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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/8/25 has been entered.
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 clevis portion as recited in claim 36 (for clarity, although the specification indicates that 150 is a clevis portion, it is not a clevis within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term) 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 § 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.
Claims 36-38 and 40 are 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 36
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “clevis” in claim 36 is used by the claim to mean something of unclear scope, while the accepted meaning is “a coupler shaped like the letter U with holes through each end so a bolt or pin can pass through the holes to complete the coupling; .” (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/clevis retrieved 1/7/26) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
With Respect to Claims 37-38 and 40
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
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.
Claims 21-22, 24-25, 29, 31, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #10,441,066 to Robinson (Robinson) in view of U.S. Patent #9,335,112 to Sholley (Sholley) and U.S. Patent #180,500 to Roemer (Roemer).
With Respect to Claim 21
Robinson discloses a device, comprising: a wearable portion (waist belt, disclosed but not shown, noting mounting via belt clip 106), comprising: an elongate member having a length sufficient to be worn by a user (i.e. a waist belt); and a coupler (102, 106, and related structure) connected to the elongate member, the coupler being adjustable along the length of the elongate member; and a support portion, comprising: an attachment member (202, noting that it attaches 118 to 102; alternately all of 118); an arm (118 in combination with 124 and 130 or 124 in combination with 130, or either of these in combination with 300) extending from a first end to a second end, wherein the first end is coupled to the attachment member; and a retainer (108) coupled to the second end of the arm, the retainer having a frame (rear wall, 116, and 114a/b) with a clip (114a/b) configured to retain an object; wherein the attachment member of the support portion is releasably attachable to the coupler of the wearable portion (it is Examiner’s position that the disclosure of snap-fit or magnetic connections between 300 and the articulating arms which are common art known removably connections indicates that the other ball joint connections are similarly removable or alternately clearly renders such obvious; alternately as to the embodiments including 300, the snap-fit or magnetic connection there is also sufficient to meet the language of the claim) such that with the attachment member attached to the coupler the device is configured to support the object at a position relative to the user (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 2 and description); but does not disclose the elongate member comprising a rigid member extending along the length of the elongate member or the coupler comprising two or more wings extending laterally outward from a center of the coupler.
However, Roemer discloses forming a similar elongate member/belt comprising a rigid member (any of rigid strips b) extending along the length of the elongate member, and that this construction prevents the belt from wrinkling or folding upward laterally.
Sholley discloses forming a similar coupler (300) for slidable attachment along a user’s belt with two or more wings/side plates (310, 330) extending laterally outward from a center of the coupler (see, e.g. FIG. 2) in order to provide more surface area for contact with 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 Roemer, to use the Robinson holder on the belt of Roemer or to form the belt of Robinson with rigid sections as taught by Roemer, in order to obtain the benefits of both inventions, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate belt construction to use.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Sholley, to add wings/side plates as taught by Sholley to the Robinson coupler, in order to provide more surface area for contact with the wearer as taught by Sholley. For clarity, this modification encompasses adding side plates without belt attachment openings, adding side plates with belt attachment openings and using these in combination with the fastening member (106) of Robinson, replacing the fastening member (106) of Robinson with the side plates including belt openings and/or belt openings similar to 321a/b on the coupler, as a mere selection of an art appropriate fastening structure to use or at most a mere substitution of one art known fastener for another.
Alternately, as to the attachment member being releasably connected to the coupler, to the degree that the other ball joints could use a different type of connection and/or that non-removable snap-fit or magnetic connections are possible, it would have been obvious to use a removable connection as a mere selection of an art appropriate connection to use and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 22
The device of claim 21, wherein the arm (e.g. 124 and 130, alone or in combination with 300) is pivotably coupled to the attachment member (e.g. 118) such that the position of the object is adjustable.
With Respect to Claim 24
The device of claim 22, wherein the arm is configured to lock into one of a plurality of discrete rotational positions with respect to the attachment member (noting disclosure of ridges that create incremental movement inside the casing of the ball joint 402, it is Examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider this to indicate that all of the ball joints may include such or alternately clearly renders such obvious, noting also that there is no benefit of only one of the ball joints being able to be fixed in position as the others would simply hang limply without some form of securement in the desired position).
With Respect to Claim 25
The device of claim 22, wherein the arm includes a first portion (124) and a second portion (130), and wherein the first portion is pivotably coupled to the second portion.
With Respect to Claim 29
The device of claim 21, wherein the coupler includes a first magnet and the attachment member includes a second magnet such that the attachment member is attachable to the coupler using the first and second magnets (noting disclosure of magnetic connection, it is Examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosure of a magnetic connection to include the option of a magnet on each part or alternately that such is clearly obvious as a common art known magnetic connection or “obvious to try” as a mere selection from a limited number of art known alternatives (i.e. a magnetic connection requires a magnet on at least one of the two parts and either a magnet or a magnetically attractable substance on the other, and any of these alternatives would be obvious).
With Respect to Claim 31
The device of claim 21, wherein the retainer (taken to include 110a in combination with 130) includes a spherical portion (spherical connector of 130 opposite 110a) and the arm (124 or 300) includes a socket (socket at the end of 124 or 300 which attaches to 130), and wherein the spherical portion is disposed in the socket such that the spherical portion is rotatable in the socket to adjust an angular position of the retainer relative to the arm.
Alternately, although Robinson does not detail which of 110a and 130 includes the spherical portion and which includes the socket of the ball joint, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to form the retainer with the spherical portion and the arm with the socket, as a mere selection of an art appropriate location for each part and/or as doing so instead of the reverse formation constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04) and/or is “obvious to try” as a mere selection from a limited number of art known alternatives.
With Respect to Claim 34
Taking for claim 34 the attachment member to be 118 in combination with either 124 or 300 and the arm to be either 130 or 124 in combination with 130, the device of claim 21, wherein the attachment member includes a first body (118) and a second body (124 or 300), and wherein the second body is attachable to the first body such that the second body is rotatable with respect to the first body about an axis that is positioned in a generally anterior-posterior orientation when the device is worn by the user (noting ball joint is adjustable in this direction).
With Respect to Claim 35
The device of claim 21, but does not disclose wherein the coupler is triangular with a bottom portion of the coupler wider than a top portion such that the bottom portion of the coupler is configured to rest against a torso of the user and extend laterally across the torso of the user to stabilize the device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to modify the shape of the coupler to be triangular as claimed, in order to reduce the number of corners and/or surface area contacting the user to enhance user comfort, for any other obvious benefits of this shape (e.g. triangles are more stable against certain stresses), and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. (M
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent #10,441,066 to Robinson in view of U.S. Patent #9,335,112 to Sholley (Sholley) and U.S. Patent #180,500 to Roemer (Roemer) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #11,168,735 to Tiefenbrunn (Tiefenbrunn).
With Respect to Claim 23
The device of claim 22, and that different ball joint structures could be used as well as the desirability of locking the ball joint in desired positions, but does not disclose wherein the support portion further comprises a button coupled to the attachment member or to the arm, and wherein the button is configured such that depression of the button releases the arm to pivot with respect to the attachment member.
However, Tiefenbrunn discloses forming a ball joint with a button (81) configured such that depression of the button releases the ball joint to pivot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Tiefenbrunn, to form the ball joint of Robinson with a lock/unlock button as taught by Tiefenbrunn, in order to allow for locking the ball joint in position and unlocking it for adjustment as taught by Tiefenbrunn, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate ball joint structure to use.
Claims 26, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent #10,441,066 to Robinson in view of U.S. Patent #9,335,112 to Sholley (Sholley) and U.S. Patent #180,500 to Roemer (Roemer) as applied to claim 25 or 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #9,125,475 to Garza (Garza).
With Respect to Claim 26
The device of claim 25, but does not disclose wherein the arm further includes a third portion telescopically coupled to the second portion.
However, Garza discloses forming a similar user mounted pivotal arm including a third portion telescopically coupled to the second portion (noting 7, FIG. 2, which has 2 portions telescopically coupled together).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Garza, to form the second portion/arm out of two portions (i.e. including a third portion) telescopically coupled together, in order to allow for increased adjustment of the location of the arm and/or to allow the arm to collapse further for ease of storage, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making adjustable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 30
The device of claim 21, wherein the arm comprises a first section and a second section, and wherein the second section is configured to telescope with respect to the first section to adjust a length of the arm.
With Respect to Claim 32
The device of claim 21, but does not disclose wherein the wearable portion further comprises a second elongate member attachable to the coupler, the second elongate member configured to be worn around a torso of the user to retain the coupler in position on the torso of the user.
However, Garza discloses forming a similar user mounted device holder having an arm having a first belt/elongate member (31) similar to Robinson and a second elongate member (32) attachable to the coupler for wearing about a user’s neck.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Garza, to add a neck strap (e.g. 31) as taught by Garza/as claimed to the coupler of Robinson, in order to better stabilize the coupler and/or distribute the weight of the arm, and/or to allow for an alternate carrying mode.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent #10,441,066 to Robinson in view of U.S. Patent #9,335,112 to Sholley (Sholley) and U.S. Patent #180,500 to Roemer (Roemer) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #Publication #2010/0025444 to Tipton (Tipton).
With Respect to Claim 27
The device of claim 21, but does not disclose wherein the clip includes an adjustable extension configured to accommodate objects of different sizes.
However, Tipton discloses forming a similar user worn device support having an arm for holding a device holder having a frame (12, 14, 16) with a clip (12, 14, 16 or only 14 and 16) configured to retain a personal electronic device, wherein the clip includes an adjustable extension (16, see e.g. FIGS. 4-6 and description) configured to accommodate objects of different sizes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Tipton, to form either or both of the side portions of the clip of Robinson as an adjustable extension, in order to allow for adjustment to accommodate differently sized devices and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making adjustable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent #10,441,066 to Robinson in view of U.S. Patent #9,335,112 to Sholley (Sholley) and U.S. Patent #180,500 to Roemer (Roemer) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #8,408,513 to Smith (Smith).
With Respect to Claim 28
The device of claim 21, and the use of magnetic attachment for the arms, but does not disclose wherein the coupler is configured to be worn under the user's clothing, and the attachment member and the coupler are configured to be releasably attachable with the user's clothing.
However, Smith discloses forming a device holder including a coupler configured to be worn under the user's clothing, and the attachment member and the coupler are configured to be releasably attachable with the user's clothing (see, e.g. FIG. 9 and description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Robinson to use magnetic connections and the disclosure of Smith to use a magnetic connection to allow for attachment to a coupler on the inside of a user’s clothing, to modify the coupler of Robinson to attach through a user’s clothing, in order to allow for wearing the coupler underneath clothing in order to conceal it (e.g. improve aesthetic appeal and look for the wearer) and/or to avoid interfering with worn items such as a belt, backpack or handbag, and/or as a mere substitution of one art known attachment means for another.
With Respect to Claim 33
The device of claim 21, wherein the coupler (per Robinson as modified by Smith, for clarity this combination uses the magnetic coupler and attachment member structure of the FIG. 27-30 embodiment of Smith) includes a boss (protrusions 244) and the attachment member includes a pocket (concave impressions 224 are pockets), and wherein the pocket of the attachment member is configured to receive the boss of the coupler when the support portion is coupled to the wearable portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/8/25 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the cited references disclose features similar to those claimed, such as elongated members to be worn by a user comprising rigid members extending along their lengths, similar removable connectors comprising spaced plates where one of the plates enters a slot.
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