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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 01/20/2026 to the non-final Office action of 10/23/2025 is acknowledged. The Office action on currently pending claims 1-4 and 6-16 follows.
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 subject matter of claim 9: “the rollers of the access control mechanism are configured to: (a) in an unlocked state, permit the insertion and/or removal of the personal electronic device, and (b) in a locked state, prevent access to and removal of the personal electronic device while stored within the storage area”
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.
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 9 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claim recites the limitations: “the rollers of the access control mechanism are configured to: (a) in an unlocked state, permit the insertion and/or removal of the personal electronic device, and (b) in a locked state, prevent access to and removal of the personal electronic device while stored within the storage area”.
It’s not clear how the aforementioned functionality is accomplished. The relevant portion of the specification (par. [0035]) is referring to the aforementioned functionality in general terms without going into details of the actual mechanical arrangement. The drawings also fails to depict the relevant subject matter, but just schematically show rollers (260) on Fig. 2.
After considering all of the Wands factors (and specifically, that there is no adequate direction provided by the Inventor/Applicant), the Office has concluded that the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the instant disclosure will be high and undue to a person of the ordinary skill, and therefore, such a person will not be able to make and use the claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation. See In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 177 USPQ 691 (CCPA 1973); In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 169 USPQ 723 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, and 15-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,682,387 to Ryann.
Regarding claim 1, Ryann discloses (Figs. 1-3) a storage device (100) for a personal electronic device (150) having a surface, the storage device comprising: a housing (210, 211) having a slot-aperture (127) that connects a housing-external environment to a storage area (127) enclosed by and internal to the housing, wherein the storage area is configured to store the personal electronic device (150), and wherein the slot-aperture (127) permits the personal electronic device (150) to be inserted and removed manually from the storage area; and a protective buffer (110, 113, 115) internal to the housing that contacts at least the surface so as to protect the personal electronic device from contact damage (col. 4, ll. 19-30); and an access control and locking mechanisms (125, 130, 300, 110, 115, 213, 214, 400, 412) configured to eject the personal electronic device (150) (using the eject button (130) actuatable by a user) from the storage area (127) to protrude from the slot-aperture (127) to the hosing external environment (col. 6, ll. 54-67; col. 9, ll. 51-63; col. 7, ll. 11-33).
Alternatively, the control mechanisms configured to pull the device completely into, and eject from, the storage area have been notoriously known in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in relation to CDs or DVDs (see the CD slot (190); col. 5, ll. 42-60)1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented such a mechanism for the personal electronic device (150), so as to pull it completely into, and eject from, the storage area, in order to enhance user’s convenience and protection of the device. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Ryann discloses that an insertion/removal axis, via which the slot-aperture (127) permits insertion/removal of the personal electronic device (150), is parallel to the surface of the personal electronic device (i.e., parallel to the upper and bottom surfaces of the device (150) on Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 3, 6, and 8, Ryann discloses an access control and locking mechanisms (125, 130, 300, 110, 115, 213, 214, 400, 412) configured to facilitate the insertion and/or removal and locking and unlocking of the personal electronic device (150) to eject/unlock the personal electronic device (150) (using the eject button (130) actuatable by a user) from the storage area (127) so as to protrude from the slot-aperture (127) to the hosing external environment (col. 6, ll. 54-67; col. 9, ll. 51-63; col. 7, ll. 11-33).
Regarding claim 4, Ryann discloses that the access control mechanism is configured to pull the personal electronic device (150) completely into the storage area (see “to be fully encased or enclosed within the cavity 127” in col. 5, ll. 55-60)1.
Alternatively, the control mechanisms configured to pull the device completely into the storage area have been notoriously known in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in relation to CDs or DVDs (see the CD slot (190); col. 5, ll. 42-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented such a mechanism for the personal electronic device (150), so as to pull it completely into the storage area, in order to enhance user’s convenience and protection of the device. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Ryann discloses that the access control mechanism includes a locking mechanism (110, 115, 213, 214, 400, 412) configured to prevent manual access to and removal of the personal electronic device (150) while stored within the storage area (col. 7, ll. 11-33).
Regarding claim 11, Ryann discloses a power link configured to operatively connect the personal electronic device (150) to an auxiliary power grid of a motor vehicle such that the personal electronic device is chargeable via the auxiliary power grid while stored within the storage area (col. 10, ll. 6-19).
Regarding claim 12, Ryann discloses a data link (col. 9, ll. 1-7) configured to operatively connect the personal electronic device (150) to an infotainment system (175, 180) of a motor vehicle such that the personal electronic device is useable in connection with the infotainment system (col. 9, ll. 1-26).
Regarding claim 13, Ryann discloses a slot-covering (120) that covers the slot-aperture (127) while permitting the personal electronic device (150) to be inserted and removed manually from the storage area (127).
Regarding claim 15, Ryann discloses a sizing mechanism configured to adjust the dimensions of the storage area (127) so as to accommodate the personal electronic device (150) (col. 3, ll. 45-55).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Ryann discloses that the storage device (100) is secured to the vehicle in at least one of: an area adjacent to a seat of the vehicle such that the slot-opening (127) is accessible by the user from the seat, wherein the area adjacent to the seat of the vehicle is: a center console area, a glovebox area, or an under-dashboard area (Fig. 1; see “car stereo” in col. 2, ll. 40-41; col. 10, ll. 26-27, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryann taken alone.
Regarding claim 14, Ryann does not disclose a cooling mechanism configured to cool the personal electronic device stored within the storage area.
The Official Notice is taken of the facts outside of the current record that cooling mechanisms (e.g., fans heat sinks, heat pipes, etc.) have been notoriously known in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to cool electronic devices and components for predicable improvement of their reliability1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Ryann by implementing a cooling mechanism configured to cool the personal electronic device stored within the storage area, thus predictably enhancing reliability of the personal electronic device. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryann in view of US 2021/0212225 to Song et al. (hereafter “Song”).
Regarding claim 10, Ryann does not disclose: wherein the access control mechanism is controllable via an interactive graphical-user-interface displayed by a vehicle display and/or a device display.
Song discloses a mobile terminal for a display device (Figs. 1-4) for a vehicle comprising an interactive graphical-user-interface (151) (see “touch screen” in par. [0067]) to accomplish various control functions (pars. [0065]-[0070], etc.).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Ryann according to the teachings of Song, so the device of Ryann would have the access control mechanism that is controllable via an interactive graphical-user-interface displayed by a vehicle display and/or a device display, in order to predictably enhance user’s experience and simplify controlling operations. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objections to the drawings, Applicant contends that, allegedly, “the features of claim 9 are shown in at least FIG. 2. More particularly, FIG. 2 shows the rollers 260 coupled to the locking mechanism 240 so as to thereby be configured to carry out the claimed functions.”
In response, the Office directs the Applicant’s attention to the fact that schematic depiction of the rollers (260) schematically interconnected by a single line to the locking mechanism (240) schematically depicted as an empty box is not an adequate illustration of the claimed subject matter. The drawings fail to show the claimed functionality, i.e. “the rollers of the access control mechanism are configured to: (a) in an unlocked state, permit the insertion and/or removal of the personal electronic device, and (b) in a locked state, prevent access to and removal of the personal electronic device while stored within the storage area”.
In view of the above the objection still stands.
Furthermore, regarding the enablement rejection, Applicant contends that, allegedly, “the
rollers 260 are described as contacting the device 20 and locking/unlocking to prevent/allow insertion/removal of the device 20. A skilled artisan would understand that locking the rollers 260 (e.g., skid wheels) in this context prevents them from rolling, while unlocking them permits the rollers 260 to roll-thereby preventing/allowing device 20 insertion/removal via their contact with the device 20. Thus, there is sufficient disclosure to enable one or ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The details of locking and unlocking rollers (e.g., skid wheels) generally is not the subject of the invention-and such details are not claimed. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested (emphasis added).”
On the contrary, claim 9 does claim “such details” by reciting specific functionality of the rollers (260), i.e., “(a) in an unlocked state, permit the insertion and/or removal of the personal electronic device, and (b) in a locked state, prevent access to and removal of the personal electronic device while stored within the storage area”. However, neither the drawings nor the specification teach how this functionality is actually accomplished. Schematic illustration of the rollers and of the locking mechanism and generic statements of the specification are insufficient to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention without undue experimentation. See In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 177 USPQ 691 (CCPA 1973); In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 169 USPQ 723 (CCPA 1971).
In view of the above the rejection still stands.
Furthermore, regarding the art rejection, the rejection has been modified to meet the limitations of the amended claims. Furter, assuming arguendo that rejection has not been modified, regarding the original rejection the Applicant contends that, allegedly, “Ryann fails to disclose an access control mechanism configured to eject the personal electronic device from the storage area to protrude from the slot-aperture to the housing-external environment. To the contrary, the eject button 130 decompresses the upper compression member 110 and returns the mobile device 150 to a state in which it is "loosely received" in the cavity 127 of the engagement mechanism 125. Id. The device is not ejected to protrude from the cavity 127, but is merely no longer compressed. As such, the limitation is unmet by Ryann (emphasis in the original).”
On the contrary, the Office would like to direct the Applicant’s attention to the fact that limitations “configured to eject the personal electronic device from the storage area” are met by Ryann. There is an “eject button (130)” explicitly taught by Ryann (emphasis added, e.g., see col. 4, l. 31; col. 9, l. 51-col. 10, l. 5, etc.). This alone means that the access control mechanism of Ryann (which includes said eject button (130)) is “configured to eject”. Furter, said “configured to eject” limitations are pretty broad and include the function of a facilitation of the ejection as well. Therefore, the decompression by the eject button (130) of the upper compression member (110) and placing of the mobile device (150) to a state in which it is loosely received in the cavity (127) of the engagement mechanism (125) so it can be taken out by a user reads on the claimed limitations “configured to eject” (e.g., see col. 9, ll. 51-56: “a user may eject the mobile device 150 from the engagement mechanism 125 as indicated at 675 by pressing a conventional eject button 130 (emphasis added)”). Also, the mobile device (150) of Ryann protrudes from the cavity (127) as clearly shown on Figs. 2, 4, and 5. The claim does not recite that the access control mechanism is configured to eject the personal electronic device from the storage area by automatically applying force to it, so as to move (push, pull, drive, displace, etc.) it from the storage area, etc. The claim is broader than argued.
In view of the above the rejection is hereby maintained.
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 Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835
1 Examiner’s Note: Since Applicant has failed to seasonably traverse the aforementioned well-known statement, the object of said well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943), ("If Applicant does not seasonably traverse the well-known statement during examination, then the object of the well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art"). MPEP 2144.03 (C).