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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer form is incomplete. The applicant’s name is missing. No additional fee is required with the resubmission.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No.. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the application are generic to the patent.
Claims 1-16 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,053,967 in view of Li (CN 207504935).
The claims of the patent teach a screen protector installation tool for installing a screen protector on a screen of an electronic device, comprising:
a holding base comprising a base body having a holding chamber for holding the electronic device, and two guiding rails extended from the base body at two sides of the holding chamber; and
a pressing assembly which comprises a sliding element and a pressing element connected to the sliding element, wherein the sliding element comprises two sliding portions which are respectively slidable along the two guiding rails, so as to allow the pressing element to move above the holding chamber to cause the screen protector positioned in the holding base to be installed on the screen of the electronic device.
The patent doesn’t claim one or more cushioning element disposed in the holding chamber which is arranged to provide a cushioning effect between said base body and side edges of the electronic device. However, this is taught by Li, stating placing a cushion as a preventative measure to secure the phone.
(page 3, 5th paragraph)
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 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, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sorensen (US 2020/0198223) in view of Li.
With a respect to claim 1, Sorensen teaches a screen protector installation tool (Figs. 1-11) for installing a screen protector on a screen of an electronic device (para. 0021), comprising:
a holding base (62 in Fig. 1) comprising a base body (74 in Fig. 1) having a holding chamber (70 in Fig. 1 and para. 0027) for holding the electronic device, and two guiding rails (82 in para. 0028) extended from the base body at two sides of the holding chamber (as shown in Fig. 1); and
a pressing assembly (110) which comprises a sliding element (146 together with portions 126 slides per para. 0036), a pressing element (roller 146 in Figs. 1 and 4 and para. 0036) connected to the sliding element (as shown in Fig. 4), and a handle element (142) connected to the sliding element for being operated to drive the sliding element and the pressing element to move (para. 0036),
wherein the sliding element comprises two sliding portions (126 in Fig. 8) which are respectively slidable along the two guiding rails (as shown in Figs. 5 and 8), so as to allow the pressing element to move above the holding chamber (Fig. 9 and para 0036) to cause the screen protector positioned in the holding base to be installed on the screen of the electronic device (para. 0036).
Sorensen doesn’t claim one or more cushioning element disposed in the holding chamber which is arranged to provide a cushioning effect between said base body and side edges of the electronic device. However, this is taught by Li, stating placing a cushion as a preventative measure to secure the phone.
With respect to claim 6, Sorensen teaches the pressing element comprises a scrolling member (roller 146 in Figs. 1 and 4 and paragraph 0036) which is driven to scroll above the holding chamber to press the screen protector.
With respect to claim 13, Sorensen teaches the holding base has an exit opening (region in between trailing ends 86 of rails 82 in Figs. 1 and 4) communicated to the holding chamber (as shown in Figs. 1 and 4), wherein the screen protector is provided with a release film before being installed on the screen of the electronic device (backing layer of paragraph 0021), wherein the exit opening is arranged to allow the release film to be pulled out of the holding base (backing layer is wound onto spool (122) which then slides through the exit opening region, thereby pulling the backing layer out of holding base), so as to be detached from the screen protector (paragraph 0034; Figure 6).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen in view of Li, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ho (US 2016/0008970).
The teachings of claim 1 are as described above.
With respect to claim 3, Sorensen does not teach this feature.
It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a handle element that is pivotally and detachably coupled to a moving tool element. Ho teaches a handle element (1 in Figures 2 and 6) that is pivotally (Figure 6) and detachably coupled (Figure 2) to a moving tool element (3 in Figure 4). Ho teaches that this configuration provides pivoting capability for the tool element (Figure 6) and speed and ease of detachment from the tool element (paragraph 0036). This will predictably enable easy movement and also convenient removal of the handle for replacement or tool breakdown/maintenance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen in view of Li, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kim (US 2022/0402259).
Although Sorensen teaches the pressing element comprises an integral cylindrical scroll bar (Figure 8), wherein a length of the integral cylindrical scroll bar is equal to or larger than a width of the screen protector, Sorensen does not explicitly teach the other features in the claim.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a pressing element comprising an integral cylindrical scroll bar and an axle shaft penetrating the integral cylindrical scroll bar and being connected to the two sliding portions of the sliding element, wherein the axle shaft serves as the bearing for moving and rotating the scroll bar. Kim teaches a pressing element comprising an integral cylindrical scroll bar (Figures 5 and 7) and an axle shaft penetrating the integral cylindrical scroll bar and being connected to the two sliding portions of the sliding element (Figure 7A), to predictably enable rolling and scrolling of the pressing element via this ubiquitous bearing configuration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SONYA M SENGUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6019. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/SONYA M SENGUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745