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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is the second action for application #18/432072, Snap-Fit Joint For Interlocking Cards and Apparatuses Formed Thereby, filed 2/5/2024. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (Figures 1-8) in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The Applicant indicated that Claims 1-14 read on this species. However, upon review of the claims, the Examiner has withdrawn claim 12 since this claim does not read on the elected species.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figure 5 shows two variations in the same view and each must have its own Figure number.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the graphics must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter will be entered. Therefore, the graphics should be removed from the claims.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim ends in a semi-colon instead of a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
*The Examiner notes that the claims are replete with errors and the claims were not amended as requested in the Restriction Requirement. Examples are listed below but the Applicant is urged to review the claims in their entirety and amend accordingly to provide clarity throughout.
Regarding Claim 1:
-It is not clear if the “monolithic snap-fit joint card body” is intending to define an assembly or one card. The term “monolithic” means one-piece so this phrase should pertain to just one card. However, the next phrase “for connecting at least a first and second snap-fit joint card body members” doesn’t make sense, at least for the elected species. It is not clear if the body members are in addition to the card body, or what the intention of the phrase is. Then further, the next phrase “a snap-fit joint card body comprising” makes it unclear if this phrase is referring to the monolithic card body or first/second card body members, or an additional card.
-The claim claims a card body with “at least one of a vertically downward oriented slot” and additionally claims “at least one of a vertically upward oriented slot”. This is unclear since the elected species teaches two separate cards, one of which has a vertically downward oriented slot, and the other which has a vertically upward oriented slot. Neither card has both. While the Applicant indicated that Claim 1 read on elected species 1, Claim 1 appears to be claiming an embodiment that is not depicted. The only embodiment that has two slots extending in opposite directions is species 3 (Figures 11 and 12) but then dependent claim 4 would not make sense since the embodiment of Figures 11 and 12 does not have cutouts. The Examiner is treating Claim 1 as drawn to species 1 as elected, and therefore assuming that the opposing slots are on opposing cards, and not the same card.
-In the next section, “a slot” is claimed and defined with walls. It is unclear if this is an additional slot or defining one of the previous slots. It is further claimed that the slot is “on one or both distal ends for card body”. This is unclear since the elected species only has a slot on one side of the body. Additionally, “for card body” is a fragment.
-In the next section, a male member tab is claimed “within slot”. First this phrase is a fragment. Secondly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “slot” since more than one slot is claimed. Additionally, the phrase “into female member hole” is a fragment.
-The phrase “at least one of a female member hole” makes it unclear if this is an additional female hole to the one previously mentioned.
-There is no antecedent basis for “the same vertical line”.
Regarding Claim 2:
-There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the flexible card body”.
-The term “and” in the claim is unclear since this is claiming that the card body is made from all of the claimed materials, which is not what is disclosed in the specification.
Regarding Claim 3:
-There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the male member tab” and “the female member hole” since the phrase “at least one” was previously used.
Regarding Claim 4:
-There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the card body”.
Regarding Claim 5:
-The phrase “two or more snap-fit card bodies” make it unclear if this is referring to the monolithic card body or snap-fit joint card body from claim 1, or additional bodies. The Examiner notes that the same terms/phrases should be used throughout the claims when referring to an element, so each element could be clearly defined and referred to.
-There is no antecedent basis for “the snap-fit joint card elements”.
Regarding Claim 6:
-It is claimed that graphics “are displayed”. It is unclear if this is referring to graphics located on one of the cards, or on an object placed on the cards. The drawings do not depict any graphics.
Regarding Claim 8:
-The second occurrence of the term “comprising” has a semicolon, but should have a colon since the body elements are being further defined.
-The phrase “with vertically downward orientated slot” is a fragment. The term “a” needs to be added prior to the phrase.
-The phrase “a slot” makes it unclear if this is in addition to the vertically downward oriented slot. It is further claimed that the slot is “on one or both distal ends of card body”. This is unclear since the elected species only has a slot on one side of the body. Additionally, “of card body” is a fragment.
-In the next section, a male member tab is claimed “within slot”. First this phrase is a fragment. Secondly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “slot” since more than one slot is claimed. Additionally, the phrase “into female member hole” is a fragment.
-The phrase “a female member hole” makes it unclear if this is an additional female hole to the one previously mentioned.
-There is no antecedent basis for “the same vertical line”.
-The phrase “within card body” is a fragment.
-The phrase “with vertically upward orientated slot” is a fragment. The term “a” needs to be added prior to the phrase.
-The phrase “a slot” makes it unclear if this is in addition to the previous slots. It is further claimed that the slot is “on one or both distal ends of card body”. This is unclear since the elected species only has a slot on one side of the body. Additionally, “of card body” is a fragment.
-In the next section, a male member tab is claimed “within slot”. First this phrase is a fragment. Secondly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “slot” since more than one slot is claimed. Additionally, the phrase “into female member hole” is a fragment.
-The phrase “a female member hole” makes it unclear if this is an additional female hole to the one previously mentioned. The term “the slot has insufficient antecedent basis.
-There is no antecedent basis for “the same vertical line”. The phrase “within card body” is a fragment and has insufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 9:
-There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the flexible card body”.
-The term “and” in the claim is unclear since this is claiming that the card body is made from all of the claimed materials, which is not what is disclosed in the specification.
Regarding Claim 10:
-There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the male member tab” and “the female member hole”.
Regarding Claim 11:
-There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the card body”
Regarding Claim 13:
-It is claimed that graphics “are displayed”. It is unclear if this is referring to graphics located on one of the cards, or on an object placed on the cards. The drawings do not depict any graphics.
Regarding Claim 14:
-There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the snap-fit joint card body”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 1,528,341 (Navarro).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Navarro teaches a monolithic snap-fit joint card body for connecting at least a first and second snap-fit joint card body members (as best understood, there are two card bodies 1,2 being interconnected), a snap-fit joint card body comprising:
a card body (1) with at least one of a vertically downward orientated slot (3); at least one of a vertically upward orientated slot (3 in opposing card as best understood); a slot (3) having left and right walls on one or both distal ends for card body (Figure 2); at least one of a male member tab (9) within slot (3) protruding from at least one wall, being sufficiently flexible to deform during insertion into female member hole (5; page 2, col 1, ln 13-27; page 2, col 2, ln 72-88); at least one of a female member hole (5) separate from the slot (3) along the same vertical line within the card body (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Navarro teaches the monolithic snap-fit joint card body of claim 1, wherein the male member tab (9) is sufficiently flexible to snap into, becoming seated in the female member hole (5; page 2, col 1, ln 13-27; page 2, col 2, ln 72-88).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood, Navarro teaches the monolithic snap-fit joint card body of claim 1, wherein two or more snap-fit card bodies (1,2) are interlocked by the snap-fit joint card elements (Figures 1 and 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,942,998 to Mayes et al. (hereinafter ‘Mayes’) in view of Navarro.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Mayes teaches a monolithic snap-fit joint card body for connecting at least a first and second snap-fit joint card body members (as best understood, there are two card bodies 124,126 being interconnected), a snap-fit joint card body comprising:
a card body (126; Figure 3) with at least one of a vertically downward orientated slot (304); at least one of a vertically upward orientated slot (as best understood, slot 302 in opposing card 124); a slot (304) having left and right walls on one or both distal ends for card body. While Mayes teaches interconnecting the cards via engaging opposing slots, as depicted in Figures 1-3, Mayes does not specifically teach at least one of a male member tab within slot protruding from at least one wall, being sufficiently flexible to deform during insertion into female member hole; at least one of a female member hole separate from the slot along the same vertical line within the card body. However, Navarro, which teaches an interconnection between at least two cards (1,2) having opposing slots (3,3), further teaches at least one of a male member tab (9) within slot (3) protruding from at least one wall, being sufficiently flexible to deform during insertion into female member hole (5; page 2, col 1, ln 13-27; page 2, col 2, ln 72-88); at least one of a female member hole (5) separate from the slot (3) along the same vertical line within the card body (Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a slot having a male tab and separate female hole as taught by Navarro on the cards of Mayes, in order to lock the slots together upon assembly and thereby prevent accidental disengagement between the two interconnected cards.
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Mayes and Navarro combined teach the monolithic snap-fit joint card body of claim 1, and Mayes, as modified by Navarro, teaches wherein the flexible card body is made of plastic (col 3, ln 57-65), PVC, PLA, composite plastic/paper material, bio-plastic, paper, paper- board, metal, metal/plastic composite and other elastic, thin materials and mechanically cut (col 3, ln 65-col 4, ln 6 teaching cutting or stamping). Since Mayes teaches that one or more of a variety of different material could be used, and is modified by Navarro which teaches the flexibility of the lug in order to snap into the female hole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to determine the optimum material that should be used to provide enough support for the object while having some flexibility to allow snapping in place. Plastics, (one of the materials mentioned by Mayes), are well-known for providing rigidity as a support but with flexibility for allowing deflection.
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Mayes and Navarro combined teach the monolithic snap-fit joint card body of claim 1, and Navarro further teaches wherein the male member tab (9) is sufficiently flexible to snap into, becoming seated in the female member hole (5; page 2, col 1, ln 13-27; page 2, col 2, ln 72-88).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Mayes and Navarro combined teach the monolithic snap-fit joint card body of claim 1, and Mayes further teaches wherein the card body (124 or 126) has contoured cutouts 314,324; Figures 1 and 3) for placing a smartphone or an object in a plurality of positions, including vertically and horizontally (Figure 1 showing an electronic device mounted within the cutouts and could be placed horizontally or vertically depending on the size of the electronic device; col 2, ln 57-67 teaching tablets).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood, Mayes and Navarro combined teach the monolithic snap-fit joint card body of claim 1, and Mayes (as modified by Navarro) further teaches wherein two or more snap-fit card bodies (124,126) are interlocked by the snap-fit joint card elements (slot/tab/hole as taught by Navarro).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Mayes and Navarro combined teach the monolithic snap-fit joint card body of claim 1, and Mayes further teaches wherein graphics including designs and company logos are displayed (col 3, ln 1-8 teaching the electronic device having a screen 108 and a camera 122, therefore the screen is able to display designs, logos, or anything that the user desires).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, Mayes and Navarro combined teach the monolithic snap-fit joint card body of claim 1, and Mayes further teaches wherein the snap-fit joint card body (124,126) is mechanically cut to a custom shape (col 3, ln 65-col 4, ln 6 teaching cutting or stamping).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood, Mayes teaches a snap-fit joint card smartphone stand (Figure 1) comprising:
at least two interconnectable monolithic snap-fit joint card body elements (124,126) comprising; a first card body (126; Figure 3) with vertically downward orientated slot (304); a slot (304) having left and right walls on one or both distal ends of card body; a second card body (124; Figure 3) with vertically upward orientated slot (302); a slot (302) having left and right walls on one or both distal ends of card body.
While Mayes teaches interconnecting the cards via engaging opposing slots, as depicted in Figures 1-3, Mayes does not specifically teach that each of the card bodies comprise a male member tab within slot protruding from at least one wall, being sufficiently flexible to deform during insertion into female member hole, becoming seated; a female member hole separate from the slot along the same vertical line within card body. However, Navarro, which teaches an interconnection between two cards (1,2) having opposing slots (3,3), further teaches each of the card bodies comprising a male member tab (9) within slot (3) protruding from at least one wall, being sufficiently flexible to deform during insertion into female member hole (5; page 2, col 1, ln 13-27; page 2, col 2, ln 72-88), becoming seated; a female member hole (5) separate from the slot (3) along the same vertical line within card body (Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a slot having a male tab and separate female hole as taught by Navarro on the cards of Mayes, in order to lock the slots together upon assembly and thereby prevent accidental disengagement between the two interconnected cards.
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, Mayes and Navarro combined teach the snap-fit joint card smartphone stand of claim 8, and Mayes, as modified by Navarro, teaches wherein the flexible card body is made of plastic (col 3, ln 57-65), PVC, PLA, composite plastic/paper material, bio-plastic, paper, paper- board, metal, metal/plastic composite and other elastic, thin materials and mechanically cut (col 3, ln 65-col 4, ln 6 teaching cutting or stamping). Since Mayes teaches that one or more of a variety of different material could be used, and is modified by Navarro which teaches the flexibility of the lug in order to snap into the female hole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to determine the optimum material that should be used to provide enough support for the object while having some flexibility to allow snapping in place. Plastics, (one of the materials mentioned by Mayes), are well-known for providing rigidity as a support but with flexibility for allowing deflection.
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Mayes and Navarro combined teach the snap-fit joint card smartphone stand of claim 8, and Navarro further teaches wherein the male member tab (9) is sufficiently flexible to snap into, becoming seated in the female member hole (5; page 2, col 1, ln 13-27; page 2, col 2, ln 72-88).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Mayes and Navarro combined teach the snap-fit joint card smartphone stand of claim 8, and Mayes further teaches wherein the card body (124 or 126) has contoured cutouts 314,324; Figures 1 and 3) for placing a smartphone or an object in a plurality of positions (Figure 1 showing a phone mounted within the cutouts and could be placed in different positions depending on the size and shape of the electronic device; col 2, ln 57-67 teaching tablets).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood, Mayes and Navarro combined teach the snap-fit joint card smartphone stand of claim 8, and Mayes further teaches wherein graphics including designs and company logos are displayed (col 3, ln 1-8 teaching the electronic device having a screen 108 and a camera 122, therefore the screen is able to display designs, logos, or anything that the user desires).
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, Mayes and Navarro combined teach the snap-fit joint card smartphone stand of claim 8, and Mayes further teaches wherein the snap-fit joint card body (124,126) is mechanically cut to a custom shape (col 3, ln 65-col 4, ln 6 teaching cutting or stamping).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art has been listed in the PTO-892 form.
US 2009/0321605 (Petrie), US 2019/0281976 (Taylor), US D881,199 (Sheng), US D888,472 (Zhou), US 10,674,815 (Geller) teach interconnecting bodies via opposing slots to form a stand for a device.
US 5,518,171 (Moss), US 2,486,743 (Haffner), US 4,685,609 (Ferrari), US 4,795,083 (Johnske), US 4,194,675 (Peters, Jr.), US 324,999 (Jaeger) teach interconnecting bodies via opposing slots and tabs entering a female hole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INGRID M WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday 7:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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.
/INGRID M WEINHOLD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632