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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
NONSTATUTORY DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION
In response to applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer filed on December 15, 2025, the double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
REJECTIONs UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102, AND 103
Applicant asserts that:
“Applicant respectfully submits that Negretti fails to disclose the specific geometric requirement that "each one of the back wall, rear wall, left side wall, and right side wall are angled upwardly from the floor to the top horizontal surface to define the truncated pyramid structure." Negretti's disclosure at the Abstract describes only simple "front and rear supports connected to and outwardly projecting from the base" that create "a cavity therebetween" for holding an electronic device. Each embodiment shown and described in Negretti depicts open sides, not an enclosed pyramid shape as claimed. Further, Negretti's alleged "opening 52" in Figures 22 and 25 also fails to satisfy the "compartment accessible by an opening in the top horizontal surface" requirement of amended Claims 19 and 20. First, opening 52 is not an opening providing access to an enclosed storage compartment, but merely a gap or split between Negretti's basic support walls. The opening 52 of Negretti cannot be understood as teaching the required "compartment within the truncated pyramid" that is "defined" by the structural integration of all six elements (back wall, rear wall, top horizontal surface, floor, left side wall, and right side wall) as required by amended Claims 19 and 20.”
Emphasis added by the examiner.
The examiner, however, disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., not an enclosed pyramid shape as claimed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, Negretti's "opening 52" in Figures 22 and 25 does satisfy the "compartment accessible by an opening in the top horizontal surface" requirement of amended Claims 19 and 20. Opening 52 provides access to an attached cable 510 within a compartment (see paragraphs [0019], 0077]).
Third, the claimed "compartment within the truncated pyramid" in this instance reads on a cavity which extends from a top surface to the floor/bottom as shown in at least figures 22, 25 of Negretti. As shown in figures 14 and 22 in the rejection to claims 19 and 20 below, the required "compartment within the truncated pyramid" that is "defined" by the structural integration of all six elements (back wall, rear wall, top horizontal surface, floor, left side wall, and right side wall) as required by amended Claims 19 and 20.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejections to claims are proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-7, 16-17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Negretti (US 2013/0134282).
As to claim 19, Negretti discloses a holder stand (see at least figures 14, 22) for a mobile electronic device 500 comprising: a truncated pyramid (see at least figure 22), the truncated pyramid including, a back wall 34 having a lower end and an upper end, a rear wall 26 having a lower end and an upper end, a top horizontal surface (see below) extending from the upper end of the back wall 34 to the upper end of the rear wall 26, a floor extending from the lower end of the back wall to the lower end of the rear wall, the floor spaced apart from the top horizontal surface, a left side wall (on the other side of the right side wall in figure 14) joined to the back wall 34, the rear wall 26, the top horizontal surface, and the floor, a right side wall (see below) joined to the back wall 34, the rear wall 26, the top horizontal surface, and the floor, wherein the each one of the back wall 34, rear wall 26, left side wall, and right side wall are angled upwardly from the floor to the top horizontal surface to define the truncated pyramid structure (see figure 14), and wherein the back wall 34, the rear wall 26, the top horizontal surface, the floor, the left side wall, and the right side wall define a compartment (see figure 22 below) within the truncated pyramid, the compartment accessible by an opening in the top horizontal surface (see figure 22 below); a base wall 38 (see at least figure 7) extending from the back wall of the truncated pyramid; and a front segment 24 (see figure 14) extending from the base wall 38, wherein the back wall 34, the base wall 38, and the front segment 24 form a trough to selectively hold the mobile electronic device 500.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
606
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Negretti discloses that the front segment 24 further comprises a first segment 24A spaced apart from a second segment 24B (see at least figure 21).
As to claim 4, Negretti discloses that an opening 28 is provided into the trough (see at least figure 7).
As to claim 5, Negretti discloses that the front segment 24 is a flexible springy member to facilitate retaining the mobile device 500 in the trough 28 (see figure 14, paragraph [0062]).
As to claim 6, Negretti discloses a side block 48 (see at least figures 17-18) selectively disposed in the trough 28 to facilitate retaining the mobile device 500 in the trough 28.
As to claim 7, Negretti discloses a spacer 48 (see at least figures 17-18) selectively disposed in the trough 28 to facilitate retaining the mobile device 500 in the trough 28.
As to claim 16, Negretti discloses that the base wall 38 (see figure 7) is spaced apart from the lower end of the back wall 34 to position the base wall above the lower end of the back wall 34.
As to claim 17, Negretti discloses an inside channel 52 (see at least figures 22-23, and 25) extending between the back wall and the rear wall.
As to claim 20, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 19 as set forth above. Negretti further discloses the base wall 38 (see figure 7) spaced apart from the lower end of the back wall 34 to position the base wall 38 above the lower end of the back wall.
As to claim 21, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 19 as set forth above. Negretti further discloses the storage compartment having at least one open side 52 (see at least figures 22, providing access to the storage compartment.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negretti in view of Fine (US 10,865,935).
As to claim 18, Negretti fails to disclose that the base wall includes a hole. Fine discloses that a base wall 1130 (see figure 11) includes a hole (see the space between two parallel bars as disclosed at column 8 lines 33-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Fine to Negretti, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing the weight and size of the base wall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 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.
As to claims 10-15, the prior art of record fail to anticipate, or render obvious, a lid to selectively cover the opening in the top horizontal surface.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646