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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. In the event that 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.
Claim(s) 1 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotson US2010/0270188 in view of Khalifeh US2023/0318653, Ghali et al. US2013/0146491 and Hammond et al. US2024/0011958.
Per claim 1 Dotson teaches a case for an electronic device (100 and/or 200, see fig.1-2; [0057] & [0060]), comprising: a rectangular case frame (110, see fig.1-4) for holding an electronic device (120, see fig.3-4; [0059] & [0061]), wherein the case frame comprises a back plate (130 or 630, see fig.2-4 & 6-8) and a side frame (see fig.2, 6-8; [0058], [0067] “636 & portion comprising 634”); an internal fan (132; [0059]) directing air across the back of the electronic device, wherein the internal fan draws cool air in and directs it from vent openings in the center of the back of the device across the back of the electronic device and through a plurality of downward sloping holes on each of the sides of the rectangular case frame ([0062], see fig.1-2); and an internal rechargeable case battery for powering the internal fan ([0086]); and one or more USB input ports for charging an electronic device using the internal rechargeable case battery ([0077], [0078] & [0081]).
Dotson does not explicitly teach a carbon fiber rectangular case frame, a plurality of downward sloping holes on each of the four sides of the carbon fiber rectangular case frame and a USB-C input port.
Khalifeh however discloses a case for an electronic device, comprising a carbon fiber rectangular case frame ([0002], [0005])
Ghali et al. further discloses a plurality of holes on each of the four sides (see fig.1-3F)
Hammond et al. further discloses a USB-C input port ([0036]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic device case of Dotson to have a carbon fiber rectangular case frame with holes on four sides of the frame and include a USB-C input port for charging as taught by Khalifeh, Ghali et al. and Hammond et al., because the carbon fiber ensures that the casing is impact resistant, durable and aesthetic, while the vents on the four sides ensures that the heat from the electronic device is effectively dissipated through all sides of the electronic device casing, thus ensuring proper cooling and operating of the electronic device, and lastly having the USB-C input port enables the device to be charged using a standard and popular USB connection port for charging the electronic device.
Per claim 10 Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., and Hammond et al. teaches the case for an electronic device of claim 1, further comprising an on/off switch for the internal fan ([0103]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotson US2010/0270188 in view of Khalifeh US2023/0318653, Ghali et al. US2013/0146491 and Hammond et al. US2024/0011958 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Saravis US2018/0307284.
Per claim 5 Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., and Hammond et al. teaches the case for an electronic device of claim 1,
Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., and Hammond et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising a mounting bracket.
Saravis however discloses further comprising a mounting bracket (124 & 126, see fig.3 & 10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a mounting bracket as taught by Saravis in the electronic device of Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., and Hammond et al., because it enables the electronic device to be mountable and placeable at different orientations and positions.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotson US2010/0270188 in view of Khalifeh US2023/0318653, Ghali et al. US2013/0146491, Hammond et al. US2024/0011958 and Saravis US2018/0307284 as applied to claim 5 and further in view of Li et al. US2013/0126688.
Per claim 6 Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., Hammond et al. and Saravis teaches the case for an electronic device of claim 5,
Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., Hammond et al. and Saravis does not explicitly teach wherein the mounting bracket is compatible with X-Grip Mount.
Li et al. however discloses wherein a mounting bracket (10) is compatible with X-Grip Mount (90, see fig.1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a X-Grip Mount with the mounting bracket as taught by Li et al. in the electronic device of Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., Hammond et al. and Saravis, because it enables the secured accommodation of the electronic device on the case and mounting bracket.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotson US2010/0270188 in view of Khalifeh US2023/0318653, Ghali et al. US2013/0146491, Hammond et al. US2024/0011958 and Saravis US2018/0307284 as applied to claim 5 and further in view of Li et al. US2013/0126688.
Per claim 7 Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., Hammond et al. and Saravis teaches the case for an electronic device of claim 5,
Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., Hammond et al. and Saravis does not explicitly teach wherein the mounting bracket is compatible with MNT-1665 Sport Camera Adapter.
Mygoflights NPL 2022 however discloses wherein a mounting bracket is compatible with MNT-1665 Sport Camera Adapter (see the figures).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mounting bracket of Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., Hammond et al. and Saravis to be compatible with a MNT-1665 Sport Camera Adapter, because it enables the electronic device of Saravis to be easily mounted with a digital camera.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotson US2010/0270188 in view of Khalifeh US2023/0318653, Ghali et al. US2013/0146491, Hammond et al. US2024/0011958 and Saravis US2018/0307284 as applied to claim 5 and further in view of Li et al. US2013/0126688.
Per claim 8 Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., Hammond et al. and Saravis teaches the case for an electronic device of claim 5,
Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., Hammond et al. and Saravis does not explicitly teach wherein the mounting bracket is compatible with MAVMOUNT Controller Adapters.
MavicPilots however discloses wherein the mounting bracket is compatible with MAVMOUNT Controller Adapters (see the figures).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mounting bracket of Saravis to be compatible with a MAVMOUNT controller Adapters, because it enables the electronic device of Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., Hammond et al. and Saravis to be easily mounted on a drone controller for easy maneuvering of a drone.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotson US2010/0270188 in view of Khalifeh US2023/0318653, Ghali et al. US2013/0146491, Hammond et al. US2024/0011958 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Lin et al. US2023/0010995.
Per claim 9 Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., and Hammond et al. teaches the case for an electronic device of claim 1,
Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., and Hammond et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising an attached pen holder.
Lin however discloses further comprising an attached pen holder ([0010]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a pen holder as taught by Lin in the electronic device of Dotson in view of Khalifeh, Ghali et al., and Hammond et al., because it allows the storage and use of a pen on the electronic device.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotson US2010/0270188 in view of Ady et al. US2014/0218330, Ghali et al. US2013/0146491 and Hammond et al. US2024/0011958.
Per claim 11 Dotson teaches case for an electronic device (100 and/or 200, see fig.1-2; [0057] & [0060]), comprising: a case frame (110, see fig.1-4) for holding an electronic device (120, see fig.3-4; [0059] & [0061]), wherein the case frame comprises a back plate (130 or 630, see fig.2-4 & 6-8) and a side frame (see fig.2, 6-8; [0058], [0067] “636 & portion comprising 634”); an internal fan (132; [0059]) directing air across the back of the electronic device, wherein the internal fan draws cool air in and directs it from vent openings in the center of the back of the device across the back of the electronic device and through a plurality of downward sloping holes on each of the sides of the rectangular case frame ([0062], see fig.1-2); an internal rechargeable case battery for powering the internal fan ([0086]); and one or more USB input ports for charging an electronic device using the internal rechargeable case battery ([0077], [0078] & [0081]).
Dotson does not explicitly teach a carbon impregnated plastic, a plurality of downward sloping holes on each of the four sides of the carbon impregnated plastic case frame and a USB-C input port.
Ady et al. however disclose a case for an electronic device, comprising a carbon impregnated plastic ([0049])
Ghali et al. further discloses a plurality of holes on each of the four sides (see fig.1-3F)
Hammond et al. further discloses a USB-C input port ([0036])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic device case of Dotson to have a carbon impregnated plastic case frame with holes on four sides of the frame and include a USB-C input port for charging as taught by Ady et al. Ghali et al. and Hammond et al. because the carbon impregnated plastic ensures that the casing is impact resistant, durable and corrosion resistant, while the vents on the four sides ensures that the heat from the electronic device is effectively dissipated through all sides of the electronic device casing, thus ensuring proper cooling and operating of the electronic device, and lastly having the USB-C input port enables the device to be charged using a standard and popular USB connection port for charging the electronic device.
Email Communication
2. Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any of the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
4. 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 MICHAEL A MATEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5 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, JAYPRAKASH GANDHI can be reached at 5712723740. 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.
/MICHAEL A MATEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835