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, 2/4/25, and 3/23/26 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 1-20 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. Claim 1 recites “wherein each of the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component is configured to maintain inductive coupling between the portable handheld device and a wireless charger”. It is not clear just what structure is covered by or excluded by the language “configured to maintain inductive coupling”. Paragraph [0096] of the specification suggests this magnet property can come from the grade of the magnet and lists grades N52, N54H, N54M, and N48 but also discloses “any suitable grade of magnet may be utilized”. This same paragraph also suggests this magnet property can come from the material of the magnet and lists neodymium magnets, ferrite magnets, samarium cobalt magnets but also discloses “other suitable magnets”. Paragraph [0097] of the specification suggests this magnet property can come from each magnet including a plurality of magnet segments or arrays such as an 8 segment array in a 2x4 grid, or segments of 10, 100, 500, or more. Considering all of this, it is unclear what structure is actually covered by the limitation “configured to maintain inductive coupling”. Does this require a listed grade? A listed material? Does it include unlisted grades and materials as the specification suggests. Does it require an array? Does it require a listed grade, material, and array at the same time? Given that claims 6-8, 19, and 20 all depend on claim 1 and further recite these disclosed magnet properties, is this evidence that these features are not required by claim 1 and the respective dependent claims are needed because of this? For the purpose of examination, any magnet assembly including magnetic components each including a plurality of poles, as positively recited in claim 1, will be considered sufficient and “configured to maintain inductive coupling” to the degree presently set forth in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2021/0301976 A1) in view of Surani et al. (US 2020/0326030 A1) and Shin (EP 3285466 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen discloses a grip for coupling to a portable handheld device (portable handheld device not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for coupling to”), the grip comprising: a base (102 or 202) having a first magnetic component (154 or 254); a cap assembly (140 or 240) having a second magnetic component (156 or 256); and at least two flexure bearings (120 and 112 in Figure 1 or see “two, thin strip springs 212” in [0029]) connecting the base and the cap assembly (see Figures); wherein at least a portion of each flexure bearing is held between the first plate and the second plate (see Figures); wherein the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component are configured to attract at a first threshold distance to magnetically couple the cap assembly and the base together (see [0025] and [0030]), and to repel or not attract (in this case, not attract) at a second threshold distance (that shown in Figures 1 and 2) to push the cap assembly away from the base (see Figures 1 and 2).
Cohen fails to disclose wherein the cap assembly has a first and second plate. Cohen also fails to disclose wherein each of the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component comprises a plurality of poles and has a particular magnetic strength; wherein each of the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component is configured to maintain inductive coupling between the portable handheld device and a wireless charger.
Regarding the cap assembly and plates, Surani teaches that it was already known in the art for a cap assembly like that of Cohen to include two plates (80,90) that enclose a cap assembly magnet (102) therein (see Figures 8 and 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have constructed the magnetic cap assembly of Cohen according to know and suitable construction techniques, in this case forming the cap assembly from two plates and enclosing the magnet therein, as taught by Surani.
Regarding the magnetic components and poles, Shin teaches that it was already known for magnetic components (141d,142d - see Figure 17) like those of Cohen to each include a plurality of poles in order to help keep the grip in proper alignment in the collapsed position (see [0117]-[0119]). 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 magnetic assemblies of Cohen each with a plurality of poles, the motivation being to keep the cap in proper alignment in the collapsed position, as taught by Shin.
Regarding claim 2, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 1, wherein the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component are uncoated. Cohen fails to disclose any coating for his magnetic components.
Regarding claim 4, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of poles has a different polarity from an adjacent pole, as taught by Shin (see [0117]).
Regarding claim 5, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 1, wherein each of the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component comprises a poly magnet, as taught by Shin (see [0117]).
Regarding claim 6, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 1, wherein each of the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component comprises a plurality of magnet segments, as taught by Shin (see [0117]).
Regarding claim 7, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of magnet segments is configured end-to-end with an adjacent magnet segment, as taught by Shin (see Figure 17).
Regarding claim 8, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 6, wherein the plurality of magnet segments is arranged in a particular grid shape, as taught by Shin (see Figure 17).
Regarding claim 9, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 1, wherein the first magnetic component is configured near a center of the base, and wherein the second magnetic component is configured near a center of the cap assembly, as originally taught by Cohen (see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 1, wherein the second magnetic component is held between the first plate and the second plate of the cap assembly, as taught by Surani.
Regarding claim 12, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the first plate and the second plate are welded together. Surani, who teaches the construction of the cap assembly with two plates, is silent as to the material of his cap and how the pates are joined together. Cohen generally teaches his cap assembly being made from plastic, metal, or other suitable materials (see [0022]). Official Notice is taken to the fact that it is old and well known in the art of plastics for ultrasonic welding to be a quick and easy method of joining plastic parts together. As such, 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 cap assembly plates of the modified Cohen grip out of plastic, as taught by Cohen himself, and to have used any known and suitable method for joining those plastic plates, in this case ultrasonic welding.
Regarding claim 16, Cohen as modified above would include 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, and a captured position in which the cap assembly contacts the base, as originally taught by Cohen. Each of the cap assembly and base include the magnets, as defined within these claims, and the magnets of Cohen could contact one another in the collapsed position (see [0025] and [0030] and Figure 3A).
Regarding claim 17, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 16, wherein, when in the captured position, the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component are configured to be separated from each other by a predetermined distance, as taught by Cohen (see [0025] and [0030] and Figure 3A, there being zero distance when the magnets contact, zero being sufficient to satisfy this claim per claim 18).
Regarding claim 18, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 17, wherein the predetermined distance is 0mm, as originally taught by Cohen (when the magnets contact one another, see [0025] and [0030] and Figure 3A).
Regarding claim 20, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 1, wherein each of the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component is a neodymium magnet, a ferrite magnet, or a samarium cobalt magnet, as originally taught by Cohen (see [0023]).
7. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2021/0301976 A1) in view of Surani et al. (US 2020/0326030 A1) and Shin (EP 3285466 A1) as applied above, further in view of Okonogi et al. (US 4,865,915 A).
Regarding claim 3, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component are coated in non-conductive material. Cohen makes no mention of any coating. Okonogi teaches that it was already known in the art to coat magnets in resin for high temperature and corrosion resistance (see Title, Abstract, and col. 13 lines 12-14). When constructing the modified Cohen grip, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have simplified the design process by choosing from any known and existing magnets, including resin coated magnets like those of Okonogi, in order to provide a functioning device, while purposefully or incidentally enjoying the added benefit of high temperature and corrosion resistance in the magnets.
8. Claims 10, 13-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2021/0301976 A1) in view of Surani et al. (US 2020/0326030 A1) and Shin (EP 3285466 A1) as applied above, further in view of Backus (US 2021/0314430 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 1, but so far fails to disclose wherein the first magnetic component is configured around a perimeter of the base, and wherein the second magnetic component is configured around a perimeter of the cap assembly. Cohen shows the magnets centered with respect to the base and cap assembly but discloses no criticality to such design.
Regarding claim 13, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the base is rotatably coupled to a frame, and wherein the frame is configured for coupling to the portable handheld device. Cohen does mention that a multitude of attachments can be used to couple the base to the electronic device (see [0019]).
Backus teaches that it was already known to attach a grip base to an electronic device using a highly conductive frame (steel ring 145) to which the grip is rotatably attached to allow different viewing angles (see [0013]). Backus teaches that this rotation is accomplished by providing the magnets (135) within the base (105/140) as a ring around a perimeter of the base (see Figures), the ring of magnets cooperating with the ring-shaped frame to allow the rotation (see [0050] and [0051]). 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 first and second magnetic components of Cohen into a ring shape at the perimeter of the cap and base and to have rotatably coupled the base to the electronic device using a frame ring, as taught by Backus, the motivation being to allow a user to quicky rotate the angle of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 14, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 13, wherein the first magnetic component is configured in the base, as collectively taught by Cohen (see “flush mounted into the base” in [0023]) and Backus (who shows the magnets within the base).
Regarding claim 15, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 13, wherein the frame is made of highly conductive metal, as taught by Backus (steel).
Regarding claim 19, Cohen as modified above would include the grip of Claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein each of the first magnetic component and the second magnetic component is grade N48, N52, N54H, or N54M. Backus teaches that it was already known for the magnets within a grip like that of Cohen to be N52 grade neodymium (see [0052]). When constructing the modified Cohen grip, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have simplified the design process by choosing from any known and existing magnets, including N52 grade neodymium magnets, which were already known to be suitable for such use, as taught by Backus. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
9. 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 8/13/26
Prosecution Insights