Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 08/12/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-5 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
2. In Remarks, applicant presents the arguments for the amended claim limitations “a diameter of the base is greater than an opening diameter of the groove, a thickness of the base is smaller than or equal to a depth of the clamp slot, the decorative cover is made of an elastic material”.
PNG
media_image1.png
778
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2.1. To consider the obviousness of the claim limitation “a diameter of the base is greater than an opening diameter of the groove”, recall that Fabec discloses magnetic air bag having base and opening of the groove (fig. 1-6) and using different shapes or sizes or thickness (par. 0063). In particular, Nahum depicts figure 5 for having greater diameter and smaller opening as required. Because, 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). Accordingly, applicant’s argument for this limitations is found not persuasive.
2.2. To respond the argument for the amended claim limitation “a thickness of the base is smaller than or equal to a depth of the clamp slot”, recall that the combination of Fabec and Nahum discloses the use of various thicknesses for airbag and base of fig. 1-13 of Fabec (par. 0063 of Fabec and par. 0033 of Nahum). Again, a preferred thickness in the claim could be considered as a change in size of thickness, which is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See above. If so, the combined prior art may not mention the claimed feature “the clamp slot”. In particular, the newly cited prior art Su teaches clamp on the slot-head rod (see 40 in fig. 1-3 and par. 0021). See further details in the claim rejection section set forth below.
2.3. Lastly, providing evidence to respond the argued claim limitation “the decorative cover is made of an elastic material”, the use of elastic material is intrinsic features in the art. Further evidence could be seen in the newly cited prior art. In particular, Tussy teaches the strap for having an elasticity on the base plate (fig. 3-6). See use of elasticity in the previously mentioned prior art Friedman et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0367632 A1.
2.4. For the above reasons, the amended claim limitations are considered obvious and the arguments are found not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
5. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabec Pub. No.: US 2020/0217450 A1 in view of Nahum et al. Pub. No.: US 2018/0288204 A1, Su Pub. N0: US 2020/0181950 A1 and Tussy Pub. No.: US 2014/0152034 A1.
Claim 1
Fabec discloses a convenient-to-assemble and easy-to-use mobile airbag bracket structure (fig. 1-13 depict for an air bag type magnetic holder), comprising a main part (bases 1-2 & air bag 3 in fig. 1-6),
PNG
media_image2.png
532
1026
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the main part comprises an airbag (air bag 3 in fig. 6) and a decorative cover (inner base 2 in fig. 6),
one end of the airbag (expendable air bag 3 in par. 0053) is provided with a base, and the base has a circular structure and protrudes from the bottom of the airbag (as depicted in fig. 1-6, air bag 3 have circular arcs from protrudes from inner base to outer base or vice visa),
a surface of the decorative cover is equipped with a groove (fastening groove 31 in fig. 3 and par. 0051), and a sidewall of the groove is provided with a slot (fig. 2-3, L-shaped limit slot 23 in fig. 3),
the airbag is installed in the groove of the decorative cover through the base (air bag in fig. 1-6 and see par. 0049 ); and
the base is inserted into the slot on the sidewalls of the groove (see fig. 1-6 are combined as depicted in fig. 7-8), achieving the fixation of the airbag and enabling a convenient installation (par. 0051 & 0053).
Although Fabec does not explicitly show: “wherein the airbag is flexible, a sidewall of the groove is provided with a clamp slot, a diameter of the base is greater than an opening diameter of the groove, and a thickness of the base is smaller than or equal to a depth of the clamp slot, the decorative cover is made of an elastic material”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
PNG
media_image3.png
318
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitation “wherein the airbag is flexible”, initially, the use of an elastic material is intrinsic feature in pertinent arts. In fact, Fabec mentions the use of polycarbonate or ABS plastics, which are an elastic material. In particular, Nahum teaches accordion (203 in fig. 2) created with a flexible thermoplastic elastomer or other flexible material (par. 0027).
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitation “the diameter of the base is greater than the opening diameter of the groove”, initially, recall that Fabec discloses the smaller diameter for inner base and the larger diameter for the outer base (fig. 1-2) and fastening groove (31 in fig. 1-6 and par. 0051). If comparing what Fabec teaches and the claim limitation, the diameter size may be reverse. However, 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). Further evidence could be seen in Nahum. In particular, Nahum teaches a socket accessory having the greater diameter at the button and the smaller diameter at the other end of accordion (fig. 1 & 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify extendable magnetic holder of Fabec by providing spinning accessory for a mobile electronic device as taught in Nahum to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided an expandable socket accessory for a mobile electronic device to grip the mobile electronic device with a grip member so that the portion of the socket accessory and the mobile electronic device could have securely engaged spinning relatively for the user convenience as suggested in par. 0002-0003 & 0014-0015 in Nahum.
Thirdly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “a clamp slot, and the thickness of the base is smaller than or equal to the depth of the clamp slot”, initially, Fabec discloses using the various thicknesses (par. 0055), any thickness (par. 0063) and slot (fig. 1-6 and par. 0054). However, 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). Further evidence could be seen in Nahum. In particular, Nahum teaches different thickness for the socket accessory (par. 0027), varying thickness (par. 0033) and slot (fig. 5 and par. 0043). Again, a preferred thickness in the claim could be considered as a change in size of thickness, which is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See above. If so, the combined prior art may not mention the claimed feature “the clamp slot”. In particular, the newly cited prior art Su teaches clamp on the slot-head rod (see 40 in fig. 1-3 and par. 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify extendable magnetic holder of Fabec in view of Nahum by providing lock for electronic device as taught in Su. Such a modification would have provided a combination lock for an electronic device to lock and unlock both through digital dials and key so that the electronic device could not be easily moved or stolen as suggested in par. 0002-0004 in Su.
Lastly, to provide the evidence for use of elastic material in the claim limitation “the decorative cover is made of an elastic material”, the use of elastic material is intrinsic features in the art. In fact, Fabec mentions the use of polycarbonate or ABS plastics, which are an elastic material, and Nahum teaches the use of suitable material or elastomer or combination of materials (par. 0027). To advance the prosecution, further evidence could be seen in the newly cited prior art. In particular, Tussy teaches the strap for having an elasticity on the base plate (fig. 3-6). Additionally, see the use of elasticity in the previously mentioned prior art Friedman et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0367632 A1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify extendable magnetic holder of Fabec in view of Nahum and Su by providing device case with strap as taught in Tussy to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided an electronic device with a case to include a strap so that a user could have hold the electronic device securely with ease and without bulkiness as suggested in par. 0003-0007 in Tussy.
Claim 2
Fabec, in view of Nahum, Su and Tussy, discloses the convenient-to-assemble and easy-to-use mobile airbag bracket structure according to claim 1,
wherein the base is configured to be a rectangular or polygonal structure (Fabec, fig. 1-6, see isotropic view as rectangular in fig. 1; Nahum, rectangular aspect in fig. 3-4; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to change the shape of the claimed feature, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F; see evidence for rectangular shape as a bae in fig. 3-4 of Friedman et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0367632 A1; and fig. 1-6 in Cho et. Al Pub. No.: US 2013/0279098 A1).
Claim 3
Fabec, in view of Nahum , Su and Tussy, discloses the convenient-to-assemble and easy-to-use mobile airbag bracket structure according to claim 1,
wherein the base of the airbag is compatible with the groove on the decorative cover (Fabec, fastening groove 31 in fig. 1-6 and par. 0051 and see fig. 3-6 how inner base, outer base and air bag fit into together as to compactible; Nahum, button 24 in fig. 1-10 as decorative cover, see par. 0028 for decorating button with graphic, printed or modeled images; for these reason, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 4
Fabec, in view of Nahum, Su and Tussy, discloses the convenient-to-assemble and easy-to-use mobile airbag bracket structure according to claim 1,
wherein the decorative cover is configured to be a structure that is compatible with the airbag (Fabec, circular shape in fig. 1-6 read on any shape; Nahum, ring shape or circular shape in fig. 1-10 and par. 0018, 0022, 0042, 0045, 0048, 0054 explains various shapes or any suitable shape read on any shape; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 5
Fabec, in view of Nahum, Su and Tussy, discloses the convenient-to-assemble and easy-to-use mobile airbag bracket structure according to claim 1,
wherein the other end of the airbag is fixedly connected to a mobile phone using magnetic attachment or adhesive tape (Fabec, par. 0058, the magnet holder onto the mobile phone or a double-adhesive tape and fig. 13, magnetically attached to the mobile phone; Nahum, adhesive or a magnetic connection in par. 0043 and see fig. 1, 6 & 10; for these reasons, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement).
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643