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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the second to last line, there is an extra space between “surface” and “facing”, and in the last line the phrase “plughole protrudes” should be “plughole that protrudes”. 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.
Claim 8 is 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.
With Respect to Claim 8
The phrase “for indicating a location of the second connecting end” is unclear in scope, noting that the indicia appears to indicate the plughole/opening for receiving the second connecting end, rather than indicating the location of the second end (i.e. it only indicates the location of the second connecting end when the second connecting end is in that particular location, similar to how a stopped clock indicates the correct time when the correct time is the same time as the time the clock stopped at).
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0251793 to Barratt (Barratt) in view of U.S. Patent #9,743,725 to Hines (Hines), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,010,630 to Mickelson (Mickelson).
With Respect to Claim 1
Barratt discloses wearable appliance for carrying a mobile device, comprising: a flexible strip (32, 32ii, 32iii, etc.) configured to encircle a user's neck, the flexible strip being capable of deforming to a shape when subjected to an external force and maintaining the shape of the flexible strip when the external force is removed ([0099]), and a mounting assembly (30 or 40) connected to the flexible strip and configured to fix the mobile devices (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 6 and [0098]) wherein the flexible strip (e.g. 32ii) comprises: a first connecting end; and a second connecting end; wherein, the first connecting end is fixed to the mounting assembly, and the second connecting end is detachably connected to the mounting assembly (FIG. 8 and [0101] disclose fixedly attaching both connecting ends in a detachable fashion); wherein the mounting assembly comprises: a housing (40) provided with a plughole; but does not disclose a first button movably mounted on the housing; and a first locking member provided inside the housing and coupled to the first button; wherein, the second connecting end is provided with a locking hole; the locking hole is locked with the first locking member when the second connecting end is inserted into the plughole, and the locking hole is unlocked with the first locking member when the first button is pressed down; wherein the first locking member comprises: a first locking piece provided with an inserting latch perpendicular to the first locking piece; and a first spring abutting against the first locking piece and the housing to provide an elastic force to the first locking piece; wherein the first spring and the inserting latch are arranged on different sides of the first locking piece, and the inserting latch is provided with a inclining surface facing the entrance of the plughole protrudes from the first locking piece.
However, Hines discloses forming a detachable connector/clasp for attaching an elongated member (32) of a neck-worn object (Col. 3 lines 39-41 for necklaces) to a housing (24, FIG. 1) to form an encircling structure around the user’s neck. It is noted that the elongated member is disclosed as being generally rigid but bendable (e.g. spring-like). The detachable connector/clasp comprises a housing (24) provided with a plughole (62), a first button (upper portion of 80) movably mounted on the housing; and a first locking member (86 alone or in combination with 84 and related structure such as the bottom portion of 80) provided inside the housing and coupled to the first button (e.g. FIGS. 1 and 16); wherein, the second connecting end is provided with a locking hole (42); the locking hole is locked with the first locking member when the second connecting end is inserted into the plughole (e.g. FIG. 18), and the locking hole is unlocked with the first locking member when the first button is pressed down (e.g. FIG. 19), wherein the first locking member comprises: a first locking piece (bottom of 80 in combination with one or more of 84-86) provided with an inserting latch (86 alone or in combination with 85, FIGS. 17-18) perpendicular to the first locking piece (86 is perpendicular to 85 and/or the bottom of 80 or 85 is perpendicular to the vertical portion of 84); and a first spring (90) abutting against the first locking piece and the housing to provide an elastic force to the first locking piece (FIG. 17, abuts the housing and bottom of 80); wherein the first spring and the inserting latch are arranged on different sides of the first locking piece (FIG. 17, noting one is on the left side and the other is on the right side of the vertical portion of 84), and the inserting latch is provided with a inclining surface facing the entrance of the plughole protrudes from the first locking piece (noting that the latch has a curved upper portion, this produces an inclined surface facing the entrance of the plughole as well as a second inclined surface facing away from the entrance of the plughole).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Hines, to replace the connecting structure of Barratt with the connecting structure of Hines, to provide a larger and easier to operate latching and unlatching structure, for the benefits disclosed by Hines for its connecting structure, and/or as a mere substitution of one art known connector/latching structure for another.
Alternately, Mickelson discloses a similar latching mechanism comprising a button (30) and a first locking piece (29) provided with an inserting latch (32/33) perpendicular to the first locking piece and a spring/biasing member (26) abutting against the first locking piece and the housing to provide an elastic force to the first locking piece; wherein the first spring and the inserting latch are arranged on different sides of the first locking piece (see, e.g. FIGS. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Mickelson, to form the first locking piece as a flat piece with the spring abutting the first locking piece, rather than a depending structure with the spring abutting the bottom of the button, in order to reduce the profile of the structure and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 9
The wearable appliance for carrying a mobile device according to claim 1, wherein the mounting assembly comprises a housing (40) and a mounting member (48), the flexible strip (32) is connected to the housing, and the mounting member is detachably connected to the housing (via 44-45, [0098], as modified), the mounting member is used to fix the mobile device (see, e.g. FIG. 6, [0098]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0251793 to Barratt (Barratt) in view of U.S. Patent #9,743,725 to Hines (Hines), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,010,630 to Mickelson (Mickelson) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent #10,413,031 to Gerber (Gerber).
With Respect to Claim 2
The wearable appliance for carrying a mobile device according to claim 1, wherein the flexible strip is made of a metal bar ([0099]) and a covering material (foam or rubber 52 and/or outer plastic/rubber cover 50, [0099]), and the covering material is covered on an outer surface of the metal bar ([0099]]), but does not disclose a particular metal and so does not disclose that it is an aluminum bar.
However, Gerber discloses forming a similar user worn carrier having a bendable metal core (see, e.g. claims 10 and 15) surrounded by a plastic covering (see, e.g. claims 10 and 17) in which the inner core is aluminum (see, e.g. claims 10 and 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Gerber, to form the metal bar of Barratt out of aluminum, for the art known benefits of aluminum (e.g. light weight, low cost), as a mere selection of an art appropriate material/metal to use, and/or as 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.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0251793 to Barratt (Barratt) in view of U.S. Patent #9,743,725 to Hines (Hines) and U.S. Patent #10,413,031 to Gerber (Gerber), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,010,630 to Mickelson (Mickelson) applied to claim 2, and further in view of U.S. Patent #2,852,923 to Gamelsky (Gamelsky).
With Respect to Claim 3
The wearable appliance for carrying a mobile device according to claim 2, but does not disclose further comprising: a steel wire, wherein the steel wire is wound onto the aluminum bar, and the covering material is covered on an outer surface of the steel wire.
However, Gamelsky discloses a similar neck worn structure (Col. 1 line 20 for necklaces) of bendable material that retains its shape after bending (Col. 3 lines 48-56) out of a first length of wire wound onto a bar/second length of wire (FIG. 9 and description).
Gerber discloses that steel is another suitable material to use for a bendable wire like that of Barratt and/or Gamelsky (see, e.g. claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Gamelsky to use two lengths of wire wound about each other, to form the wire of Barratt in this fashion, as a mere substitution of one art known bendable wire structure (single strand) for another (multi-strand). It would also have been obvious to form the second wire out of steel, in order to obtain the benefits of both steel and aluminum for the wire (e.g. the wire will have bending properties based on the properties of both materials), as a mere selection of an art appropriate material/metal to use, and/or as 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0251793 to Barratt (Barratt) in view of U.S. Patent #9,743,725 to Hines (Hines), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,010,630 to Mickelson (Mickelson) as applied to claim 6 above, either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2023/0190287 to Shelton (Shelton) and/or U.S. Patent #3,586,243 to Jones (Jones).
With Respect to Claim 8
The wearable appliance for carrying a mobile device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first button is provided with an identification portion for indicating a location of the second connecting end.
However, Shelton discloses forming a similar connector/clasp with an identification portion for indicating a location of the second connecting end of a connector/clasp in order to assist in aligning the clasp for securement; Jones discloses forming an actuation button with an identification portion for indicating a location of an orifice that is operably associated with the actuation button (Col. 1 lines 14-17) (the dispensing orifice is similar to the orifice for receiving the second end which indicates a location of the second end when the parts are connected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Shelton, to add an identification portion/alignment indicia as taught by Shelton (e.g. an arrow on the housing and an arrow on the second connecting end that point towards each other when connected) to the clasp structure of Barratt/the combination, in order to assist in aligning the clasp for securement. It would also have been obvious to locate the indicia on the first button, as a mere selection of an art appropriate location or as doing so constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Jones, to add an identification portion as taught by Jones (e.g. indicia or a molded shape of an arrow or the like pointing towards the orifice) to the button of Barratt/the combination, in order to assist a user in locating the orifice for use.
Alternately, Shelton provides motivation to use alignment indicia on a similar clasp and Jones provides evidence of the obviousness of/motivation for locating indicia on the button rather than the housing, and so the two in combination provide additional motivation for/evidence of the obviousness of the modification.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0251793 to Barratt (Barratt) in view of U.S. Patent #9,743,725 to Hines (Hines), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,010,630 to Mickelson (Mickelson) as applied to claim 9, and further in view of U.S. Patent #5,620,120 to Tien (Tien) and/or U.S. Patent #9,185,953 to Whitten (Whitten).
With Respect to Claim 10
The wearable appliance for carrying a mobile device according to claim 9, but does not disclose wherein the housing is provided with a mounting recess, an outer edge of the mounting recess is provided with one or more flanges, the mounting member comprises a mounting portion and a connecting portion, the mounting portion is configured to fit with the mounting recess and provided with one or more flanges on a periphery of the mounting portion, and the connecting portion is used to fix the mobile device.
However, Tien discloses an electronic device mounting structure comprising a housing (11, 20) provided with a mounting recess (100 and area between 120 and 20), an outer edge of the mounting recess is provided with one or more flanges (ledge portion 12 is a flange), the mounting member comprises a mounting portion (32) and a connecting portion (31 or plate 81 or case 30), the mounting portion is configured to fit with the mounting recess and provided with one or more flanges (noting enlarged head is a flange) on a periphery of the mounting portion, and the connecting portion is used to fix the mobile device.
Whitten discloses forming a mobile device mounting structure with a mounting mechanism comprising a mounting recess (106, FIG. 1) an outer edge of the mounting recess is provided with one or more flanges (116, see e.g. FIG. 2), the mounting member comprises a mounting portion (flanges and front portion of 108) and a connecting portion (rear portion of 108), the mounting portion is configured to fit with the mounting recess and provided with one or more flanges (912) on a periphery of the mounting portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Tien or Whitten, to replace the clamping attachment structure of Smith with a twist lock and phone attachment structure as taught by Tien or a case structure as taught by Whitten, as a mere substitution of one art known attachment mechanism for another. As to the combination with Whitten, it would further have been obvious to form the housing with a recess and female connecting structure and the case with the male mating structure, as doing so constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). With this modification, all of the limitations of claim 10 are met.
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that replacing the connector 44-46 with a female connector like that of Whitten to attach a case similar to that of Whitten but with a male connector would be obvious, to the degree that this would result in altering the held orientation of the device, it would also have been obvious to add a pivotable support structure similar to the mount (1100) of Whitten FIG. 11 to support the case in a similar upright position to that of Barratt, and this combination also meets all of the limitations of claim 10.
Alternately, Tien provides additional motivation of the obviousness of locating the female fastener structure on the housing and the male fastener structure on the phone attachment structure/case.
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that replacing the connector 44-46 with a female connector like that of Tien to attach a phone in similar fashion to Whitten would be obvious, to the degree that this would result in altering the held orientation of the device, Whitten provides sufficient motivation to add a support structure similar to the mount (1100) of Whitten FIG. 11 but having the Tien connector structure to attach the phone/case/plate to support the phone in a similar upright position to that of Barratt, and this combination also meets all of the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0251793 to Barratt (Barratt) in view of U.S. Patent #9,743,725 to Hines (Hines), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,010,630 to Mickelson (Mickelson), and further in view of U.S. Patent #5,620,120 to Tien (Tien) or Tien and U.S. Patent #9,185,953 to Whitten (Whitten) (see the rejection of claim 10 above for details of these combinations).
With Respect to Claim 11
The wearable appliance for carrying a mobile device according to claim 10, wherein the mounting assembly further comprises: a second button (141 per Tien, see e.g. FIGS. 5-7 and description); and a second locking member (16) coupled to the second button; wherein, the second button is movably mounted on the housing, and the second locking member is provided inside the housing (FIGS. 6-7); the mounting portion is locked with the second locking member when the mounting member is rotated to a preset position in the mounting recess (FIG. 7 and description), and the mounting portion is unlocked with the second locking member when the second button is pressed down.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0251793 to Barratt (Barratt) in view of U.S. Patent #9,743,725 to Hines (Hines), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,010,630 to Mickelson (Mickelson), and further in view of U.S. Patent #5,620,120 to Tien (Tien) and U.S. Patent #9,185,953 to Whitten (Whitten) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #11,448,944 to Goeller (Goeller)
With Respect to Claim 12
The wearable appliance for carrying a mobile device according to claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the connecting portion comprises: a plurality of clamping plates arranged in parallel to each other and connected to the mounting portion; a nut mounted on a clamping plate located at an outermost side of the plurality of clamping plates; and a bolt; wherein, each clamping plate is provided with a connecting hole, the nut is corresponded to the connecting hole, and the bolt is configured to be threaded through the connecting hole and threaded with the nut.
However, Goeller discloses forming a similar electronic device mount having a support/connecting portion that comprises a plurality of clamping plates ribbing 124 as shown are plates/”clamping plates”) arranged in parallel to each other and connected to the mounting portion; a nut (98) mounted on a clamping plate located at an outermost side of the plurality of clamping plates (see, e.g. FIG. 1); and a bolt (99); wherein, each clamping plate is provided with a connecting hole, the nut is corresponded to the connecting hole, and the bolt is configured to be threaded through the connecting hole and threaded with the nut (FIG. 1 and description). It is noted as to the “clamping plates” that Goeller discloses tightening the thumbscrew to tighten the rib mount against the matching rib bracket, and it is Examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to indicate that they clamp the bracket and so are clamping plates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Goeller, to form the support per Whitten with clamping plates as taught by Goeller, in order to allow for adjustable rotation/pivoting of the support and locking in a desired position, as a mere selection of an art appropriate pivot/hinge joint to use or at most a mere substitution of one art known pivot/hinge joint for another (see Whitten FIG. 11 showing a hinge between the base portion of the support which attaches to the support part and the upper support portion which attaches the electronic device/case).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0251793 to Barratt (Barratt) in view of U.S. Patent #9,743,725 to Hines (Hines), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,010,630 to Mickelson (Mickelson) as applied to claim 9, and further in view of U.S. Patent #11,852,289 to Barilotti (Barilotti).
With Respect to Claim 13
The wearable appliance for carrying a mobile device according to claim 9, wherein the mounting assembly further comprises: a first magnetic piece; and a second magnetic piece configured to attract the first magnetic piece by magnetic force; wherein, the first magnetic piece is provided in the housing, and the second magnetic piece is provided in the mounting member.
However, Barilotti discloses attaching a similar mounting assembly used to attach an electronic device to a user neck worn support in an in use position comprising a first magnetic piece (138, see, e.g. FIGS. 2, 7, 10, 12); and a second magnetic piece (146) configured to attract the first magnetic piece by magnetic force; wherein, the first magnetic piece is provided in the housing, and the second magnetic piece is provided in the mounting member (FIGS. 10 and 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Barilotti, to replace the screw attachment 44-46 with a magnetic attachment, in order to allow for faster and easier attachment and detachment, for the benefits disclosed by Barilotti for its attachment structure, and/or as a mere substitution of one art known attachment mechanism for another.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0251793 to Barratt (Barratt) in view of U.S. Patent #9,743,725 to Hines (Hines), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,010,630 to Mickelson (Mickelson) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent #9,743,725 to Hines (Hines) and U.S. Patent #5,620,120 to Tien (Tien), either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #9,185,953 to Whitten (Whitten).
With Respect to Claim 14
Barratt in view of Hines (see the rejection of claim 6 above for details of the combination with Hines), (see the rejection of claim 10-12 for details of the combination with Tien or Tien and Whitten) discloses the wearable appliance for carrying a mobile device according to claim 1, wherein the mounting assembly comprises: a housing; a mounting member detachably connected to the housing and configured to fix the mobile device; wherein, the flexible strip comprises a first connecting end and a second connecting end, the first connecting end is fixed to the housing, and the second connecting end is detachably connected to the housing; the mounting assembly further comprises two buttons (button actuating the clasp to attach the second connecting end per Hines and the button portion of 14 actuating the lock per Tien) movably mounted on the mounting assembly, one of the two buttons is used to control the connection between the housing and the second connecting end, and the other button is used to control the connection between the mounting member and the housing; an end face of one of the two buttons exposed to an outer side of the housing is a concave surface (noting 141 is concave, see Tien FIG. 5 or 7), and an end face of the other button exposed to the outer side of the housing is a convex surface (noting Hines’ button is convex, see e.g. FIG. 15).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2017/0251793 to Barratt (Barratt) in view of U.S. Patent #9,743,725 to Hines (Hines), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,010,630 to Mickelson (Mickelson) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent #9,913,526 to Abreu (Abreu).
With Respect to Claim 15
The wearable appliance for carrying a mobile device according to claim 1, wherein a hanging portion is formed at a middle of the flexible strip, but does not disclose that a diameter of the hanging portion is larger than diameters of other portions of the flexible strip.
However, Abreu discloses forming a similar neck mounting structure for an electronic device comprising a hanging portion (186) formed at a middle of the flexible strip (202, 204, and related structure, see FIG. 16), a diameter of the hanging portion is larger than diameters of other portions of the flexible strip for providing cushioning or support against the neck of the wearer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Abreu, to form the flexible strip of Barratt with a hanging portion that has a larger diameter than the rest of the flexible strip in order to provide cushioning or support to the user’s neck as taught by Abreu. For clarity, this encompasses either making the Barrat inner core and/or cushioning material thicker or adding an additional pad or similar cushion structure to that location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/26 have been fully considered but they are largely not persuasive.
It is noted that some of Applicant’s arguments, e.g. regarding the drawing objections and some of the 112 rejections in view of the amended claim language, are persuasive, and as those objections/rejections are no longer present, these will not be further addressed.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Applicant agrees with Examiner’s statements in the 112 2nd paragraph rejection of claim 8, Examiner maintains that the language remains indefinite. Examiner recommends clarifying that it indicates a location of the second connecting end when connected, or indicates a location of the plughole as that appears to be the intent.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Hines does not disclose the claimed subject matter, Examiner respectfully disagrees, see the detailed rejection of claim 1 above for details and which parts of Hines serve to meet the limitations of the claim. Examiner maintains that the structure of Hines can be characterized as having an upper portion/protrusion (82) that is the button, and a lower portion that the spring abuts against which forms part of the locking piece.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the post 86 and biasing member 90 are distributed vertically along the button 80 and are located on the same side of the button (80), as shown in Hines FIG. 16, the post 86 is on the left side of the button, specifically to the left side of the vertically depending portion thereof that the horizontal member that 86 attaches to is attached to, and the biasing member 90 is located on the right side of this structure.
In response to Applicant’s
Applicant's arguments (e.g. general citations of the specification or indications of how the prior art structures operate without reference to the claim language and specifically how the prior art fails to meet that language) fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments (e.g. general citations of the specification or indications of how the prior art structures operate without reference to the claim language and specifically how the prior art fails to meet that language) do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to Applicant’s arguments related to Michelson and unsupported statements that the combination with Michelson fails to disclose the claimed subject matter, Examiner does not understand which portion of the claim language the combination fails to meet. See the rejection of claim 1 above for details of how Michelson’s structure meets the limitations of the claim (e.g. a first locking piece (29 and related structure) with an inserting latch (32-33) perpendicular to the first locking piece, a first spring (26) abutting against the first locking piece and the housing to provide an elastic force to the first locking piece, the first spring and the inserting latch are arranged on different sides of the first locking piece (i.e. one is on the top side and the other on the bottom side)).
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 ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734