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 .
Drawings
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 ejector configured to transiently engage an insert to drive the mobile device case away from the mobile device mount must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11,17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy(US20190198212) in view of Aspinall et al.(US9651069).
[claim 10] Levy teaches a mobile device mount(100) comprising a body(1006), an induction coil(229) integrated into the body, a set of magnetic elements(1022) in the body capable of locking a mobile device to the body(ABS), a set of locking jaws(1068), and a locking control with a lever or pushbutton(1072) extending laterally from the mount configured to release the set of locking jaws, the mobile device mount configured to support wireless charging of a mobile device. Levy teaches a mobile device mount as detailed above, with a locking control configured to release the set of locking jaws, however Levy does not teach the use of an ejector with the locking control that is configured to transiently engage with an insert in a back surface of a mobile device case to drive the mobile device case away from the mobile device mount. Aspinall teaches a similar mobile device mount, with a locking control(400,600) with an ejector(10) and a lever or pushbutton(440,640) extending laterally from the mount configured to release a set of locking jaws(420,620) and configured to transiently engage the ejector with an insert in a back surface of a mobile device case(100) to drive the mobile device case away from the mobile device mount(fig 6d). The ejector aids in disengaging and separating the mobile device from the mount with a biasing force from spring(50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the ejector and locking control of Aspinall with the mobile device mount of Levy, as this would provide a means to aid a user in separating the mobile device case from the mount as taught by Aspinall.
[claim 11] wherein the set of magnetic elements is outside the wireless charging area of a mobile device(see para[0048-0049]).
[claim 17] Levy further teaches an emplacement mechanism(306, fig 3, see also figures 4-7) configured to affix the mobile device mount to a surface.
[claim 18] wherein the emplacement mechanism affixes the mobile device to a vehicle air vent, a vehicle dashboard(see para[0050]), a bicycle frame, bicycle or motorcycle handlebars, a wall, a desk, a table, an armband, a belt or a waistband.
[claim 19] further comprising one or more pivot mechanisms(342) to maneuver a mobile device relative to the emplacement mechanism and an adjoining surface.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of Aspinall as applied to claims 10,17 and 19 above, and further in view of Khodapanah et al.(US10125921).
[claim 20] Levy in view of Aspinall teach a mobile device mount as detailed above, with an emplacement mechanism(306) having one or more pivot mechanisms(342). Levy however does not specifically teach that the pivot mechanisms comprise ball and socket joints. The use of ball and socket joints in mobile device mounts is well known, with Khodapanah teaching a similar mobile device mount, and teaching one example of a mobile device mount(fig 7b) comprising a ball and socket joint(702). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use a ball and socket joint with the device mount of Levy in view of Aspinall, as this would provide greater adjustability to the joint of Levy, as taught by Khodapanah.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First with regards to the Drawings, Applicant has amended the specification and Drawings to provide support for the claimed ejector and locking control. However there is still no ejector shown in any of the figures that is able to transiently engage with an insert in a back surface of the mobile device case, the ejector(200) newly labeled in fig 5B, does not appear capable of transiently engaging the insert of the device case.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10,11,17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references 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 BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632