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 .
The office will not be trying to determine the intended purpose of having the limitations between the parentheses. Thus, they are not considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of made of record does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of claimed elements “The attachment (100) of claim 5, wherein one or more connectors (130, 130a, 130b, 130c) comprise a gripping segment (132) and an attaching segment (134) for attaching the one or more connectors (130) to the gripping member (120) and the attaching member (110) respectively” as recited in claim 8.
Claims 9-11 depend on claim 8, therefore they are allowed as the same reason set forth above.
Claim 12 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of made of record does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of claimed elements “wherein the one or more connectors comprise six connectors (130c) extending from a connecting disc (135)” as recited in claim 12.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12, therefore they are allowed as the same reason set forth above.
Claim 15 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of made of record does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of claimed elements “wherein the one or more connectors comprises a solid connector (130d) having a first moving arm (137a) rotatably connected to the attaching member (110) through a shaft (137s) and a second moving arm (137b) connected to a gripping member (120) through a first pin (137c)” as recited in claim 15.
Claims 16-17 depend on claim 15, therefore they are allowed as the same reason set forth above.
Claim 18 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of made of record does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of claimed elements “wherein the gripping member (120) and the attaching member (110) get locked together by means of one or more locking members (160, 170) when configured in the rest position” as recited in claim 18.
Claim 19 depends on claim 18, therefore they are allowed as the same reason set forth above.
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 20230128108 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an attachment (Fig. 3, item 100) for a mobile phone case (Fig. 3, item 200), comprising: an attaching member (Fig. 3, item 110 and Par. 63) provided with a slot (Fig. 1, item 220 and Pars. 57-58) and adapted to attach the attachment (100) to the mobile phone case (200) by means of (Fig. 3 and Pars. 67-69 & Claim 6, attaching member (110) is fitted inside a first cut-out section (220) made in the mobile phone case (200) by means of an interference fitting);
a gripping member (Fig. 3, item 120) adapted to rest on the attaching member (110) when configured in a rest position (Pars. 27, 63, non-working position); and adapted to provide a gripping surface while holding the mobile phone when configured in a first working position (Pars. 27, 64, first working position); and further adapted to support the mobile phone on a flat surface when fixed inside the slot (115) when configured in a second working position (Pars. 27, 64, second working position allows the user to orient the mobile phone in a standing configuration on flat surfaces);
one or more connectors (130 or 130a or 130b or 130c or 130d) adapted to connect the gripping member (120) and the attaching member (110) (Fig. 3, item 130 (connector)); and wherein the gripping member (120) is movable between the rest position (Fig. 4 and Par. 27), the first working position (Fig. 5 and Pars. 27), and the second working position (Fig. 6 and Pars. 27, 63) with respect to the attaching member (110) by means of one or more connectors (130 or 130a or 130b or 130c or 130d) (Pars. 63-64),
2. The attachment (100) of claim 1, wherein the sticking material comprises glue, adhesive, or 3M tape.
(NOTE: claim 2 depends on claim 1, wherein claim 1 is giving an option of “
3. The attachment (100) of claim 1, wherein the magnetic ring (300) comprises: a shell (310) having a protrusion (312), a space, and an inner groove (316) that receives the edge of the attaching member (110) there inside by means of press fitting; a cover (320) for the closure of the shell (310); and a plurality of magnets (330) disposed inside the space within the shell (310).
4. The attachment (100) of claim 3, wherein the magnetic ring (300) further comprises an outer groove (318) for receiving edge portion of a phone case slot (250) by means of press fitting.
(NOTE: claims 3-4 depend on claim 1, wherein claim 1 is giving an option of “
(NOTE: claim 6 depends on claim 4, wherein claim 4 is giving an option of “foreground seed or background see or energy”, hence the limitation “background seed” and “energy” are not given patentable weight since they were not positively recited in claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches previous claim. Wang further teaches the attachment (100) of claim 1, wherein the one or more connectors (130, 130a, 130b, 130c) are made up of resilient material (Par. 60).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches previous claims. Wang further teaches the attachment (100) of claim 5, wherein the resilient material is a polycarbonate (PC) (Par. 60).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20230128108 A1) in view of Kim (US 10784914 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches previous claim. Wang further teaches the attachment (100) of claim 1, wherein the attaching member (110) is press fitted inside250) by means of press fitting (Fig. 3 and Claim 6, attaching member (110) is fitted inside a first cut-out section (220) (slot) made in the mobile phone case (200) by means of an interference fitting).
However, Wang lacks on the teaching of a case groove made in the edge portion of the phone case slot.
Kim teaches blocking protrusion 15 (case groove) is formed on inner circumferential surface of the coupling through hole 11 (case slot), wherein the fixing component 30 is inserted into the coupling through hole 11 (Fig. 3 and Col. 2 Line 65-Col. 3 Line 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Kim into Wang to prevent falling-off or separation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20230128108 A1) in view of Yim et al. US 20200235770 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches previous claim.
However, Wang lacks on the teaching of the attachment (100) of claim 1, wherein the gripping member (120) comprises a rotating member (125) rotatably pivoted thereto using a pivot pin.
Yim teaches a second holder 60 (rotating member) and hinge 50 (pivot pin) (Fig. 2 and Pars. 63-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Yim into Wang to provide additional support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang US 11265035 B1
Backus US 11786031 B1
Backus US 11330093 B2
Haber et al. US 10244854 B1
Kang US 20230328164 A1
Whitten US 20220117384 A1
Kim US 20200099413 A1
Kim et al. US 20200235770 A1
Kim US 10581480 B1
Shaw et al. US 20210029229 A1
Stime US 10638627 B1
Grieve US 20160069512 A1
Feng US 11374607 B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDY HUYEN TRANDAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1914. The examiner can normally be reached 8am -4:30pm.
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, Wesley L. Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/Cindy Trandai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 10/29/2025