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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I and IV in the reply filed on 10/29/25 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2020/0140168 to Chiang (Chiang) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2008/0222849 to Lavoie (Lavoie), alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #12,348,258 to Cartwright (Cartwright).
With Respect to Claim 1
Chiang discloses a protective case system for use with an electronic device, the protective case system comprising: a protective case comprising a shell configured for receiving and removably retaining the electronic device when the electronic device is installed in the protective case (a protective case is disclosed, it is Examiner’s position that removable cases are common and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand them to be part of the disclosure, or alternately although no details are disclosed, the shell being removable would be “obvious to try” or constitute merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)); a flexible tether (440, FIG. 13) having a first end and a second end, a device grip mounting platform (418 or any of the other example device grip mounting platforms) attached to the second end of the tether; and a device grip ((416 or one of the other disclosed device grips) configured to be removably attachable to the protective case (see, e.g. [0003], see also [0080] disclosing this with respect to 522, and the other device grips will operate the same way) and also removably attachable to the device grip mounting platform (FIG. 13 and description) only when not attached to the protective case; but does not disclose wherein the first end of the tether is attached to the protective case at a first attachment point. It is noted that Chiang discloses that it’s device mounting platform structure becomes an ornament/charm when the device grip is attached ([0067]).
However, Lavoie discloses forming a tether with a first end attached to an electronic device and a second end attached to a personal item (e.g. purse) and/or an ornament/charm (FIGS. 4A, 6).
Cartwright discloses forming a tether with one end attached to an electronic device case and the other attached to any of a number of types of personal items/accessories such as a key chain similar to that of Chiang FIG. 13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Lavoie, to attach the other end of the tether of Chiang to the electronic device case (for clarity, Chiang discloses attachment to a device case is comparable to attachment directly to the device and/or the disclosure of Chiang of a device case provides sufficient motivation to use the Lavoie leash on a case rather than directly on the device) in order to allow for the device grip and/or any other attachments (e.g. keys) to travel with the case when not attached to some other item and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate structure to attach the tether to. Alternately, Cartwright provides additional evidence of the obviousness of and/or motivation to attach the tether to a device case and/or the device case being a removable shell as claimed. For clarity, the combination is not limited to the particulars of the Lavoie attachment structure, and is considered to encompass any suitable tether attachment/fastening structure, such as the ring of Cartwright.
With Respect to Claim 2
The protective case system of claim 1 wherein the device grip includes a mounting interface (structure for mating with the cavity 26/426/etc, e.g. 542, FIG. 15).
With Respect to Claim 3
The protective case system of claim 2 wherein each of the protective case and the device grip mounting platform includes a receiver configured for removably receiving the mounting interface of the device grip (see, e.g. [0079]).
With Respect to Claim 4
The protective case system of claim 1 wherein the device grip has an extended position and a stowed or compressed position (see, e.g. FIGS. 14-18 and description).
With Respect to Claim 5
The protective case system of claim 4 wherein the device grip is configured to assist a user in holding the protective case when the device grip is attached to the protective case and the device grip is in the extended position.
With Respect to Claim 6
The protective case system of claim 4 wherein the device grip includes a collapsible structure (520) enabling movement between extended position and the stowed or compressed position.
With Respect to Claim 7
The protective case system of claim 6 wherein the collapsible structure is an accordion structure (FIG. 18).
With Respect to Claim 8
The protective case system of claim 1 and that magnetic coupling is a substitute for mechanical coupling of parts ([0072] substitute magnets for adhesive, threads or other locking engagements), but does not disclose wherein the device grip is magnetically removably attachable, to the protective case and to the device grip mounting platform.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the mechanical coupling of the device grip to the case and platform with a magnetic coupling, for the art known benefits of magnets (e.g. ease of use, no breakage if accidentally separated, attachment with no need for visual and/or limited manual dexterity) and/or as a mere substitution of one art known fastener for another.
With Respect to Claim 10
The protective case system of claim 1 wherein the first end of the tether is removable from the first attachment point (per Lavoie), but does not disclose wherein the protective case includes a second attachment point, and removably attachable to the second attachment point.
However, it would have been obvious to add a second attachment point and have the first end of the tether be removably attachable thereto, in order to provide an additional attachment point for additional tethers for other purposes, to allow for optional attachment at different locations, and/or as a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04. Alternately, as to the combination with Cartwright, Cartwright discloses a case including multiple attachment points with the tether attachable to any of those attachment points, which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of such construction.
With Respect to Claim 11
The protective case system of claim 1 wherein device grip mounting platform is removable from the second end of the tether (FIG. 6, [0071]).
With Respect to Claim 12
A protective case system for use with a portable electronic device, the protective case system comprising: a protective case (case disclosed by Chiang, or a case similar to that of Cartwright) comprising a shell adapted for receiving and removably retaining the portable electronic device when the portable electronic device is installed in the protective case (obvious as such is common or per Cartwright), wherein the protective case includes a device grip mounting interface (522 or similar for other embodiments, see [0080]); a tether (440 and/or per Lavoie and/or Cartwright) having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the tether is attached to the protective case at a first attachment point (per Lavoie and/or Cartwright); a device grip mounting platform (418 or any of the other example device grip mounting platforms) attached to the second end of the tether, wherein the device grip mounting platform includes a device grip mounting interface (26 and related structure or like parts on other embodiments); and a device grip (12 or 14 or others disclosed) adapted to be attachable to the device grip mounting interface of the protective case when not attached to the device grip mounting interface of the device grip mounting platform, and attachable to the device grip mounting interface of the device grip mounting platform only when not attached to the device grip mounting interface of the protective case (per Chiang).
With Respect to Claim 14
The protective case system of claim 12 wherein the protective case includes a second attachment point (per obvious duplication of parts and/or Cartwright), wherein the first end of the tether is removable from the first attachment point and also removably attachable to the second attachment point.
With Respect to Claim 15
The protective case system of claim 12 wherein device grip mounting platform is removable from the second end of the tether (FIG. 6, [0072]).
With Respect to Claim 16
The protective case system of claim 12 wherein the device grip has an extended position and a compressed position (FIGS. 15-18 and description, see e.g. [0081]).
With Respect to Claim 17
The protective case system of claim 16 wherein the device grip is adapted to assist in holding the protective case when the device grip is attached to the protective case and the device grip is in the extended position.
With Respect to Claim 18
The protective case system of claim 16 wherein the device grip includes a collapsible structure (e.g. 520) enabling movement between extended position and the compressed position ([0081].
With Respect to Claim 20
The protective case system of claim 12 wherein the device grip mounting platform is removably dockable on a back surface of the protective case (e.g. via adhesive, [0080]; alternately adhesive is disclosed as one option and Chiang also discloses that magnets, threads, or other removable locking engagements are an art known substitute for adhesives and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to use such reusable removable attachments for the art known benefits of such attachment, as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment, or at most a mere substitution of one art known attachment for another).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2020/0140168 to Chiang (Chiang) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2008/0222849 to Lavoie (Lavoie), alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #12,348,258 to Cartwright (Cartwright) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #11,689,237 to Kim (Kim).
With Respect to Claim 19
The protective case system of claim 12 and that the system is designed to allow removal and storage of the hand grip to reduce bulk of the case, but does not disclose further comprising a wireless charging device adapted for wirelessly charging the installed portable electronic device through the back surface of the protective case when the device grip is not attached to the device grip mounting interface of the protective case.
However, Kim discloses forming a similar system comprising a removably attachable hand grip and a wireless charging device adapted for wirelessly charging the installed portable electronic device through the back surface of the protective case when the device grip is not attached to the device grip mounting interface of the protective case (Col. 4 lines 60-64 indicate that the mounting structure 150 without the attached grip does not affect wireless charging, Col 5 lines 6-14 discloses removing the hand grip and placing the device on the wireless charger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Kim, to form the mounting structure on the case to allow for wireless charging and to use a wireless charging device to charge the device as taught by Kim, in order to allow a user to charge the device in the case wirelessly as taught by Kim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/25 have been fully considered but they are largely not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the amendments overcome the 112 2nd paragraph rejections, those arguments are persuasive and so those rejections are no longer present.
In response to Applicant’s argument that attaching the second end of the Lavoie tether to the grip instead of the user would defeat Lavoie’s intended security purpose and function, the second end of the tether of Lavoie/the combination using only Lavoie can be attached to both the grip and the user. See for example FIGS. 4A and 6 which show the second end of the tether attached to various ornaments/charms and also being attachable to the user or various other items such as a purse (it is noted that contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Lavoie is not limited solely to attachment to a user). Examiner considers this to be sufficient response to similar arguments such as “attaching the second end of Lavoie’s tether to a grip, and not to a user. . .”, as the combination with only Lavoie does not indicate that the second end of the tether is not also attached to a user or other object.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding Cartwright which focus on the index ring, Cartwright discloses the use of a tether with one end removably attached to a device case and the other end removably attachable to any of a variety of different fastening elements to provide modular functionality (see, e.g. Col. 3 lines 6-12). As was mentioned in the rejection, Cartwright’s fastening elements include key ring (see e.g. Col. 3 lines 12-14) and also disclose that attachment to the key ring is an alternative to attachment to a belt loop (noting that Lavoie discloses attachment to a belt loop), which provides evidence of the obviousness of a user choosing to attach the second end to a key ring instead of a belt loop. As such, the combination with Cartwright renders obvious attachment to a key ring instead of attachment to a belt loop when desired by a user, while maintaining the functionality to attach to the belt loop instead if desired.
In response to Applicant’s general statement that as to claims 5 and 17 no explanation of the rejection is provided or identifying any portion of the cited references which purportedly teaches these claims, it is not necessary to cite specific parts of references when the base reference clearly teaches the subject matter (see, e.g. [0003]). Examiner maintains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Chiang’s expandable grip to function as recited in claims 5 and 17, noting that it is disclosed as expandable and its stated purpose is to assist in gripping the device, and also this is the common use and function of such common art known expandable grips.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734