fig. 1; par. 11; first cylindrical portion 36 and second cylindrical portion 34 of phone charger holder rotate about an axis].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Allen to further include wherein the hinge includes a first cylindrical portion having a first longitudinal axis, and the hinge includes a second cylindrical portion having a second longitudinal axis, and wherein the first and second cylindrical portions are arranged with the first and second longitudinal axes each coaxial with an axis of rotation of the hinge, and the first and second cylindrical portions are rotatable relative one another about the axis of rotation for the purpose of allowing the base portion and upper portion to securely pivot, as taught by Tan (par. 11) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, Allen discloses wherein, when the frame is folded with the upper panel against and overlying the base panel [fig. 2a], the axis of rotation is in an axis plane that is generally parallel to the first and second planes [figs. 2a-2b; annotated figure above].
Allen does not explicitly disclose an inner edge of the base panel is joined to the first cylindrical portion below the axis plane, and an inner edge of the upper panel is joined to the second cylindrical portion above the axis plane and above the inner edge of the base panel.
However, Tan as applied in claim 12 discloses wherein an inner edge of the base panel is joined to the first cylindrical portion below the axis plane, and an inner edge of the upper panel is joined to the second cylindrical portion above the axis plane and above the inner edge of the base panel [fig. 1; par. 11; inner edge of base 16 is joined to cylindrical portion 16 below the axis and inner edge of upper panel is jointed to 34 above the axis].
Regarding claim 14, Allen does not explicitly disclose wherein the hinge includes a track to limit the rotational movement of the first cylindrical portion relative to the second cylindrical portion.
However, Tan as applied in claim 12 discloses wherein the hinge includes a track to limit the rotational movement of the first cylindrical portion relative to the second cylindrical portion [par. 12; a protrusion limits the tilt in a certain direction].
Regarding claim 15, Allen does not explicitly disclose wherein lateral edges of the upper panel are beveled and lateral edges of the base panel are beveled.
However, Tan discloses a phone charging and holding device [abs.; fig. 1] wherein lateral edges of the upper panel are beveled and lateral edges of the base panel are beveled [fig. 1; beveled edges of upper and base portion].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Allen to further include wherein lateral edges of the upper panel are beveled and lateral edges of the base panel are beveled for the purpose of reducing the danger of cuts to a user, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson et al. US PGPUB 2021/0099027 in view of Randall US PGPUB 2009/0243396.
Regarding claim 19, Larsson discloses a mounting apparatus for retrofitting a mobile device or a mobile device case [figs. 12-14a], comprising:
a. a continuous metal ring having a longitudinal axis, a circular inner diameter and a circular outer diameter and a generally constant depth between a rear face and a front face [figs. 13-14a; the housing 1302 of the retrofitting device 1300 is a continuous ring which can be made of aluminum (a circle has a longitudinal axis, a circular inner diameter and a circular outer diameter), the ring has a generally constant depth (fig. 14a); pars. 173-174].
Larsson does not explicitly disclose a layer of adhesive applied to the rear face.
However, Randall discloses a retrofitting device for a mobile device comprising a layer of adhesive applied to the rear face [pars. 38 & 47-49; adhesive is used to attach the receiver to the phone].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Larsson to further include a layer of adhesive applied to the rear face for the purpose of bonding the receiver to the phone, as taught by Randall (par. 48).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. US PGPUB 2018/0358826 in view of Breiwa et al. US Patent 9,773,601, further in view of Larsson et al. US PGPUB 2021/0099027, and further in view of Randall US PGPUB 2009/0243396.
Regarding claim 20, Allen discloses a magnetic adherence retrofit kit, comprising:
the wireless charging stand of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1].
The combination of Allen and Breiwa does not explicitly disclose a mounting apparatus for retrofitting a mobile device or a mobile device case, comprising: a continuous metal ring having a longitudinal axis, a circular inner diameter and a circular outer diameter and a generally constant depth between a rear face and a front face; and a layer of adhesive applied to the rear face.
However, Larsson discloses a magnetic adherence retrofit kit [figs. 12-14a] comprising a mounting apparatus for retrofitting a mobile device or a mobile device case, comprising: a continuous metal ring having a longitudinal axis, a circular inner diameter and a circular outer diameter and a generally constant depth between a rear face and a front face [figs. 13-14a; the housing 1302 of the retrofitting device 1300 is a continuous ring which can be made of aluminum (a circle has a longitudinal axis, a circular inner diameter and a circular outer diameter), the ring has a generally constant depth (fig. 14a); pars. 173-174].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Allen to further include a mounting apparatus for retrofitting a mobile device or a mobile device case, comprising: a continuous metal ring having a longitudinal axis, a circular inner diameter and a circular outer diameter and a generally constant depth between a rear face and a front face for the purpose of retrofitting a device that doesn’t have built in magnetic alignment, as taught by Larsson (par. 407).
The combination of Allen and Larsson does not explicitly disclose a layer of adhesive applied to the rear face.
However, Randall discloses a retrofitting device for a mobile device comprising a layer of adhesive applied to the rear face [pars. 38 & 47-49; adhesive is used to attach the receiver to the phone].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Allen and Larsson to further include a layer of adhesive applied to the rear face for the purpose of bonding the receiver to the phone, as taught by Randall (par. 48).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 11, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the length of the upper panel is greater than the length of the base panel such that an upper portion of the upper panel extends beyond the base panel when the upper panel is folded flat against and overlying the base panel, wherein the wireless charger includes a cord to supply power to the wireless charger, and wherein the cord extends out from a lower surface of the upper panel and the upper portion of the upper panel” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 11.
Claim 17, being dependent on claim 11, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wodrich et al. US PGPUB 2013/0063873 discloses a wireless charging stand for a portable device with a folding cover.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights