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 .
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, 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) 1-6, 8-10, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Techter (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2019/0149183) in view of Belkin (WO 2015/095856 A1) and further in view of Nam (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2014/0041799).
-Regarding claim 1, Techter discloses a tray for packaging a screen protector and aligning the screen protector with a portable electronic device (see abstract) the tray including an outer perimeter wall (wall 144, FIG. 10) and an inner perimeter wall (interior surfaces of recess 146, FIG. 10) connected to each other by a connecting wall (FIG. 10), the inner perimeter wall defining a well for receiving the portable electronic device for installation of the screen protector (electronic device 148 is inserted into the recess 146 in the device holder 144, paragraph 46), a lid (cover tray 120, FIG. 10), the tray outer perimeter wall including at least one retention structure registered with at least one complementary retention structure on the lid perimeter wall (paragraph 42).
Techter is silent to teaching that a lid including a lid perimeter wall and a cover wall spanning between portions of the lid perimeter wall; the lid perimeter wall being outside of the tray perimeter wall when the lid is placed on the tray to form a package. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Belkin.
In the same field of endeavor, Belkin teaches a lid including a lid perimeter wall and a cover wall spanning between portions of the lid perimeter wall (clamshell frame 6910, FIG. 69); the lid perimeter wall being outside of the tray perimeter wall when the lid is placed on the tray to form a package (FIG. 69-72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Techter with the teaching of Belkin in order to securely hold machine in a closed configuration.
The combination is silent to teaching that the tray inner perimeter wall including a guide edge, wherein the guide edge constrains lateral movement of the screen protector as the screen protector is guided onto the display. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Nam.
In the same field of endeavor, Nam teaches the tray inner perimeter wall including a guide edge, wherein the guide edge constrains lateral movement of the screen protector as the screen protector is guided onto the display (edge guide, paragraph 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the combination with the teaching of Nam in order to provide laying of protective film cover on the mobile electronic device so that it is aligned properly.
-Regarding claim 2, the combination further discloses the at least one complementary retention structure on the lid perimeter wall is a protrusion on the inside of a corner or the lid perimeter wall and the at least one complementary retention structure on the tray is a depression (Techter, paragraph 42).
-Regarding claim 3, the combination further discloses the lid cover wall including a depression, the depression capable of receiving a camera bump of a back of a portable electronic device (Belkin, paragraph 200).
-Regarding claim 4, the combination further discloses the guide edge defines in part an aperture, the aperture slightly larger than the screen protector (Techter, recessed portion 146, FIG. 5; Nam, paragraph 41).
-Regarding claim 5, the combination further discloses including a guide tab along a guide edge, the guide tab registering with a notch in the screen protector when the tray is used as a guide to align the screen protector with a screen of the portable electronic device (Techter, paragraph 45).
-Regarding claim 6, the combination further discloses the portable electronic device is within the well and the screen protector is positioned between the back of the portable electronic device and the lid cover wall (Techter, paragraph 45).
-Regarding claim 8, the combination further discloses the lid including protrusions on the cover wall, the protrusions on the cover wall extending away from the well of the cover wall (Techter, paragraph 42).
-Regarding claim 9, Techter discloses a tray for packaging a screen protector and aligning the screen protector with a portable electronic device (see abstract) the tray including an outer perimeter wall (wall 144, FIG. 10) and an inner perimeter wall (interior surfaces of recess 146, FIG. 10) connected to each other by a connecting wall (FIG. 10), the inner perimeter wall defining a well for receiving the portable electronic device for installation of the screen protector (electronic device 148 is inserted into the recess 146 in the device holder 144, paragraph 46), a lid (cover tray 120, FIG. 10).
Techter is silent to teaching that a lid perimeter wall, and a cover wall spanning between portions of the lid perimeter wall, the lid perimeter wall being outside of the tray perimeter wall when the lid is placed on the tray to form a package, retention means on the lid for securing the lid onto the tray to package the portable electronic device, guide means for guiding the screen protector onto the portable electronic device. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Belkin.
In the same field of endeavor, Belkin teaches a lid perimeter wall, and a cover wall spanning between portions of the lid perimeter wall (clamshell frame 6910, FIG. 69), the lid perimeter wall being outside of the tray perimeter wall when the lid is placed on the tray to form a package (FIG. 69-72), retention means on the lid for securing the lid onto the tray to package the portable electronic device, guide means for guiding the screen protector onto the portable electronic device (paragraph 309-310).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Techter with the teaching of Belkin in order to securely hold machine in a closed configuration.
The combination is silent to teaching that the guide means constrains lateral movement of the screen protector as the screen protector is guided onto the portable electronic device. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Nam.
In the same field of endeavor, Nam teaches the guide means constrains lateral movement of the screen protector as the screen protector is guided onto the portable electronic device (edge guide, paragraph 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the combination with the teaching of Nam in order to provide laying of protective film cover on the mobile electronic device so that it is aligned properly.
-Regarding claim 10, the combination further discloses including means for accommodating a camera bump of the portable electronic device (Belkin, paragraph 200).
-Regarding claim 13, the combination further discloses including means for securing the lid to the tray when the lid is placed on the tray to form a package (Belkin, paragraph 315).
-Regarding claim 14, the combination further discloses at least a portion of the tray inner perimeter wall conforms to a portion of the front surface of the portable electronic device (Techter, FIG. 10; Belkin, FIG. 71).
-Regarding claim 16, the combination further discloses the assembly including a lid, the lid including a lid perimeter wall and a cover wall spanning the lid perimeter wall, the lid perimeter wall receiving the tray outer perimeter wall to form a package with the portable electronic device therebetween (Belkin, clamshell frame 6910, FIG. 69-72).
-Regarding claim 17, the combination further discloses the well depth is less than the thickness of the portable electronic device (Belkin, FIG. 71).
-Regarding claim 19, the combination further discloses the lid including accommodation means to accommodate the camera bump of the portable electronic device so that the portable electronic device may lie flat upon the lid cover wall (Belkin, paragraph 200).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Techter (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2019/0149183) in view of Nam (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2014/0041799).
-Regarding claim 15, Techter discloses an assembly for packaging a portable electronic device and guiding a screen protector onto a display of the portable electronic device (see abstract), the tray including an outer perimeter wall (wall 144, FIG. 10) and an inner perimeter wall (interior surfaces of recess 146, FIG. 10) joined by a connecting wall (FIG. 10), the inner perimeter wall conforming with at least a portion of the portable electronic device, at least a portion of the inner perimeter wall extending to a guide edge, the guide edge forming at least a portion of an aperture for receiving a screen protector (electronic device 148 is inserted into the recess 146 in the device holder 144, paragraph 46), a lid (cover tray 120, FIG. 10).
The combination is silent to teaching that the guide edge constrains lateral movement of the screen protector when the screen protector is guided onto the portable electronic device. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Nam.
In the same field of endeavor, Nam teaches the guide edge constrains lateral movement of the screen protector when the screen protector is guided onto the portable electronic device (edge guide, paragraph 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the combination with the teaching of Nam in order to provide laying of protective film cover on the mobile electronic device so that it is aligned properly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 11, 12 and 18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 PING Y HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3011. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/PING Y HSIEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights