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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 05/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious search/examination burden under a single classification, no adequate basis for re-classifying original claim 1 into multiple classifications, contradicting previous admission that all modes in original claim 1 under a single classification. This is not found persuasive because the Restriction/Election Requirement of 04/06/2026 is responsive to the Amendment of 03/23/2026 and is independent; the original claim 1 having three distinct and alternative embodiments was previously classified according to one of the three embodiments, now rewritten into three independent form claims 1, 25 and 32, re-classification is proper and better as to classify them into three distinct categories: electric, light and sound; the claimed inventions with respect to electric, light and sound mechanisms are clearly patentably distinct, different/separate searches (i.e. search in different subclasses and/or different search queries) is a must and a burden if not restricted.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foster (US 20130106353 A1).
For claim 1. Foster discloses (Abstract) A modular electronic device system, comprising: a portable computing device comprising a rear surface and a sidewall surface (figures 8-17, [0048], portable electronic device (PED)); and an electronic case (figures 8-17, [0076], [0114], electronic case/carrier 120, or electronic case having parts 222 and 262) sized and shaped to engage at least the rear surface of the portable computing device, the electronic case comprising a case electrical connector ([0057], [0058] connector 50, or [0123] connector 248); wherein the electronic case is configured to augment a signal into or out of the portable computing device via the case electrical connector; and wherein the signal comprises an electrical signal ([0096], [0097], [0123], [0129], [0146], [0147]).
For claim 2. The modular electronic device system of claim 1, Foster discloses wherein augmentation of the signal comprises at least one of: amplifying a magnitude of the signal; reducing the signal; or converting the signal from one input-output state to another input-output state (figure 11, [0096], [0097], [0123], [0129], [0146], [0147]).
For claim 3. The modular electronic device system of claim 1, Foster discloses wherein: the portable computing device comprises a device electrical connector positioned on one of the sidewall surface or the rear surface (figures 5 and 12-13, [0057], [0058], [0123], connector of PED); the electronic case comprises the case electrical connector electrically connectable to the device electrical connector (figures 5 and 12-13, [0057], [0058], [0123]), the case electrical connector positioned on an interior portion of the electronic case (connector 50 or connector 248); and a third electrical connector (figures 10 and 16, connectors 182 or 286) is positioned on an exterior portion of the electronic case, the third electrical connector being electrically connected to the case electrical connector, and the third electrical connector being electrically connectable to a fourth electrical connector of an accessory device ([0096], [0097], [0123], [0129], [0146], [0147]).
For claim 5. The modular electronic device system of claim 3, Foster discloses wherein: upon connection of the third electrical connector to the fourth electrical connector, the portable computing device is configured to receive a connection signal from the accessory device through each of the device electrical connector, the case electrical connector, the third electrical connector, and the fourth electrical connector; and in response to receiving the connection signal, the portable computing device is configured to update a display profile specific to the accessory device ([0104]-[0106]).
For claim 6. The modular electronic device system of claim 5, Foster discloses wherein the electronic case further comprises an authentication chip in electrical communication with at least the third electrical connector, the authentication chip configured to: verify the connection signal from the accessory device; and transmit an authentication signal to the portable computing device ([0104]-[0106]).
For claim 7. The modular electronic device system of claim 3, Foster discloses wherein the third electrical connector comprises a greater amount of contact surface area relative to the device electrical connector ([0068] [0069], figure 5, device electrical connector 56 has 4 pins connected to 52, 54, 88 and 90; third electrical connector 82 comprises HDMI or VGA which has more than 4 pins).
For claim 8. The modular electronic device system of claim 3, Foster discloses further comprising an electrical controller positioned between the case electrical connector and the third electrical connector, the electrical controller being configured to alter an electrical signal passing between the accessory device and the portable computing device (figures 5, 11 and 16, [0146] [0147], controller 284).
For claim 9. The modular electronic device system of claim 3, Foster discloses wherein: the electronic case comprises a first sidewall and a second sidewall; the case electrical connector is positioned on an interior surface of the first sidewall; and the third electrical connector is positioned on an exterior surface of the second sidewall (figures 1, 9, 10, 12, 15-17).
For claim 10. The modular electronic device system of claim 3, Foster discloses wherein: the electronic case comprises: a sidewall configured to engage the sidewall surface of the portable computing device; and a backing configured to engage the rear surface of the portable computing device; the case electrical connector is positioned on an interior surface of at least one of the sidewall or the backing; and the third electrical connector is positioned on an exterior surface of at least one of the sidewall or the backing (figures 1, 9, 10, 12, 15-17).
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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 20130106353 A1) in view of Miles (US 20210026409 A1).
For claim 4. The modular electronic device system of claim 3, Foster discloses wherein: the device electrical connector comprises a first throughput capacity for power or data transmission; and the third electrical connector comprises a second throughput capacity for the power or data transmission ([0057], [0069], [0123], [0143]).
But fails to mention the second throughput capacity being greater than the first throughput capacity.
This teaching is disclosed by Miles (figure 6, [0095]: device-specific wiring interface 394 provide communication with an Apple iPad® utilizing, for example, a “lightning” connector (device electrical connector); [0214]: network interface device 480 (third electrical connector) has USB revision 2.0 and/or greater; [0085]-[0086]; Apple’s Lightning connector is based on the USB 2.0 standard, which limits its maximum data transfer speed to 480 Mbps and Maximum power delivery around 20–27 W).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection techniques taught by Miles into the art of Foster as to have a greater supply capacity in the electronic case to sufficiently accommodate various portable electronic devices.
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300, submitted online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only, Registered users of the USPTO's EFS-Web system may submit a response electronically through EFS-Web at https://efs.uspto.gov/TruePassSample/AuthenticateUserLocalEPF.html), or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rui Meng Hu whose telephone number is 571-270-1105, email is ruimeng.hu@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., EST.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on (571)272-3965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Rui Meng Hu/
R.H./rh
June 5, 2026
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights