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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s remarks/arguments filed on 04/08/2026. Claims 11 has been amended. Claim 1-10 has been cancelled. Claims 24-33 have been added. Currently, claims 11-33 are pending. This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments/remarks filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 11, Applicant argues that the combination of Drakos and Carnevali does not disclose “wherein the leg is configured to rotate about the first axis and the foot is configured to rotate the second axis to transition the stand between a collapsed configuration, a ring-grip configuration, a portrait configuration, and a landscape configuration” by stating that “no person skilled in the art would interpret a ‘hand strap’ as teaching a ‘ring grip’” and Carnevali describes “a hand strap and not a ring grip”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant reads “ring-grip configuration” too narrowly by excluding a loop-like grip that receives one or more fingers. The current application specification describes ring-grip configuration as allowing “one or more fingers” to pass through the foot to grip it “as a ring”, and also discloses a polygonal/hexagonal foot (see par [0057] and [0061] of current application US PGPub). Carnevali teaches strap 20 configured to receive a user’s appendage, such as hand, wrist, or forearm, and further teaches a loop 88 formed between strap 20 and frame 80 where strap 20 grips appendage 74 (see par [0054], [0056] and [0057]). Specifically, in figures 18 and 19 with par [0054]-[0056], Carnevali shows four appendages 74 received in loop 88, and when appendage 74 is the user’s hand, the illustrated hand-use position is reasonably understood as receiving multiple fingers, such as the four fingers of a hand without the thumb, in the loop. Accordingly, the combination of Drakos and Carnevali discloses the limitation in question; therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding amended claim 11, Applicant further argues that the Office Action “does not provide a rational underpinning to support a finding of obviousness”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant overlooks Carnevali’s stated benefit and misidentifies the references. Applicant states “the design of Drakos already includes a hand-strap 20”, but hand-strap 20 is Carnevali’s structure, not Drakos’s structure. Carnevali identifies the need to support a portable electronic device either on an external surface or on a user’s appendage, and teaches a combination hand-strap and stand for that purpose (see par [0003]-[0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to add Carnevali’s hand-strap/loop grip to Drakos’s adjustable stand to allow the user to securely grip or support the mobile deice by hand or fingers while retaining Drakos’s viewing support functions. Accordingly, the combination has a rational underpinning; therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues that the combination does not disclose “wherein, in the ring-grip configuration, the leg is nested with the base and the foot is rotated to an extended foot position relative to the leg”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. After the hand-strap/loop grip of Carnevali, including hand- strap 20 and loop 88, is incorporated into Drakos’s stand having arm element 204 (corresponds to the claimed “feet”) and base element 202 (corresponds to the claimed “foot”), the hand-strap/loop grip on the device remains available for the user to grip as ring-grip configuration, and that includes when arm element 204 (corresponds to the claimed “feet”) is pivotally closed against the supporting assembly 210 (corresponds to the claimed “base”) and when base 202 (corresponds to the claimed “foot”) is pivotally opened, see par [0023]-[0026] of Drakos. Accordingly, the combination of Drakos and Carnevali discloses the limitation in question; therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 22, Applicant argues that Yang does not disclose “wherein, in the landscape configuration, the foot is nested with the leg and the leg is rotated to an extended leg position relative to the base” by stating Yang “does not describe a foot hingedly coupled a leg”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection for claim 22 is based on the combination of Drakos in view of Carnevali and Yang, not Yang alone. Drakos discloses the case with stand having arm element 204 (corresponds to the claimed “feet”) that’s attached to the supporting assembly 210 (corresponds to the claimed “base”), and base element 202 (corresponds to claimed “foot”). And Yang discloses that only a single leg 40 that’s attached to the base/disk 20 is needed for landscape configuration, see figure 7, par [0028] and [0038]. Therefore, by incorporating’s landscape configuration that only uses one leg attached to the base/disk 20 into Drakos’s stand, which modified by Carnevali, would allow the stand of Drakos to only need to use the arm element 204 that’s attached to the supporting assembly 210 (corresponds to claimed “base”) in the landscape configuration in order to provide a neat/compact looking landscape configuration (see neat/compact landscape configuration shown in figure 7 of Yang). Accordingly, the combination has a rational underpinning; therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 22, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 22, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding dependent claims 12-20 and 23, see responses above.
Regarding new claims 24-33, see detailed rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 27, 28 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 4 of claim 27, replace “in in the landscape” with -- in the landscape --;
On line 4 of claim 28, replace “the foot to an extend foot position” with -- the foot is rotated to an extended foot position --; similar objection applies to claim 33.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11-13, 15-19, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drakos (US 20160033074 A1) in view of Carnevali (US 20170000250 A1).
Consider claim 11, Drakos discloses a stand for a mobile device (read as an electronic device stand, figures 1, 2A, 2B and 5, par [0021]-[0026] and [0056], the stand comprising:
a base configured to be adjustably coupled to a back side of the mobile device (read as the tongue element 214 and the plate it is on and formed on the supporting assembly 210, figures 2A and 2B, par [0021]-[0026]);
a leg having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end is hingedly coupled to the base and configured to rotate about a first axis (read as arm element 204 has a proximal end 206 and a distal end 208, proximal end 206 is pivotally (first axis) coupled to a supporting assembly 210, figures 2A and 2B, par [0022]-[0025]);
a foot hingedly coupled to the distal end of the leg and configured to rotate about a second axis (read as base 102/202 coupled to the distal end of the arm 104/204 and configured to rotate about a second axis as shown in figures 2A and 2B, par [0022]-[0025]);
wherein the leg is configured to rotate about the first axis and the foot is configured to rotate about the second axis to transition the stand between a collapsed configuration, a portrait configuration, and a landscape configuration, and wherein the base, the leg, and the foot are configured to nest together in the collapsed configuration (read as wherein the arm 104 rotates on first axis and the base 102 rotates on the second axis to transition the stand between a collapsed configuration (see figure 5), a portrait configuration (see figure 1), and a landscape configuration (see figures 2A and 2B), and the tongue element 214 of supporting assembly 210, the arm 104/204 and base 102/202 are nest together in the collapsed configuration (see figure 5), par [0021]-[0026] and [0056]).
However, Drakos disclose the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose a ring-grip configuration.
Nonetheless, Carnevali discloses appendage grip use, where strap 20 fits around the user’s appendage 74; the user’s appendage is received in loop 88 formed between strap 20 and frame 80, and strap 20 grips appendage 74 to hold the portable electronic device during hand use; as shown in figures 18 and 19, four appendages 74 received in loop 88 during hand-use, the illustrated hand-use position is reasonably understood as receiving multiple fingers, such as the four fingers of a hand without the thumb, in the loop 88, figures 17-19, par [0054]-[0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Carnevali into the teachings of Drakos, to modify the stand with Drakos’s ring-grip configuration design, to allow the securely hold of the tablet (see par [0003]-[0006] of Carnevali, which describes using hand-strap/loop-grip to allow the device to be supported on the user’s hand to retain viewing positions and it is reasonably more secure than hand-holding the device without the hand-strap/loop-grip).
Consider claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein the foot has a shape that matches with that of the base to enable the foot to nest with the base in the collapsed configuration (read as the base 102 has a shape that matches the tongue element 214 of the supporting assembly 210 to enable next/collapsed configuration as shown in figure 5, par [0021]-[0026] and [0056]).
Consider claim 13, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein each of the base and the foot has a polygonal shape (read as the shape of base 202, figures 1, 2A, 2B and 5, par [0021]-[0026] and [0056]).
Consider claim 15, as applied to claim 13 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein the polygonal shape is even-sided such that the foot has a proximal side hingedly coupled to the base and an opposing distal side configured to securely engage a surface in the portrait configuration and the landscape configuration (read as both ends of the rectangular base 102/202, with one end hingedly coupled to the tongue element 214 of the supporting assembly 210, and another end securely engages with surface in the portrait configuration and landscape configuration, figures 1, 2A, 2B and 5, par [0021]-[0026] and [0056]).
Consider claim 16, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein, in the collapsed configuration, the leg and the foot are nested in the base (read as the base 102 has a shape that matches the tongue element 214 of the supporting assembly 210 to enable next/collapsed configuration as shown in figure 5, par [0021]-[0026] and [0056]).
Consider claim 17, as applied to claim 16 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein the leg defines a groove that is configured to receive a portion of the foot to enable the foot to be nested with the leg in the collapsed configuration (read as the base 102 has a shape that matches the arm 104/204 to enable next/collapsed configuration as shown in figure 5, par [0021]-[0026] and [0056]).
Consider claim 18, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein the first axis about which the leg rotates relative to the base is parallel to the second axis about which the foot rotates relative to the leg (read as the axis which the arm 104/204 rotates is parallel to the axis which the base 102/202 rotates, figures 2A and 2B, par [0022]-[0023] and [0025]-[0029]).
Consider claim 19, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein the proximal end of the leg is hingedly coupled to a first edge of the base and the distal end of the leg is hingedly coupled to a second edge of the foot (read as arm element 204 has a proximal end 206 and a distal end 208, proximal end 206 is pivotally (first axis) coupled to a supporting assembly 210, and the distal end 208 is hingedly coupled to the second edge of the base 102/202, figures 2A and 2B, par [0022]-[0025]).
Consider claim 21, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein, in the ring-grip configuration, the leg is nested with the base and the foot is rotated to an extended foot position relative to the leg (read as during hand-strap 20 use after the hand-strap/loop grip of Carnevali, including hand- strap 20 and loop 88, is incorporated into Drakos’s stand having arm element 204 (corresponds to the claimed “feet”) and base element 202 (corresponds to the claimed “foot”), the hand-strap/loop grip on the device remains available for the user to grip as ring-grip configuration, and that includes when arm element 204 (corresponds to the claimed “feet”) is pivotally closed against the supporting assembly 210 (corresponds to the claimed “base”) and when base 202 (corresponds to the claimed “foot”) is pivotally opened, figures 2-4, par [0035]-[0038] of Carnevali, and figures 2A and 2B, par [0022]-[0025] of Drakos).
Consider claim 23, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses wherein, in the portrait configuration, the leg is rotated to an extended leg position relative to the base and the foot to an extend foot position relative to the leg (read as the arm 104/204 is rotated to a position and the base 102/202 is rotated to a position as shown figures 2A and 2B, par [0022]-[0025]).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drakos (US 20160033074 A1) in view of Carnevali (US 20170000250 A1).
Consider claim 14, as applied to claim 13 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein the polygonal shape is a hexagon.
Nonetheless, Happer discloses a stand for a mobile device, which the stand is hexagonal shape, par [0031] and [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Happer into the teachings of Drako, which modified by Carnevali, to modify the stand with Happer’s hexagonal stand design as it is just a matter of design choice (see par [0036] of Happer).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drakos (US 20160033074 A1) in view of Carnevali (US 20170000250 A1), and in further view of Balderston (US 20250357961 A1).
Consider claim 20, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein the base includes a magnet to adjustably couple the base to the back side of the mobile device.
Nonetheless, Balderston discloses a case with a stand for a mobile device, comprising magnetic attachment elements within the base to adjustably couple the base to the back of the mobile device or case, figures 5A-5E, abstract and par [0192].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Balderston into the teachings of Drako, which modified by Carnevali, to modify the case with Balderston’s magnetic attachment interface in order to allow easy attachment/detachment of the stand.
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drakos (US 20160033074 A1) in view of Carnevali (US 20170000250 A1), and in further view of Yang (US 20230175636 A1).
Consider claim 22, as applied to claim 11 above, Drakos, as modified by Carnevali, discloses the claimed invention above and case with stand having arm element 204 (corresponds to the claimed “feet”) that’s attached to the supporting assembly 210 (corresponds to the claimed “base”) but does not specifically disclose wherein, in the landscape configuration, the foot is nested with the leg and the leg is rotated to an extended leg position relative to the base.
Nonetheless, Yang discloses using only need a single leg 40 attached to the base/disk 20 for landscape configuration, see figure 7, par [0028] and [0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yang into the teachings of Drako, which modified by Carnevali, to modify the stand with Yang’s landscape configuration to use only one single leg (using only arm element 204 with the base 102/202 collapsed/closed) to provide a neat looking landscape configuration (see neat/compact landscape configuration shown in figure 7 of Yang).
Claims 24-25, 27-30 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 12207716 B1) in view of LI Y (CN217470030U).
Consider claim 24, Li discloses a stand for a mobile device, the stand (read as double-ring magnetic mobile phone holder using base 3, first ring 1, second ring 2, and magnetic assembly 4, figures 1, 2 and 4, col. 3 with line 39 to col. 4 with line 5) comprising:
a base configured to be adjustably coupled to a back side of the mobile device (read as base 3 carrying magnetic assembly 4, including first magnet 41, which magnetically attracts the mobile phone so that the holder can be removably positioned on the phone side shown in figures 1 and 2, col. 3 with lines 50-55, col. 4 with lines 7-18);
a leg having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end is hingedly coupled to the base and configured to rotate about a first axis (read as first ring 1 with tis first end joined to base 3 through first rotating mechanism 5, including first rotating shaft 51, first damping sleeve 52 and first rotating hole 11, which provides rotation on first ring 1 relative to base 3, figures 4, col. 3 with lines 41-45 and col. 5 with lines 30-47); and
a foot hingedly coupled to the distal end of the leg and configured to rotate about a second axis (read as second ring 3 joined to the second end of first ring 1 through second rotating mechanism 6, including second rotating shaft 61, second damping sleeve 62, and second rotating hole 21, which provides rotation of second ring 2 relative to first ring 1, figure 4, col. 3 with lines 45-60 and col. 5 with lines 30-47),
wherein the leg is configured to rotate about the first axis and the foot is configured to rotate about the second axis to transition the stand to and from a first state, and wherein, in the first state, the leg is nested with the base and the foot is attached to a tope of the leg (read as first ring 1 and second ring 2 rotatable through first rotating mechanism 5 and second mechanism 6, with firs ring 1 accommodated inside base 3 and second ring 2 attached to top of first ring 1 in the first state, figures 1, 3 and 4, col. 3 with lines 41-50, col. 4 with lines 30-34 and col. 5 with lines 35-53).
However, Li discloses the claimed invention above and in first state, the first ring 1 accommodated inside base 3 (figures 1, 3 and 4, col. 3 with lines 41-50, col. 4 with lines 30-34 and col. 5 with lines 35-54) but does not specifically disclose the first state as ring-grip configuration in which the foot is rotated to an extended foot position relative to the leg.
Nonetheless, LI Y discloses a similar dual ring finger holding, comprising first ring buckle 201 and second ring buckle 202 as hinged finger holding member, with second ring buckle 202 connected through first ring buckle 201 and selectable according to the user’s finger thickness, figures 1-4, par [0034]-[0035] and [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LI Y into the teachings of Li, to configure the first state nesting of Li using LI Y’s selectable finger-grip rings, in order to fit different finger sizes during phone holding (see par [0046] of LI Y).
Consider claim 25, as applied to claim 24 above, Li, as modified by LI Y, discloses wherein the leg and the foot are configured to rotate about the first axis and the second axis, respectively, to further transition the stand to and from a collapsed configuration, and wherein the leg and the foot are nested in the base in the collapsed configuration (read as first ring 1 and second ring 2 rotatable through first rotating mechanism 5 and second rotating mechanism 6, with both rings completely accommodated in base 3 in a superimposed first state, figures 1, 3 and 4, col. 4 with lines 30-34, col. 5 with lines 35-54).
Consider claim 27, as applied to claim 24 above, Li, as modified by LI Y, discloses wherein the leg and the foot are configured to rotate about the first axis and the second axis, respectively, to further transition the stand to and from a landscape configuration, and wherein the leg is rotated to an extended leg position relative to the base in in the landscape configuration (read as first ring 1 and second ring 2 adjusted through first rotating mechanism 5 and second rotating mechanism 6, with the rings unfolded in the second state to form a longer holder usable for landscape phone support, figures 2 and 4, col. 3 with line 56 to col. 4 with line 5, and col. 5 with lines 35-54) but does not specifically disclose the foot is nested with the leg in the landscape configuration.
Nonetheless, LI Y further disclose nested horizontal support, comprising the first ring buckle 201 for horizontal screen support and second ring buckle 202 folded and stored in the inner peripheral space of first ring buckle 201, figures 1-4, par [0034] and [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of LI Y into the teachings of Li, which modified by LI Y, to configure the landscape capable hinged rings using LI Y’s nested horizontal support, in order to keep the unused ring stored during horizontal viewing (see par [0041] of LI Y).
Consider claim 28, as applied to claim 24 above, Li, as modified by LI Y, discloses wherein the leg and the foot are configured to rotate about the first axis and the second axis, respectively, to further transition the stand to and from a portrait configuration, and wherein the leg is rotated to an extended leg position relative to the base and the foot to an extend foot position relative to the leg in the portrait configuration (read as first ring 1 and second ring 2 adjusted through first rotating mechanism 5 and second rotating mechanism 6 into the second state, where both rings are completely unfolded along one direction to form a longer holder for vertical phone use, figures 2 and 4, col. 3 with line 56 to col. 4 with line 5, and col. 5 with lines 35-54).
Consider claim 29, Li discloses a stand for a mobile device, the stand (read as double-ring magnetic mobile phone holder using base 3, first ring 1, second ring 2, and magnetic assembly 4, figures 1, 2 and 4, col. 3 with line 39 to col. 4 with line 5) comprising:
a base configured to be adjustably coupled to a back side of the mobile device (read as base 3 carrying magnetic assembly 4, including first magnet 41, which magnetically attracts the mobile phone so that the holder can be removably positioned on the phone side shown in figures 1 and 2, col. 3 with lines 50-55, col. 4 with lines 7-18);
a leg having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end is hingedly coupled to the base and configured to rotate about a first axis (read as first ring 1 with tis first end joined to base 3 through first rotating mechanism 5, including first rotating shaft 51, first damping sleeve 52 and first rotating hole 11, which provides rotation on first ring 1 relative to base 3, figures 4, col. 3 with lines 41-45 and col. 5 with lines 30-47); and
a foot hingedly coupled to the distal end of the leg and configured to rotate about a second axis (read as second ring 3 joined to the second end of first ring 1 through second rotating mechanism 6, including second rotating shaft 61, second damping sleeve 62, and second rotating hole 21, which provides rotation of second ring 2 relative to first ring 1, figure 4, col. 3 with lines 45-60 and col. 5 with lines 30-47),
wherein the leg is configured to rotate about the first axis and the foot is configured to rotate about the second axis to transition the stand to and from a landscape configuration, and wherein, in the landscape configuration, the leg is rotated to an extended leg position relative to the base (read as first ring 1 and second ring 2 adjusted through first rotating mechanism 5 and second rotating mechanism 6, with first ring 1 unfolded from base 3 and the two ring holder usable for landscape phone support, figures 2 and 4, col. 3 with line 56 to col. 4 with line 5, and col. 5 with lines 30-54).
However, Li discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically wherein, in the landscape configuration, the foot is nested with the leg.
Nonetheless, LI Y discloses a nested horizontal support, comprising first ring buckle 201 for horizontal screen support and second ring buckle 202 folded and stored in the inner peripheral space of the first ring buckle 201, figures 1-4, par [0034]and [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LI Y into the teachings of Li, to configure the landscape capable hinged rings of Li using LI Y’s nested horizontal support, in order to keep the unused ring stored during horizontal viewing (see par [0041] of LI Y).
Consider claim 30, as applied to claim 29 above, Li, as modified by LI Y, discloses wherein the leg and the foot are configured to rotate about the first axis and the second axis, respectively, to further transition the stand to and from a collapsed configuration, and wherein the leg and the foot are nested in the base in the collapsed configuration (read as first ring 1 and second ring 2 rotatable through first rotating mechanism 5 and second rotating mechanism 6, with both rings completely accommodated in base 3 in a superimposed first state, figures 1, 3 and 4, col. 4 with lines 30-34, col. 5 with lines 35-54).
Consider claim 32, as applied to claim 29 above, Li, as modified by LI Y, discloses wherein the leg and the foot are configured to rotate about the first axis and the second axis, respectively, to further transition the stand to and from a first state, and wherein the leg is nested with the base and the foot is attached to a top of the leg in the first state (read as first ring 1 and second ring 2 rotatable through first rotating mechanism 5 and second rotating mechanism 6, with first ring 1 accommodated inside base 3 and second ring 2 attached to a top of the first ring 1 in the first state, figures 1, 3 and 4, col. 3 with lines 40-50, col. 4 with lines 30-34 and col. 5 with lines 35-54) but does not specifically disclose the first state as ring-grip configuration in which the foot is rotated to an extended position relative to the leg in the ring-grip configuration.
Nonetheless, LI Y discloses dual ring finger holding, comprising first ring buckle 201 and second ring buckle 202 as hinged finger holding members, with second ring buckle 202 connected through first ring buckle 201 and selectable according to the user’s finger thickness, figures 1-4, par [0034]-[0035] and [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of LI Y into the teachings of Li, which modified by LI Y, to configure the landscape capable hinged rings of Li using LI Y’s nested horizontal support, to configure the first state nesting of Li using LI Y’s selectable finger-grip rings, in order to fit different finger sizes during phone holding (see par [0046] of LI Y).
Consider claim 33, as applied to claim 29 above, Li, as modified by LI Y, discloses wherein the leg and the foot are configured to rotate about the first axis and the second axis, respectively, to further transition the stand to and from a portrait configuration, and wherein the leg is rotated to an extended leg position relative to the base and the foot to an extend foot position relative to the leg in the portrait configuration (read as first ring 1 and second ring 2 adjustable through first rotating mechanism 5 and second rotating mechanism 6 into the second state, where both rings are completely unfolded along one direction to form a longer holder for vertical phone use, figures 2 and 4, col. 3 with line 56 to col. 4 with line 5, and col. 5 with lines 35-54).
Claims 26 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 12207716 B1) in view of LI Y (CN217470030U), and in further view of Ma (US 20230332739 A1).
Consider claim 26, as applied to claim 24 above, Li, as modified by LI Y, discloses wherein the foot is nested with the leg in the collapsed configuration (read as second ring 2 attached on first ring 1 and superimposed with first ring 1 in the first state, providing nested folded storage, figures 1 and 3, col. 3 with lines 45-50, and col. 4 with lines 30-34) but does not specifically disclose wherein the leg defines a groove that is configured to receive a portion of the foot to enable the foot to be nested with the leg in the collapsed configuration.
Nonetheless, Ma discloses placement slot nesting, comprising placement slot 31 opened on hinging arm 3, with second bracket 2 placed in that slot while second bracket 2 and hinging arm 3 are accommodated within first bracket 1 by flipping, figures 1, 6 and 7, par [0027] and [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ma into the teachings of Li, which modified by LI Y, to modify the nested dual ring storage using Ma’s placement slot nesting, in order to hold the distal ring in place when folded (see par [0032] of Ma).
Consider claim 31, as applied to claim 29 above, Li, as modified by LI Y, d discloses wherein the foot is nested with the leg in the collapsed configuration (read as second ring 2 attached on first ring 1 and superimposed with first ring 1 in the first state, providing nested folded storage, figures 1 and 3, col. 3 with lines 45-50, and col. 4 with lines 30-34) but does not specifically disclose wherein the leg defines a groove that is configured to receive a portion of the foot to enable the foot to be nested with the leg in the collapsed configuration.
Nonetheless, Ma discloses placement slot nesting, comprising placement slot 31 opened on hinging arm 3, with second bracket 2 placed in that slot while second bracket 2 and hinging arm 3 are accommodated within first bracket 1 by flipping, figures 1, 6 and 7, par [0027] and [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ma into the teachings of Li, which modified by LI Y, to modify the nested dual ring storage using Ma’s placement slot nesting, in order to hold the distal ring in place when folded (see par [0032] of Ma).
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 extension fee 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 Junpeng Chen whose telephone number is (571) 270-1112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., EST.
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, Anthony S Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Junpeng Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights