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 § 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 5 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.
The term “special” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “special” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant claims a special stylus, but there is nothing to indicate what defines it as special.
Further “equipped” with a special stylus does not properly denote how or if the stylus changes the structure of the phone and appears to be an optional accessory not relevant to the structure of the glove and phone combination, thus it amounts to an intended use of a stylus being used with the device meaning any device capable of using a device (touch screen) meets the claimed language.
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.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vales (US 2015/0164205 A1) in view of Manning (US 9,607,506 B1) further in view of NakaMats (US 2021/0124389 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Vales discloses a palm-back smartphone comprises a glove and a smartphone,
the surface of the glove and the back of the smartphone are provided with fixing parts that can be detachably connected to each other, [0031—0032, Velcro, magnetic attachments]
the surface of the glove is symmetrically provided with zipper openings on both sides of the fixing part. [Fig 6A, 7A; 0018-0019]
Vales does not expressly disclose that the glove may be connected to the smart phone through induction.
Manning discloses in an analogous glove and phone system, connection wherein the glove is provided with inductive intermediaries in contact with the back of the hand, and the inductive intermediaries are connected to the signals of the smartphone; [Manning, Col. 26 lines 31-53]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to inductively connect and communicate with the smart phone through intermediaries to allow both hands to be used in control functions. [See Manning col. 12 lines 51-65]
The combination discloses a smart phone may be used, but does not expressly disclose a foldable phone.
NakaMats discloses in an analogous device discloses attaching a foldable screen smart phone to the hand. [0046 shows the folding screen and 0035 and Figure 30 show it being mounted on the globe]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to attach a folding screen smart phone, as they provide a larger continuous working area while allowing folding makes for easier transport and less likelihood of display damage.
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses a palm-back foldable smartphone of Claim 1, the fixing part comprises Velcro [Vales, 0031-0032 describe using Velcro for holding] and magnets. [Vales 0036 describes magnets for holding]
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses a palm-back foldable smartphone of Claim 2, the glove is made of elastic nylon material. [Vales, 0057 discloses the use of nylon, and its use is described throughout the document as part of the glove material]
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vales (US 2015/0164205 A1) in view of Manning (US 9,607,506 B1) further in view of NakaMats (US 2021/0124389 A1) and further in view of Connor (US 2020/0218312 A1)
Regarding claim 4, the above combination discloses a palm-back foldable smartphone of Claim 3, including biometric sensing of physiological characteristics [Manning, Col. 19 lines 20-32], but does not disclose the inductive intermediaries comprise a blood pressure sensor and a heart rate sensor. Connor discloses in an analogous device, inclusion of sensors in an attached folding screen device that include a heart rate and blood pressure sensor [col. 14 lines 17-31; heart rate and blood sensor are specified]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include these sensors as it allows a portable way for people with health conditions.
Regarding claim 5, the above combination discloses a palm-back foldable smartphone of Claim 4, the smartphone is equipped with a special stylus. As the stylus does not change the physical structure, it need only be capable of using a stylus. Vales [PP0057] discloses the use of a touch screen, meaning a stylus is a useable accessory. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to equip a stylus in order to allow for electronic signing or more convenient and precise control of the touch screen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed on the attached PTO-892 relates to gloves and hand/arm attached devices that include electronic device attached for convenience of the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEWIS G WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-7859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. 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.
/LEWIS G WEST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699