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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (see Remarks, p. 1-4) filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the Wetzel reference fails to teach the claimed recited limitation “a hand strap assembly connected to the pivot assembly and configured to rotate about a first axis between a vertical orientation and a horizontal orientation”. After further consideration, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant.
Based on broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation, a table for which the assembly is strapped (i.e., interpreted as mounted) as shown in the Wetzel reference (see Fig.15, par. 0036) could be used to perform a hand assembly as led by one of ordinary skill in the art. For instance, Wetzel suggests “when the tablet computer 26 is mounted in this way, tablet computer 26 can be rotated by the user. Lock nut 34 can be tightened to the point that it easily turns by hand pressure, but is not too loose that it allows an attached tablet computer to continue rotating after being released. Since the tablet computer 26 is mounted at the center of its back (assuming this is the center of gravity), it should only rotate when a user manipulates tablet computer 26 and then tablet computer 26 should stay in position after the user is finished manipulating it (see par. 0035).” Therefore, the claimed “hand strap assembly” is taught in the Wetzel’s reference.
A suggestion to further clarify and define the claimed “hand strap assembly…” limitation is to include language worn by a user or worn on a user’s hand or configured to fit around a user’s hand in paragraph 0039 of applicant’s specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8-11, 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wetzel et al., US2012/0182680 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Wetzel discloses An accessory for a mobile computing device (Abstract; a multi-positional stand ), the accessory (Fig. 1, par. 0031; a multi-positional stand) comprising: a pivot assembly (Fig. 1, par. 0032; hinge member 32 can pivot.); a hand strap assembly connected to the pivot assembly and configured to rotate about a first axis between a vertical orientation and a horizontal orientation (Fig. 2, par. 0035; Lock nut 34 can be fastened to threaded stud 21 so that it allows mounting plate 20 to still rotate with respect to flat face 30 of hinge member 32.); and a kickstand assembly connected to the pivot assembly and configured to pivot about a second axis (par. 0032; hinge pin 46 is passed through hinge pin hole 32a of hinge member 32 and into hole 40 of base member 36 and through hinge pin hole 32b of hinge member 32, then hinge member 32 can pivot about hinge pin 46 and base member 36, and the holes 46a and 46b cut through hinge pin 46 perpendicular to (and through) an axis that runs lengthwise, through the center of hinge pin 46.), the second axis orthogonal to the first axis (Fig. 17, par. 0006; the hinge pin 46 is orthogonal to the axis of the stud 21.), between a support position and a closed position (Figs. 10-11, par. 0022-0023; base member 36 can be rotated between an extended and retracted position with respect to hinge member 32 with hinge pin 46.).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Wetzel discloses all the limitations in claims 1 and 11. Wetzel also discloses wherein the kickstand assembly is secured to the pivot assembly via a pivot axle (Fig. 16, par. 0032), wherein the pivot axle includes at least one bracket to secure the pivot axle to the pivot assembly (Fig. 16, par. 0033).
Regarding claim 4, Wetzel discloses all the limitations in claim 1. Wetzel also discloses wherein the hand strap assembly is rotatable in relation to the pivot assembly (par. 0035).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Wetzel discloses all the limitations in claims 3 and 13. Wetzel also discloses wherein the pivot axle of the kickstand assembly is rigidly connected to at least one kickstand prop, wherein the kickstand prop is configured to support the mobile computing device when the kickstand assembly is in the support position (par. 0034).
Regarding claim 9, Wetzel discloses all the limitations in claim 8. Wetzel also discloses wherein the kickstand assembly further comprises a second kickstand prop (par. 0034).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Wetzel discloses all the limitations in claims 1 and 16. Wetzel also discloses wherein when the kickstand assembly is in the support position, the kickstand assembly is configured to support the mobile computing device in either a landscape orientation or a portrait orientation (par. 0016).
Regarding claim 11, Wetzel discloses A mobile computing device (Abstract; a tablet computer) comprising: a pivot assembly secured to a rear surface of the mobile computing device (Fig. 1, par. 0032; hinge member 32 can pivot.); a hand strap assembly connected to the pivot assembly and configured to rotate about a first axis between a vertical orientation and a horizontal orientation (Fig. 2, par. 0035; Lock nut 34 can be fastened to threaded stud 21 so that it allows mounting plate 20 to still rotate with respect to flat face 30 of hinge member 32.); and a kickstand assembly connected to the pivot assembly and configured to pivot about a second axis (par. 0032; hinge pin 46 is passed through hinge pin hole 32a of hinge member 32 and into hole 40 of base member 36 and through hinge pin hole 32b of hinge member 32, then hinge member 32 can pivot about hinge pin 46 and base member 36, and the holes 46a and 46b cut through hinge pin 46 perpendicular to (and through) an axis that runs lengthwise, through the center of hinge pin 46.), the second axis orthogonal to the first axis (Fig. 17, par. 0006; the hinge pin 46 is orthogonal to the axis of the stud 21.), between a support position and a closed position (Figs. 10-11, par. 0022-0023; base member 36 can be rotated between an extended and retracted position with respect to hinge member 32 with hinge pin 46.).
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(s) 2, 5-7, 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzel as applied to claims 1 and 11 above respectively, and further in view of Siddiqui et al., US2018/0129253 A1.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Wetzel teaches all the limitations in claims 1 and 11.
Wetzel fails to teach the following recited limitations. However, Siddiqui teaches wherein the hand strap assembly is rotatably secured to the pivot assembly, the hand strap configured to rotate with a biased cam (par. 0069-0070; a kickstand 302 rotates with a biased cam 1108.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Wetzel’s teachings with Siddiqui teachings in order to bias the hand strap assembly towards a most used position.
Regarding claim 5, Wetzel and Siddiqui teach all the limitations in claim 2.
Wetzel further teaches wherein the hand strap assembly rotatable from a vertical position in 90 degrees either clockwise or counterclockwise (Figs. 2-4, par. 0035).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Wetzel and Siddiqui teach all the limitations in claims 2 and 12.
Siddiqui further teaches wherein the biased cam comprises at least one tab and a biaser connector (par. 0069), the at least one tab is configured to mate with a detent of the pivot assembly when the hand strap assembly is rotated to a horizontal orientation (par. 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Wetzel’s teachings with Siddiqui teachings in order to bias the hand strap assembly towards a most used position.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Wetzel and Siddiqui teach all the limitations in claims 2 and 14.
Siddiqui further teaches further comprising a biaser secured between the pivot assembly and the biaser connector on the biased cam (Fig. 11b, par. 0069), the biaser is configured to apply a force to the biased cam, via the biaser connector, towards vertical orientation (Fig. 14, par. 0087). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Wetzel’s teachings with Siddiqui teachings in order to bias the hand strap assembly towards a most used position.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzel as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kwon et al., WO 2011/052851 A1.
Regarding claim 18, Wetzel teaches all the limitations in claim 11.
Wetzel fails to teach the following recited limitations. However, Kwon teaches wherein the mobile computing device includes a battery (page 4 lines 160-166; battery housing 20 having a housing that charges a mobile phone 1.), the battery being inaccessible when the hand strap assembly is in the vertical orientation, and the battery being accessible when the hand strap assembly is in the horizontal position (page 6 lines 228-233; when the mounting cover 30 is opened and closed with respect to the battery housing 20, the first hinge shaft cover 42 is pivotally rotated about the first hinge shaft 41 together with the second hinge shaft portion 50. When the viewing angle is adjusted while the mounting cover 30 is opened, the mounting cover 30 along with the coupling unit 513 rotates about the second hinge shaft 51.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Wetzel’s teachings with Kwon teachings in order to allow selective access to the battery for charging or exchanging.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AYODEJI O AYOTUNDE whose telephone number is (571)270-7983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/AYODEJI O AYOTUNDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights