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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “portable device”, “docking bay”, “first docking bay”, “second bay”, “disassembled parts”, “power source”, “device charger”, “rechargeable battery”, “power receiver”, “case controller”, “air filter”, and “filter assembly light source” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant’s remark argues that under 35 U.S.C. §113 and 37 C.F.R. §1.81(a), drawings are required only "where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented." Each element identified in the objection (e.g., a power source, battery, charger, controller, and power receiver) is a familiar, conventional component whose detailed structure is unnecessary to a skilled artisan's understanding of the claimed subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As per 37 CFR 1.83(a), the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase of “for a portable device”, and “for holding disassembled parts” is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
In this view, the “portable device”, the “disassemble parts”, the “personal air purifier”, the “filter assembly”, the “visor”, the “device controller”, the “coupling unit” and the “light guide” thereof are neither claimed nor affirmatively recited in the claims of the present invention.
Therefore, the at least claim 1 has been interpreted as follows:
“A storage case comprising: a base portion and a cover portion; at least two docking bays disposed on an inner surface of the base portion, the at least two docking bays comprising: a first docking bay and a second docking bay; wherein the first docking bay and the second docking bay define at least one channel therebetween; and at least one light source for emitting light in a violet portion of the visual spectrum, the at least one light source being arranged in such a way as to illuminate a specific portion the portable device.”
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 16 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Inventions Claim 16 and 1-15 are related as process and apparatus for its practice.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 16 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the cover portion further comprises a light guide.”
Examiner has consulted the Applicant’s Specification and find no disclosure therein that evinces possession of “the cover portion further comprises a light guide.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trabalka et al (US 20140056758; hereinafter Trabalka) in view of Anderson et al (US 20100246169; hereinafter Anderson).
As regarding claim 1, Trabalka discloses the claimed invention for a storage case comprising: a base portion (14) and a cover portion (16); at least two docking bays ([0014]) disposed on an inner surface (inside of receptacle 14) of the base portion, the at least two docking bays comprising: a first docking bay (30 of figs. 2) and a second docking bay (30); wherein the first docking bay and the second docking bay define at least one channel (about 64 of fig. 2) therebetween; and at least one light source (50), the at least one light source being arranged in such a way as to illuminate a specific portion the portable device.
Trabalka does not disclose at least one light source for emitting light in a violet portion of the visual spectrum. Anderson teaches at least one light source for emitting light in a violet portion of the visual spectrum (abstract, [0003], [0006] and [0012]). Both Trabalka and Anderson are directed to lighting device disinfect micro-organism on a surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide at least one light source for emitting light in a violet portion of the visual spectrum as taught by Anderson in order to remove or inactivate micro-organisms while avoiding human exposure to the human effects of UV radiation.
As regarding claim 2, Trabalka as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Trabalka as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one light source is configured for emitting light with a wavelength of about 405 nm (Anderson - [0006] and [0012]).
As regarding claim 3, Trabalka as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Trabalka as modified discloses the claimed invention for a power source ([0020]), coupled to the at least one light source for providing electrical power thereto.
As regarding claim 4, Trabalka as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Trabalka as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a device charger, coupled to the power source and configured to charge a battery of the portable device when the part of the portable device is held in the predetermined position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a device charger, coupled to the power source and configured to charge a battery of the portable device when the part of the portable device is held in the predetermined position in order to enhance storage case performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Stankus et al (US 20210316020; hereinafter Stankus; [0037]).
As regarding claim 5, Trabalka as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Trabalka as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the power source comprises a rechargeable battery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the power source comprises a rechargeable battery in order to enhance storage case performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Jones (US 20220168456; claim 10).
As regarding claim 6, Trabalka as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Trabalka as modified inherently discloses the claimed invention for a power receiver, coupled to the at least one light source and configured to receive power from a power source of the portable device when the part of the portable device is held in the predetermined position.
As regarding claim 7, Trabalka as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Trabalka as modified discloses the claimed invention for a case controller (56), operatively coupled to the at least one light source and operative to control the at least one light source to illuminate the at least one part of the portable device.
As regarding claim 8, Trabalka as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Trabalka as modified discloses the claimed invention for a light guide (51, 52) configured to guide the light emitted by the at least one light source to the specific portion of the portable device.
As regarding claim 9, Trabalka as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Trabalka as modified discloses the claimed invention for the portable device, the part of the portable device being held in the predetermined position (figs. 1 and 4).
Claims 13-14 are likewise rejected for reasons similar to those set forth with respect to claims 7-8 above.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trabalka et al (US 20140056758; hereinafter Trabalka) in view of Anderson et al (US 20100246169; hereinafter Anderson), as applied supra, and further in view of Jennings et al (WO 2020021231; hereinafter Jennings).
As regarding claim 10, Trabalka as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Trabalka as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the portable device is a personal air purifier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the portable device is a personal air purifier in order to enhance storage case performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Jennings (title, abstract and figs. 1a - 13).
As regarding claim 11, Trabalka as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Trabalka as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the personal air purifier comprises a filter assembly with an air inlet and an air filter, and a visor with an air outlet, the first docking bay shaped for holding the filter assembly in a predetermined position, and the second docking bay, shaped for holding the visor in a predetermined position, the at least one light source comprising a filter assembly light source, arranged in such a way as to illuminate the filter assembly (Jennings - 1107) when held in its predetermined position, and a visor light source, arranged in such a way as to illuminate the visor when held in its predetermined position.
As regarding claim 12, Trabalka as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Trabalka as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the visor is detached from the filter assembly (Jennings – fig. 1a).
Claim(s) 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trabalka et al (US 20140056758; hereinafter Trabalka) in view of Anderson et al (US 20100246169; hereinafter Anderson), as applied supra, and further in view of WO 2019020584 (hereinafter WO ‘584).
As regarding claim 15, Trabalka as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Trabalka as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the cover portion further comprises a light guide. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the cover portion further comprises a light guide in order to allow light from an internal source to be efficiently distributed and directed across a target region of the portable device, improving illumination uniformity while minimizing power consumption and component complexity, since it was known in the art as shown in WO ‘584 (light guide is inner surface 23 of housing cover 20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the limitation “at least two docking bays disposed on an inner surface of the base portion,” Examiner finds that Trabalka discloses this feature. As described in paragraph [0014], racks 30 extend longitudinally between opposite ends 31 within receptacle 14 and are positioned on an inner surface of the receptacle. The receptacle corresponds to the claimed base portion, and the racks 30 constitute structures disposed on its inner surface that support the headset 20. Accordingly, the claimed docking bays read on the racks 30.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Trabalka fails to disclose a structural arrangement in which docking bays define one or more channels, Examiner also respectfully disagrees. As shown in fig. 2 of Trabalka, the interior surface 64 between opposing rows of racks 30 defines a space therebetween. This space constitutes at least one channel formed by the opposing structures (i.e., the racks). Therefore, Trabalka teaches or at least suggests the claimed channel formed by first and second docking bays.
With respect to Applicant’s argument concerning “disassembled parts,” the Examiner notes that the claim does not positively recite specific structural features that distinguish the docking bays based on their ability to hold disassembled parts. The phrase “disassembled parts of a portable device” is interpreted as an intended use or statement of intended operation, rather than a structural limitation. The racks 30 of Trabalka are capable of supporting components of a device, such as the headset 20, and thus reasonably read on the claimed structure. The claim does not require a particular geometry or configuration uniquely adapted for disassembled components.
Finally, regarding Applicant’s contention that the limitations relating to “a portable device” and “disassembled parts” are structural and not intended use, Examiner maintains that these phrases do not impose additional structural requirements on the claimed apparatus. Rather, they describe the environment or intended use of the storage case. As such, they do not distinguish over the disclosure of Trabalka, which clearly relates to storage of a portable electronic device (e.g., headset 20 as shown in fig. 1), and is inherently capable of accommodating its components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773