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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
A matte coating on an acrylic material is still a coated material, so the changes do not overcome the 112 2nd antecedence issue, as it is further defining the coated material, and would make no sense with reference to the diffusive film or perforated material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a matte coating on an acrylic material" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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) 1-3 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 2007/0151899 A1) in view of Han (US 2012/0261542 A1)
1. Chun discloses an apparatus comprising: at least three sides forming an open enclosure, the at least three sides comprising a back side, a top, and a front side, wherein:
a top forms a rectangular surface over the open enclosure, the rectangular surface being perpendicular to the back side and to the front side; [Fig. 2]
the back side and the front side have an identical shape and size; [Fig. 2]
the top, front side, and back side form a perimeter of the apparatus, wherein the portion of the perimeter formed by the front side and the back side is substantially rounded; [Fig. 2]
and a holder coupled to the inner surface of the back side and configured to secure a mobile client device to the apparatus inside the open enclosure, [0023] wherein at least a portion of the front side opposite the holder comprises a substantially transparent material. [Figs 2-3, 0025 transparent material]
The claim differs only in that the top of the entire enclosure is flat, while in Chun, it is rounded.
Han discloses an analogous device where an outer surface of an enclosure opposite a curved surface is flat, resulting in substantially the same shape as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change to a flat top, as it is a mere change in shape with no unexpected benefit, see MPEP 2144.04 IV B, changes in shape:
B. Changes in Shape
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
2. the combination discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the portion of the perimeter formed by the front side and the portion of the perimeter formed by the back side each comprise either: (1) a perimeter of a semicircular shape or (2) linear edge segments connected to form a substantially rounded shape. [Chun, Fig. 2] , also [Han Fig. 2]
3. the combination discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the holder is further configured to secure the mobile client device against an inner portion of the front side, wherein the inner portion of the front side is aligned with the at least a portion of the front side opposite the holder. [Chun Fig. 2]
8. t the combination discloses he apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising an adjustable weight for adjusting a center of mass of the apparatus. [Han 0035-0036 weight member 223 is expressly for shifting center of mass]
9. the combination discloses the apparatus of Claim 8, wherein the top surface is configured to support the adjustable weight. [Han fig. 4 where the slope unit supports the weight and is on a top surface]
10. the combination discloses the apparatus of Claim 8, further comprising a shelf coupled to the back side, wherein the shelf is configured to support that adjustable weight. [Han Figure 4 wher the sloop unit constitutes a shelf and supports the weight]
11. the combination discloses the apparatus of Claim 8, further comprising a plurality of protruding surfaces each coupled to the back side, wherein each protruding surface is configured to support the adjustable weight. [Han 0037 and Fig 4 there are protrusions in the track which support the weight]
12. the combination discloses the apparatus of Claim 8, further comprising a track coupled to the apparatus, wherein the adjustable weight is coupled to the track and is configured to adjust along a length of the track. [Han 0036 the weight may slide and roll along the track.]
13. the combination discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising one or more of: a base supporting the apparatus of Claim 1 and operable to rock the apparatus of Claim 1 by oscillating; or a pendulum disposed within the apparatus of Claim 1 and operable to rock the apparatus of Claim 1 by oscillating. [Han, 0039, the stand device may rock back and forth]also [Chun has a gravity base 52 which provides a center of balance which would keep or return the curved bottom upright thus allowing rocking or osciallation]
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 2007/0151899 A1) in view of Han (US 2012/0261542 A1) further in view of Copley (US 2004/0040195 A1)
4. the combination discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein in Han the seat 33 has a space wherein the phone is lodged in the space, implying a certain degree of compression to hold the device, but does not expressly define a compressible material. Copley discloses an analogous display system wherein the holder comprises a compressible material. [0034, foam core board]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compressible material to more securely hold the device and protect it from shock during device movements.
5. the combination discloses the apparatus of Claim 4, wherein the compressible material comprises a compressible foam material. [Copley, 0034, foam core board]
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 2007/0151899 A1) in view of Han (US 2012/0261542 A1) further in view of Kemp (US 2020/0407144 A1)
6. the combination discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, including the use of any plastic or acrylic material, but does not expressly disclose wherein the substantially transparent material comprises one or more of a perforated material, a diffusive film, or a coated material. Kemp discloses, in ana analogous display case, the use of a coated material [0043, coated acrylic display] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use coated material such as coating on the acrylic to protect the material from scratches and damage and maintain clarity and visibility.
7, the combination discloses the apparatus of Claim 6, wherein the substantially transparent material comprises a matte coating on an acrylic material. [Kemp 0043, matte is a visual ascetic and not a patentable distinction, though it would be known to use matte for less reflectivity]
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 LEWIS G WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-7859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. 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.
/LEWIS G WEST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights