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 .
Remarks
1. This office action is in response to applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 12/15/2025. Claims 1-18 and new claims 19-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 with respect to claims 1-12 and have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-15 and 17-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 9, introduction section, appellant argues that the examiner has applied impermissible hindsight. In response to appellant’s argument that the examiner has applied impermissible hindsight, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the combination of the cited reference does not disclose a self-defense phone case comprising a receiving area and a removable shield, wherein corners of the shield include notches configured to pierce the corners of the phone case and strike an attacker when the phone case is used to hit the attacker. In support of the argument, applicant states “ “None of the cited references teaches or suggests this cooperative, impact- activated piercing relationship between: a removable internal shield, and external case corners that are pierced only upon impact. Schaffer discloses exposed impact points or studs integrated into a phone case. Schaffer does not disclose a separate, removable shield positioned within a receiving area of the case, shield corners enclosed by case corners, or notches that remain concealed until impact causes piercing through the case material. Adrain similarly fails to disclose or suggest a two-part architecture in which piercing elements are structurally isolated within the case and become active only during defensive impact.” A person skilled in the art would not have combined the teachings of Schaffer with Adrain because the teachings lacks any articulated rationale explaining. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claim limitation of “a self-defense phone case comprising a receiving area and a removable shield, wherein corners of the shield include notches configured to pierce the corners of the phone case and strike an attacker when the phone case is used to hit the attacker” does not the same as the phrase “..cooperative, impact- activated piercing relationship between: a removable internal shield, and external case corners that are pierced only upon impact.” In another word, the claim limitation of “… a removable internal shield, and external case corners that are pierced only upon impact” is not in claim. Thus, as indicated in previous office action, Schaffer clearly discloses a self-defense phone case (figures 1 and 3, a self-defense cellular telephone case 100 ; paragraph 0015) comprising a receiving area (i.e., an internal cavity of cell phone case 101/301; paragraph 0022); and a shield (i.e., a top cover of the self-defense cellular telephone case 100); wherein each corner of the plurality of corners includes a plurality of notches configured to pierce the corners of the self-defense phone case (figure 1, notches/cuts of impact points 110-114; paragraphs 0015-0016, “…a cell phone case 101 having one or more impact points 110-114 about its corners”) and strike an attacker when a user of the mobile device hits the attacker with the self-defense phone case embodying the mobile device (paragraphs 0015-0016, “…plurality of impact points 110-114 may be made of different materials, in different sizes, that may serve different self-defense functions.” and paragraph 0018, “…The impact point may provide large 111 and small 112 blunt striking devices.”). Schaffer does not disclose a removable shield.
However, Adrain discloses a removable shield (figure 2, a front portion 20; paragraph 0029). Making a shield/cover removable from base/bottom of a phone case known in the art. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would modify the phone case of Schaffer with the phone case structure of Adrain in order to allow a user easily insert or remove a device within the case ( Adrain, paragraph 0031).
Secondly, in accordance with MPEP, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For the instant case, Schaffer most limitations except a removable shield yet, Adrain teaches such feature, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify into the apparatus of Schaffer in order to allow a user easily insert or remove a device within the case as taught by Adrain (paragraph 0031).
In response to applicant's argument that there is no obvious reason to modify the teaching of Adrain into apparatus of Schaffer, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claim 2, applicant argues that the combination of the cited reference does not disclose claim 2. “…While grooves or ridges may be known individually, neither Schaffer nor Adrain teaches the specific selective arrangement on sidewalls in combination with a removable internal shield as claimed. The cited references treat surface texturing as independent features, not as part of a coordinated structure defining a receiving area for a removable shield.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Since applicant claim limitation of “…grooves and ridges are selectively arranged on sidewalls” as recited in claim 2, does not specify/define what is meant by “…selectively arranged on sidewalls”, the grooves and ridges arrangement on sidewalls of phone case of Adrain interpreted as applicant claim limitation of “…grooves and ridges are selectively arranged on sidewalls” because the plurality of grooves and the plurality of ridges of Adrain are
Regarding claim 3, applicant argues that the combination of the cited reference does not disclose “…the receiving area as being formed by the front surface, rear surface, and sidewalls. The cited references do not disclose a receiving area specifically configured to house a separate, snap-fit shield that cooperates mechanically with the case corners. In Schaffer, the internal cavity merely receives the phone, not a shield configured to pierce the case corners during impact.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated above, the combination of Schaffer and Adrain teaches a self-defense phone case comprising a receiving area and a removable shield (see claim 1 argument response section); and Schaffer clearly discloses wherein the receiving area is defined by the front surface, the rear surface, and the plurality of sidewalls (figures 1 and 7, the front surface (i.e., a front side of the internal cavity of cell phone case 101/301), the rear surface (i.e., a back side of the internal cavity of cell phone case 101/301), and the plurality of sidewalls (i.e., an upper and a lower left and right sides of cell phone case 101/301); paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 4, applicant argues that the combination of the cited reference does not disclose “…the shield corners extend upward from the front surface of the shield. This upward extension is functionally significant, as it enables corner enclosure and piercing interaction upon impact, as explained in the specification. The cited references do not disclose or suggest shield corners extending upward for this purpose, nor do they recognize any benefit of such a configuration.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation of “… upward … enables corner enclosure and piercing interaction upon impact” is not in clam. The claim 4 recites “…wherein the plurality of corners extends upward from corners of the front surface of the shield.” Thus, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claims in accordance to MPEP 211 without reading limitation from the specification into the claim, Adrain clearly discloses wherein the plurality of corners extends upward from corners of the front surface of the shield (see figure 2, an upper and a lower left and right of the front portion 20; paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 5, applicant argues that the combination of the cited reference does not disclose occurs only upon impact.” is not in clam. Thus, Adrain clearly discloses wherein the plurality of corners of the self-defense phone case encloses the plurality of corners of the shield when the shield is received within the receiving area of the self-defense phone case (paragraph 0029).
Appellant’s argument that the examiner has applied impermissible hindsight, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 6, applicant argues that the combination of the cited reference does not disclose “..shield grooves selectively arranged on the periphery of the shield. The cited references of Schaffer and Adrain do not disclose peripheral shield grooves on a removable internal shield. Tages is relied upon for generic port access, but Tages fails to teach shield grooves arranged on a removable shield that cooperates with case grooves.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In accordance with MPEP, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For the instant case, as indicated above, the combination of Schaffer and Adrain discloses peripheral shield grooves on a removable internal shield (see response on arguments claim 1); and Tages discloses a shield comprises a plurality of shield grooves selectively arranged on the periphery of the shield (figure 1, a plurality of port plugs 36a and 36b; paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 7, applicant argues that the combination of the cited reference does not disclose “ shield grooves conform with case grooves to collectively accommodate elements of the mobile device. This cooperative alignment between shield grooves and case grooves is neither disclosed nor suggested in the cited references. The Examiner's assertion that Tages teaches such conformity improperly generalizes unrelated port-access structures and ignores the claimed collective accommodation by two separate components. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Tages clearly discloses the plurality of shield grooves (figure 1, a plurality of port plugs 36a and 36b; paragraph 0038) are arranged to confirm with the plurality of grooves of the self- defense phone case (figure 1, a plurality of port plugs 34a and 34b; paragraph 0038) such that the plurality of shield grooves and the plurality of grooves of the self-defense phone case collectively accommodate one or more elements of the mobile device (paragraph 0038, “… base 14 defines a plurality of ports 34a and 34b, collectively referred to as ports 34. ….The cover 12 includes a plurality of port plugs 36a and 36b, collectively referred to as port plugs 36. The ports 34 are configured to receive a corresponding port plug 36 of the cover 12 when the cover 12 is assembled to the base 14.”). Thus, the combination of Schaffer, Adrain and Tages discloses the argued claim limitation.
Regarding claim 8, applicant argues that the combination of the cited reference does not disclose the rear surface of the self-defense phone case and the rear surface of the shield comprises a first aperture, and a second aperture respectively. “Schaffer and Adrain do not disclose a shield having its own rear aperture. Lee is cited to supply a second aperture, but Lee does not teach or suggest alignment between a shield aperture and a case aperture in a removable-shield architecture.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In accordance with MPEP, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For the instant case, as indicated above, the combination of Schaffer and Adrain discloses peripheral shield grooves on a removable internal shield (see response on arguments claim 1); and Lee discloses a rear surface of a phone case and a rear surface of the shield comprises a first aperture and a second aperture respectively (figure 1, a first camera hole 153 and a second camera hole 311; paragraph 0017), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schaffer in view of Adrain with the teaching of Lee, such that the rear surface of the shield could be comprised a second aperture in order to allow access to camera on the enclosed mobile device.
Regarding claim 9, applicant argues that the combination of the cited reference does not disclose “… the shield aperture lies upon the case aperture to expose a camera when the shield is received within the case. This limitation requires positional coordination between two separate components, which is absent from the cited references. Lee's disclosure of multiple apertures in a housing does not address a removable shield layered within a phone case.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated above, the combination of Schaffer and Adrain discloses a removable shield layered within a phone case (claim 1 response); and Lee discloses the second aperture of the shield is laid upon the first aperture of the self-defense phone case to expose a camera of the mobile device when the shield is received within the receiving area of the self-defense phone case (figure 4, 153(311), paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 10, applicant argues that the combination of the cited reference does not disclose “… a lip element on the apertures to provide a secure fit with the camera. While lip elements may be known generally, the cited references do not teach a lip formed across both a case aperture and a shield aperture, operating together when the shield is installed. The reliance on Lee fails to address this cooperative structure.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee clearly discloses wherein the first aperture and the second aperture comprises a lip element to provide a secure fit with the camera of the mobile device (figures 1 and 4, 153(311), paragraph 0017, “… a camera of the portable electronic device receiving in the first compartment 11”).
Regarding claim 11, applicant argues that the combination of the cited reference does not disclose “…ribs on the back surface of the phone case to prevent slippage. Chenier is cited for ribs, but Chenier does not disclose or suggest incorporating such ribs into a self-defense phone case having an internal piercing shield. The Examiner's rationale improperly treats this limitation in isolation and ignores the functional context of the claimed invention.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In accordance with MPEP, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For the instant case, as indicated above, the combination of Schaffer and Adrain discloses peripheral shield grooves on a removable internal shield (see response on arguments claim 1); Chenier discloses a phone case comprises a plurality of ribs configured to prevent slippage of the phone case (figure 1, ridges 140; paragraph 0044). which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify into the phone case of Schaffer in view of Adrain with ribs in the phone case of Chenier in order to prevent the protective case from slipping from the grip of the person using the mobile phone as taught by Chenier (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 16, applicant argues that the combination of the cited reference does not disclose “… shield corners are made of materials harder than the case corners, selected from specific materials. This relative hardness relationship is essential to enabling piercing through the case corners. None of the cited references discloses or suggests selecting materials based on relative hardness between an internal shield and an external case.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Adrain clearly discloses wherein the plurality of corners of the shield are made from a material selected from the group consisting of polyurethane leather, aluminum, plastics, carbon fiber, aramid fiber or silicon (paragraph 0041, aluminum).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
3. Claim(s) 1-5, 13, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2023/0147191 A1) in view of Adrain (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2019/0357651 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schaffer discloses a self-defense phone case (figures 1 and 3, a self-defense cellular telephone case 100 ; paragraph 0015), comprising: a front surface (figure 1, an internal cavity of cell phone case 101/301; paragraph 0022); a rear surface (figure 1, a back side of cell phone case 101/301; paragraph 0021); a plurality of corners (figure 1, upper and lower left and right sides of a self-defense cellular telephone case 100; paragraph 0015, impact points 110-114 at corners); a receiving area (figure 1, an internal cavity of cell phone case 101/301; paragraph 0022); wherein each corner of the plurality of corners includes a plurality of notches configured to pierce the corners of the self-defense phone case (figure 1, notches/cuts of impact points 110-114; paragraphs 0015-0016) and strike an attacker when a user of the mobile device hits the attacker with the self-defense phone case embodying the mobile device (paragraphs 0015-0016).
Schaffer silent to a self-defense phone case comprising a plurality of grooves; a plurality of ridges; a shield that removably fits within the receiving area of the self- defense phone case; and a plurality of corners.
Adrain discloses a phone case comprising a plurality of grooves (figures 2, openings 35 and 36; paragraph 0030); a plurality of ridges (figures 2, items 33 and 34; paragraph 0030); a shield that removably fits within the receiving area of the self- defense phone case (figure 2, a front portion 20; paragraph 0029); and a plurality of corners (see figure 2, an upper and a lower left and right of the front portion 20; paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to in cooperate the teachings of Adrain in to the apparatus of Schaffer ,such that the self-defense phone case could be comprised a plurality of grooves; a plurality of ridges and a shield that removably fits within the receiving area of the self- defense phone case in order to allow a user easily insert or remove a device within the case ( Adrain, paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 2, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. As, indicated above, Adrain discloses wherein the plurality of grooves and the plurality of ridges are selectively arranged in on a plurality of sidewalls (figure 2, an opening 36, an opening 35 and left and right sides of the case 100; paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 3, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Schaffer discloses wherein the receiving area is defined by the front surface, the rear surface, and the plurality of sidewalls (figures 1 and 7, the front surface (i.e., a front side of the internal cavity of cell phone case 101/301), the rear surface (i.e., a back side of the internal cavity of cell phone case 101/301), and the plurality of sidewalls (i.e., an upper and a lower left and right sides of cell phone case 101/301); paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 4, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Adrain discloses wherein the plurality of corners extends upward from corners of the front surface of the shield (see figure 2, an upper and a lower left and right of the front portion 20; paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 5, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Adrain discloses wherein the plurality of corners of the self-defense phone case encloses the plurality of corners of the shield when the shield is received within the receiving area of the self-defense phone case (paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 13, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Schaffer discloses wherein each of the plurality of notches of each of the plurality of corners of the shield is sized from dimensioned in a range of 5 mm to 8 mm such that, upon impact of the self-defense phone case against the attacker, the notch pierces through the corresponding corner of the self- defense phone case and transfers impact force to the attacker (paragraph 0016, ”… The plurality of impact points 110-114 may also provide defensive value if a potential attacker is struck by one of them”). Although Schaffer does not explicitly disclose the plurality of notches of each of the plurality of corners of the shield sized from 5 mm to 8 mm, Schaffer suggests “…a self-defense cellular telephone case 100 according to the present invention. FIG. 1 shows a cell phone case 101 having one or more impact points 110-114 about its corners. These plurality of impact points 110-114 may be made of different materials, in different sizes, that may serve different self-defense functions” (paragraph 0015). Since Schaffer discloses the one or more impact points 110-114 about its corners, and the plurality of impact points 110-114 may be made of different materials, in different sizes, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each of the plurality of notches of each of the plurality of corners of the shield is sized from dimensioned in a range of 5 mm to 8 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Although Schaffer does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of notches of the plurality of corners all differ in size at least one notch at a first corner differs in size from at least one notch at another corner, such that different corners provide different impact responses when the self-defense phone case is used against the attacker, Schaffer discloses “…a self-defense cellular telephone case 100 according to the present invention. FIG. 1 shows a cell phone case 101 having one or more impact points 110-114 about its corners. These plurality of impact points 110-114 may be made of different materials, in different sizes, that may serve different self-defense functions” (paragraph 0015). Since Schaffer discloses the one or more impact points 110-114 about its corners, and the plurality of impact points 110-114 may be made of different materials, in different sizes, that may serve different self-defense functions, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the plurality of notches of the plurality of corners all differ in size at least one notch at a first corner differs in size from at least one notch at another corner, such that different corners provide different impact responses when the self-defense phone case is used against the attacker, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Adrain discloses wherein the plurality of corners of the shield are made from a material selected from the group consisting of polyurethane leather, aluminum, plastics, carbon fiber, aramid fiber or silicon (paragraph 0041, aluminum).
Regarding claim 20, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. As indicated above, Adrain discloses wherein the shield is removable (see figure 2, a front portion 20; paragraph 0029) and replaceable independently of the self-defense phone case(paragraph 0048), allowing restoration of piercing functionality without replacing the entire phone case (paragraphs 0039- 0040).
4. Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2023/0147191 A1) in view of Adrain (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2019/0357651 A1) further in view of Tages (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2014/0274232 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Schaffer in view of Adrain does not disclose wherein the shield comprises a plurality of shield grooves selectively arranged on the periphery of the shield .
Tages discloses a shield comprises a plurality of shield grooves selectively arranged on the periphery of the shield (figure 1, a plurality of port plugs 36a and 36b; paragraph 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to in cooperate the teachings of Tages in to the apparatus of Schaffer in view of Adrain, such that the shield could be comprised a plurality of shield grooves selectively arranged on the periphery of the shield in order to allow access to control buttons or ports on the enclosed mobile device.
Regarding claim 7, Schaffer in view of Adrain and Tages discloses the apparatus of claim 6. Schaffer in view of Adrain does not disclose wherein the plurality of shield grooves are arranged to confirm with the plurality of grooves of the self- defense phone case such that the plurality of shield grooves and the plurality of grooves of the self-defense phone case collectively accommodate one or more elements of the mobile device.
Tages discloses the plurality of shield grooves (figure 1, a plurality of port plugs 36a and 36b; paragraph 0038) are arranged to confirm with the plurality of grooves of the self- defense phone case (figure 1, a plurality of port plugs 34a and 34b; paragraph 0038) such that the plurality of shield grooves and the plurality of grooves of the self-defense phone case collectively accommodate one or more elements of the mobile device (paragraph 0038).
5. Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2023/0147191 A1) in view of Adrain (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2019/0357651 A1) further in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2014/0116898 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Adrain discloses wherein the rear surface of the self- defense phone case and the rear surface of the shield comprises a first aperture (figure 2, an opening 38; paragraph 0030).
Schaffer in view of Adrain does not disclose the rear surface of the shield comprises a second aperture.
Lee discloses a rear surface of a phone case and a rear surface of the shield comprises a first aperture and a second aperture respectively (figure 1, a first camera hole 153 and a second camera hole 311; paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to in cooperate the teachings of Lee in to the apparatus of Schaffer in view of Adrain, such that the rear surface of the shield could be comprised a second aperture in order to allow access to camera on the enclosed mobile device.
Regarding claim 9, Schaffer in view of Adrain and Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 8. Schaffer in view of Adrain silent to wherein the second aperture of the shield is laid upon the first aperture of the self-defense phone case to expose a camera of the mobile device when the shield is received within the receiving area of the self-defense phone case.
Lee discloses the second aperture of the shield is laid upon the first aperture of the self-defense phone case to expose a camera of the mobile device when the shield is received within the receiving area of the self-defense phone case (figure 4, 153(311), paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 10, Schaffer in view of Adrain and Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 8. As indicated above, Lee discloses wherein the first aperture and the second aperture comprises a lip element to provide a secure fit with the camera of the mobile device (figures 1 and 4, 153(311), paragraph 0017, “… a camera of the portable electronic device receiving in the first compartment 11”).
6. Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2023/0147191 A1) in view of Adrain (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2019/0357651 A1) further in view of Chenier (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2020/0405027 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Schaffer in view of Adrain does not disclose wherein the back surface of the self-defense phone case comprises a plurality of ribs configured to prevent slippage of the self-defense phone case.
Chenier discloses a phone case comprises a plurality of ribs configured to prevent slippage of the phone case (figure 1, ridges 140; paragraph 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to in cooperate the teachings of Chenier in to the apparatus of Schaffer in view of Adrain, such that the self-defense phone case could be comprised a plurality of ribs in order to prevent the protective case from slipping from the grip of the person using the mobile phone as taught by Chenier (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 12, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Schaffer in view of Adrain does not disclose wherein the self-defense phone case is made up of rubber.
Chenier discloses a phone case is made up of rubber (paragraph 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to in cooperate the teachings of Chenier in to the apparatus of Schaffer in view of Adrain, such that the self-defense phone case could be made up of rubber by design preference.
7. Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2023/0147191 A1) in view of Adrain (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2019/0357651 A1) further in view of Levine et al (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2019/0134830 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Schaffer does not disclose wherein the plurality of notches of the plurality of corners are uniform in size to deliver consistent piercing and impact characteristics irrespective of which corner of the self-defense phone case is used to strike the attacker. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the plurality of notches of the plurality of corners are uniform in size to deliver consistent piercing and impact characteristics irrespective of which corner of the self-defense phone case is used to strike the attacker, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Nevertheless, Levine et al discloses a plurality of notches are uniform in size to deliver consistent piercing and impact characteristics irrespective of which a self-defense case is used to strike the attacker (figure 1, a plurality of notches (i.e., openings 172, 174 and 176; paragraphs 0028-0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schaffer in view of Adrain with the teachings of Levine et al, such that the plurality of notches of the plurality of corners could be uniform in size to deliver consistent piercing and impact characteristics irrespective of which corner of the self-defense phone case is used to strike the attacker by design preference.
Regarding claim 19, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Schaffer does not disclose wherein the notches are normally concealed within the corners of the self-defense phone case and become functionally exposed only when impact force causes the notches to pierce the case corners.
Levine et al discloses notches are normally concealed within a self-defense case and become functionally exposed only when impact force causes the notches to pierce the case (figure 1, a deactivated state 110 and an activated state 120 of a self- defense, paragraphs 0027-0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schaffer in view of Adrain with the teachings of Levine et al, such that wherein the notches could be normally concealed within the corners of the self-defense phone case and become functionally exposed only when impact force causes the notches to pierce the case corners in order to provide users to carry the self-defense device safely.
8. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2023/0147191 A1) in view of Adrain (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2019/0357651 A1) further in view of Ramsdell et al (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2009/0325657 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Schaffer in view of Adrain discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Schaffer in view of Adrain does not disclose wherein the self-defense phone case and the shield are flexible and elastically deformable to cooperatively conform to and retain mobile devices of different sizes while maintaining the enclosure of the shield corners within the case corners adjustable and flexible to accommodate differently sized mobile devices.
Ramsdell et al discloses a phone case and a shield are flexible and elastically deformable to cooperatively conform to and retain mobile devices of different sizes while maintaining an enclosure of the shield corners within the case corners adjustable and flexible to accommodate differently sized mobile devices (paragraphs 0025 and 0038, “… case 10 is generally elongated and of the type having an open end for receiving the portable electronic device … The side and bottom panels 22, 23 may be rigid as well, but preferably are made of an elastic member attached to the front and back panels 18, 20 (such as by sewing, welding, etc.). This elasticity advantageously allows various sizes of devices to be accommodated (e.g., PDAs, folding cell phones, "candy bar" cell phones, cameras, pagers, etc.), and may also assist in securing the device within the case 10 by applying a frictional force.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schaffer in view of Adrain with the teachings of Ramsdell et al, such that the self-defense phone case and the shield could be flexible and elastically deformable to cooperatively conform to and retain mobile devices of different sizes in order to allow a user to accommodate various sizes of devices within the case as taught by Ramsdell et al (paragraph 0025).
9. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2023/0147191 A1) in view of Adrain (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2019/0357651 A1) further in view of Sheikh (U.S. Patent Pub. # US 2021/0041210 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Schaffer in view of Adrain and Tages discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Schaffer in view of Adrain does not disclose wherein the self-defense phone case and/or the shield comprises a recess positioned to permit actuation of an alert button while the mobile device remains enclosed, the alert button being configured to transmit an emergency alert when the user is threatened to facilitate the pressing of an alert button configured on the self-defense phone case.
Sheikh discloses a self-defense phone case and/or the shield comprises a recess positioned to permit actuation of an alert button while the mobile device remains enclosed, the alert button being configured to transmit an emergency alert when the user is threatened to facilitate the pressing of an alert button configured on the self- defense phone case (figure 1, a button 211; paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schaffer in view of Adrain with the teachings of Sheikh, such that the self-defense phone case and/or the shield could be comprised a recess positioned to permit actuation of an alert button while the mobile device remains enclosed in order to allow a user easily and quickly contact/notify an emergency response center, friends or family when an emergency situation arises.
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 FATUMA G SHERIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7189. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm.
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, PAN YUWEN can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/FATUMA G SHERIF/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649