Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/6/24, 1/7/25, and 2/4/25 are noted. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statements.
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.
3. Claims 13, 18, and 20 are 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.
In claim 13, the scope of the limitation “resiliently extend” is not clear. Does this mean the flexure bearing is made of resilient material or is only the motion of extending itself somehow resilient? For the purpose of examination, the term “resiliently extend” is interpreted as meaning the flexure bearing extends with the initiation of the lever action but can somehow be reversed and contracted at a later time.
In claim 18, the scope of the limitation “poly magnets” is not clear. Applicant does discuss poly magnets in paragraph [0098] of the specification but the disclosure does not really help establish the actual scope of coverage for the claim term “poly magnets”. Different magnetic properties are discussed as well as spring poly magnets. It is not clear if these properties are intended to be covered in the claim or not. For the purpose of examination, the term “poly magnet” is being interpreted as a single magnet body that itself includes multiple north and multiple south polarities. This seems to be the most basic definition of the term.
In claim 20, the scope of the limitation “highly conductive” is unclear. What are the upper and lower limits of conductivity that satisfy the term “highly”? The specification does not elaborate. For the purpose of examination, any conductive metal will be considered sufficient to satisfy this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 7, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blau (US 10,972,596 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Blau discloses a grip for coupling to a portable handheld device, the grip comprising: a base (30); a cap assembly (80/90); and at least two flexure bearings connecting the base and the cap assembly, each flexure bearing comprising: a cap attachment section (CAS, below); an upper arm section (UAS, below); a lower arm section (LAS, below); a base attachment section (BAS, below); an upper hinge (UH, below) connecting between the cap attachment section and the upper arm section; a middle hinge (MH, below) connecting between the upper arm section and the lower arm section; and a lower hinge (LH, below) connecting between the lower arm section and the base attachment section; wherein the cap attachment section is attached to the cap assembly such that a distance dc is formed between the upper hinge and a centerline of the cap assembly (see Figure 3); wherein the base attachment section is attached to the base such that a distance ds is formed between the lower hinge and a centerline of the base (see Figure 3); wherein the distance dc is smaller than the distance ds (see Figure 3), and a length Lc of the upper arm section is smaller than a length Ls of the lower arm section (see Figure 3 of Blau compared to Figure 17 of Applicant).
PNG
media_image1.png
1010
1369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the cap assembly is configured to be movable relative to the base to a non-captured position in which the cap assembly is spaced from the base (see Figures 1-3), and wherein, when in the non-captured position, the at least two flexure bearings are configured to be movable between a first position in which the middle hinges bend inward toward each other (they must bend inward toward each other in order to achieve the collapsed state seen in Figure 5), and a second position in which the middle hinges bend outward away from each other (they must bend away from each other during the transition from Figure 5 to Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the cap assembly comprises a first plate (80) and a second plate (90) coupled to the first plate (see Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 11, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the cap assembly comprises a sloped portion that faces the base (see profile view in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 14, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the base comprises a sloped portion that faces the cap assembly (see profile view in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the base (30) is rotatably coupled to a frame (20, see col. 4 lines 11-22), and wherein the frame is configured for coupling to the portable handheld device (see col. 4 lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 17, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 16, wherein the base is coupled to the frame via a groove-and-protrusion assembly (see “snap fit retained” and “teeth” in col. 4 lines 11-25).
Regarding claim 19, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 16, wherein the base is removably coupled to the frame (by reversing the snap fit disclosed in col. 4 lines 11-22).
Regarding claim 23, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the centerline of the cap assembly extends parallel to the upper hinge, and wherein the centerline of the base extends parallel to the lower hinge (see Figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blau (US 10,972,596 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the distance Dc, the distance Ds, the length Lc, and the length Ls satisfy: abs(Ls - Lc + Dc) ≤ 5mm.
Regarding claim 3, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein, when Ds = Dc, then: 30mm > Ls + Lc > 15mm.
Regarding claim 4, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein, when Ds ≠ Dc, then: 30mm > √((Lc +Ls)² - (Ds - Dc)²).
Regarding claim 5, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the length Lc has a value ranging from 2 mm to 25 mm, wherein the length Ls has a value ranging from 2 mm to 25 mm, wherein the distance Ds has a value ranging from 5 mm to 25 mm, and wherein the distance Dc has a value ranging from 5 mm to 25 mm.
Blau discloses that his device is meant for a single finger to fit in the open space bounded by the base 30 and arms 60,70 (see “a finger” and “single finger” in col. 1 lines 57-60; “one finger” in col. 5 line 45; and “one finger” in col. 6 lines 5-10). Based on the repeated referencing of a single finger throughout the written disclosure of Blau it seems clear the scale of Figure 8 is not correct where an entire hand is shown inserted within the device. Blau still does not disclose specific dimensions - only that his device is sized such that “any size finger, within range, can fit within the space between the retaining base and the expandable bent pivot arms” (see col. 2 lines 13-15). For the purpose of analyzing the basic geometry of the Blau device, Examiner has marked up Figure 3 of Blau below. For the most basic analysis, a reasonable starting point is to assume the structure is shown to scale.
PNG
media_image2.png
736
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant has disclosed that a suitable vertical spacing for a finger is between 15mm and 30mm (see paragraph [0132] of Applicant’s Specification). This is not inventive. This is simply describing what will physically accommodate a finger based on the dimensions of a finger. Applying this general sizing to Figure 3 of Blau, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to have assigned F a value of 20mm in order to accommodate a range of finger sizes. Once F is established, one can simply measure the other dimensions with respect to F to find their values. Examiner finds them to be as follows: F = 20mm; Dc = 9mm; Lc = 7mm; Ls = 10mm; Ds = 13mm; Vo1 (vertical offset) = 2.5mm; Vo2 = 1.5mm
Regarding claim 2, abs(10mm - 7mm - 13mm + 9mm) = 1mm ≤ 5mm.
Regarding claim 3, if Ds = 9mm = Dc, then (Lc + Ls) = F - Vo1 - Vo2 = 16mm such that: 30mm > (Ls + Lc) > 15mm.
Regarding claim 4, when Ds = 13mm and Dc = 9mm, then: √((Lc +Ls)² - (Ds - Dc)²) = √((7mm + 10mm)² - (13mm - 9mm)²) = √(17mm² - 4mm²) = √273mm = 16.5mm < 30mm.
Regarding claim 5, the length Lc (7mm) has a value ranging from 2 mm to 25 mm, the length Ls (10mm) has a value ranging from 2 mm to 25 mm, the distance Ds (13mm) has a value ranging from 5 mm to 25 mm, and the distance Dc (9mm) has a value ranging from 5 mm to 25 mm.
Furthermore, with respect to claims 2-5, the only difference between Blau and the presently claimed invention are the relative dimensions of the parts. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blau (US 10,972,596 B1) in view of Epstein et al. (US 11,530,779 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the cap assembly is configured to be movable relative to the base to a stand position (see Figures 9, 10, and 12). Blau fails to disclose the base comprises a tab or a slot in which an edge of the cap assembly is engaged with the tab or the slot of the base when in this stand position. Epstein teaches that it was already known for a finger grip like that of Blau to be held in a stand position by engaging with a tab or slot (32) located on the base (see Figures 24-26 and col. 6 lines 10-12. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the base of Blau with a tab or slot like that of Epstein, the motivation being to provide a positive locking engagement of the finger grip in the stand position, as taught by Epstein.
10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blau (US 10,972,596 B1) in view of Backus (US 2021/0314430 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the first plate (80) and the second plate (90) are coupled together by ultrasonic welding. Blau is silent as to the material of these components or how they are coupled. Backus teaches that it was already known in the art for components of a finger grip like that of Blau to be made of plastic and coupled with ultrasonic welding (see [0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the Blau plates (80 and 90) from plastic and coupled them with ultrasonic welding, where such construction was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Backus.
11. Claims 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blau (US 10,972,596 B1) in view of Surani (US 2020/0326030 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the cap assembly is configured to be movable relative to the base such that when the sloped portion moves to contact the base, the sloped portion initiates a lever action. The cap assembly slope of Blau is actually such that the cap assembly extends towards the base where no lever action would be present when contact is made. Surani shows that it was already known for the edge surfaces of a cap assembly and base to be sloped away from each other (see Figures 6 and 7). Even though not the express intent of Surani, such slope would inherently initiate lever action upon contact between the cap assembly and the base simply due to the slope (as best visualized while looking at Figure 7 of Surani). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the cap assembly and base of Blau with sloped surfaces like those of Surani as mere design choice in order to provide a different aesthetic look. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. A Change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431.
Regarding claim 13, to the degree the claim is understood, Blau as modified above would include the grip of Claim 12, wherein each flexure bearing is configured to resiliently extend to move the cap assembly away from the base upon the lever action. The flexure bearing of Blau on the side of the grip opposite where the lever action was being introduced would certainly begin to extend and is designed to be collapsed again at a later time such that the extension motion itself is resilient.
Regarding claim 15, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 14, and Blau as modified above would include wherein the cap assembly is configured to be movable relative to the base such that when the cap assembly moves to contact the sloped portion of the base, the sloped portion initiates a lever action.
18. Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blau (US 10,972,596 B1) in view of Stevens et al. (US 9,486,910 B2) and Shin (US 2018/0146078 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein the base is magnetically coupled to the frame via one or more poly magnets, and wherein the base is rotatable to a plurality of discrete positions relative to the frame.
Regarding the use of magnets, Blau discloses a frame (20) adhesively attached to the portable handheld device where the base (30) is snap fit into the frame (20) such that it can rotate, but discloses no criticality to the snap fit design (see col. 4 lines 11-25). Stevens teaches that it was also known to magnetically attached a grip base (102) to an adhesively attached frame (302) such that the grip can rotate as well as easily disengage for removal (see col. 4 line 42 - col. 5 line 21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the snap fit connection between the base and frame of Blau with a magnetic connection, where such connection was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Sevens, and where such connection would allow for easy removal of the grip from the handheld device when needed/desired, as taught by Stevens.
Regarding the magnets specifically being poly magnets, Stevens does not elaborate on the type of magnets being used. Shin teaches that it was already known in the art for a grip to utilize poly magnets (see Figure 17 and “a magnet having a plurality of polarities within a single entity” in [0152]) in order to control how the magnets react at predetermined discrete positions and desirable angles (see [0143], [0146], [0151]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the magnets of the modified Blau grip as poly magnets, where such use was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Shin, in order to control how the magnets behave at predetermined discrete positions and desirable angles, as taught by Shin.
Regarding claim 20, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein the frame is made of highly conductive metal. Blau has been modified above to include a poly magnet connection, as collectively taught by Stevens and Shin. Shin teaches that it was already known to utilize a conductive metal material in order to shield a handheld device from the magnetic field used in the grip connection (see [0157]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the frame of the modified Blau grip, which would be located between the magnets and the handheld device, from a conductive metal in order to shield the handheld device from the magnetic field, as taught by Shin.
19. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blau (US 10,972,596 B1) in view of Harchol (US 2008/0023508 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Blau discloses the grip of Claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the cap assembly comprises one or more location-indicating nubs configured to provide tactile feedback to a user. Harchol teaches that tactile nubs (72) can be added to the surface of a device in order to provide a uniquely identifiable visual or tactile pattern (see [0040]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided nubs like those of Harchol on the surface of any known device, including the cap assembly of the Blau grip, the motivation being to add a uniquely identifiable visual or tactile pattern to that surface in the manner taught by Harchol.
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claims 10 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 12/11/25