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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on March 26, 2025 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 8A showing angle (826) appears to be incomplete. As per the specification, the angle (826) is between (830) and (828).
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because too many words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a) alignment feature configured to engage (synonymous with means for aligning and engaging)…in claim 12
b) impact absorbing materials (means for impact absorption)…in claim 13, 14
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9, 11, 13-14 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.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “the variable latch closing force is sufficient to adhere the cover portion to the device upon an impact” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, the closing force is based on an entirely arbitrary impact force. The metes and bounds are unclear since the identical device will simultaneously infringe and not infringe the claim. For instance, a latch with closing force of 1.0 Newton is sufficient for an impact force of 0.5 N, but not for 1.5N. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art has a closing force, such force is necessarily sufficient for any arbitrary impact force.
As to claim 11, the claim recites “relatively circular shape…relatively elliptical shape” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Neither the claims or specification contain an objective metric to what is, or is not, relatively circular or relatively elliptical. Furthermore, those of ordinary skill in the art understand circles are themselves relative ellipses and ellipses are relative circles. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the art teaches a ring spring, such limitations are met.
As to claims 13, 14, the claims recite “impact absorbing material” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not provide any material/structure which perform the function of impact absorption.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 8-15, 17-19, 21-24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/(a2) as being anticipated by Tharrett et al. (US 11,528,973 - Tharrett).
As to claim 1, Tharrett teaches a protective case for a device (Tharrett Fig. 1A; Figs. 4, 6, 7A-F) comprising
a cover portion configured to fit over the device (Tharrett Fig. 1A - 108; Fig. 7A - 102, 108);
a latch mechanism configured to secure the cover portion to the device (Tharrett Fig. 7B - 108, 312, 404a), the latch mechanism comprises
a latch (Tharrett Fig. 1A - 108) rotatable about a first axis (Tharrett Fig. 7A, B - 312; col. 8:7-10);
a ring spring rotatable about a second axis different from the first axis (Tharrett Fig. 4 - 402a, 402b; Fig. 7A - 306; as shown, torsion spring (306) rotates about the axis of the coils);
wherein rotation of the latch about the first axis causes a deformation of the ring spring to generate a variable latch closing force that varies with rotation of the latch about the first axis (Tharrett Fig. 7A-C , 312, 306, 404; col. 8:53-65; Examiner’s note: such language appears to recite Hooke’s Law1 - i.e. the force varies as a function of the displacement from equilibrium of a spring).
As to claim 2, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tharrett further teaches rotation of the latch about the first axis causes a compression of the ring spring to generate the variable latch closing force (Tharrett Figs. 7B-7F - rotation about (312) causes cam (702, 704) to compress spring (306)).
As to claim 3, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Tharrett further teaches the variable latch closing force increases to a maximum at a maximum compression point of the spring ring at a predetermined degree of rotation of the latch about the first axis (Tharrett Figs. 7C-7F - 404a, 302, 704; col. 9:4-18 - as shown, cam (302) moves spring (306) to/through maximum displacement, thus maximum restoring force as per Hooke’s Law).
As to claim 8, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tharrett further teaches a proximal portion of the latch is rotatably attached to the latch mechanism at the first axis (Tharrett Fig. 7B - 108, 312), and wherein the proximal portion of the ring spring is rotatably attached to the latch mechanism at the second axis (Tharrett Fig. 6 - 306), and wherein a distal portion of the ring spring is attached to the latch (Tharrett Fig. 7B - 404a, 108).
As to claim 9, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tharrett further teaches the variable latch closing force is sufficient to adhere the cover portion to the device upon impact (Tharrett Fig. 7A).
As to claim 10, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tharrett further teaches the ring spring comprises a closed ring shape (Tharrett Fig. 6 - 306).
As to claim 11, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tharrett further teaches the ring spring compresses from a relatively circular shape to a relatively elliptical shape as the latch is rotated from an open position to a closed position (Tharrett Fig. 7B-F - 306).
As to claim 12, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tharrett further teaches one or more alignment features configured to engage with corresponding features on the device to align the cover portion into a predetermined position over the device (Tharrett Fig. 1A - 108, 104a; Fig. 5 - 500, 310).
As to claim 13, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tharrett further teaches impact absorbing materials lining an interior surface of the latch (Tharrett Fig. 3 - 318, 315; such impact absorption function is implicit at any arbitrary degree/amount for any material).
As to claim 14, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tharrett further teaches impact absorbing materials lining an interior surface of the cover portion (Tharrett Fig. 3 - 314; such function is implicit to any arbitrary degree of any material).
As to claim 15, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tharrett further teaches the device is a handheld electronic device (Tharrett Fig. 1A).
As to claim 17, Tharrett teaches a latch mechanism for securing a protective cover to a device (Tharrett Fig. 1A; Figs. 4, 6, 7A-F) wherein the latch mechanism comprises
a latch (Tharrett Fig. 1A - 108) rotatable about a first axis (Tharrett Fig. 7A, B - 312; col. 8:7-10);
a ring spring rotatable about a second axis different from the first axis (Tharrett Fig. 4 - 402a, 402b; Fig. 7A - 306; as shown, torsion spring (306) rotates about the axis of the coils);
wherein rotation of the latch about the first axis causes a deformation of the ring spring to generate a variable latch closing force that varies with rotation of the latch about the first axis (Tharrett Fig. 7A-C , 312, 306, 404; col. 8:53-65; Examiner’s note: such language appears to recite Hooke’s Law - i.e. the force varies as a function of the displacement from equilibrium of a spring).
As to claim 18, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Tharrett further teaches rotation of the latch about the first axis causes a compression of the ring spring to generate the variable latch closing force (Tharrett Figs. 7B-7F - rotation about (312) causes cam (702, 704) to compress spring (306)).
As to claim 19, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18, and Tharrett further teaches the variable latch closing force increases to a maximum at a maximum compression point of the spring ring at a predetermined degree of rotation of the latch about the first axis (Tharrett Figs. 7C-7F - 404a, 302, 704; col. 9:4-18 - as shown, cam (302) moves spring (306) to/through maximum displacement, thus maximum restoring force as per Hooke’s Law).
As to claim 21, Tharrett teaches a method of manufacturing a protective case for a device (Tharrett Fig. 1A; Figs. 4, 6, 7A-F) the method comprising
providing a cover portion configured to fit over the device (Tharrett Fig. 1A - 108; Fig. 7A - 102, 108);
providing a latch (Tharrett Fig. 1A - 108) rotatable about a first axis (Tharrett Fig. 7A, B - 312; col. 8:7-10);
providing a ring spring rotatable about a second axis different from the first axis (Tharrett Fig. 4 - 402a, 402b; Fig. 7A - 306; as shown, torsion spring (306) rotates about the axis of the coils);
assembling the latch and the ring spring such that rotation of the latch about the first axis causes a deformation of the ring spring to generate a variable closing latch force (Tharrett Fig. 7A-C , 312, 306, 404; col. 8:53-65; Examiner’s note: such language appears to recite Hooke’s Law - i.e. the force varies as a function of the displacement from equilibrium of a spring).
As to claim 22, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Tharrett further teaches attaching a proximal portion of the latch at the first axis (Tharrett Fig. 7B - 108, 312), and a proximal portion of the ring spring at the second axis (Tharrett Fig. 6 - 306), to a latch mechanism (Tharrett Fig. 7B - 108, 312, 404a).
As to claim 23, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Tharrett further teaches rotatably attaching a distal portion of the ring spring to the latch such (Tharrett Fig. 7B - 404a, 108) that rotation of the latch deforms the ring spring (Tharrett Figs. 7A-7F).
As to claim 24, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 23, and Tharrett further teaches the ring spring is rotatably attached to the latch by a ring spring compression holder secured to the latch (Tharrett Fig. 5 - 500, 310).
As to claim 26, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Tharrett further teaches incorporating impact absorbing materials on an interior surface of the latch (Tharrett Fig. 3 - 318, 315; such impact absorption function is implicit at any arbitrary degree/amount for any material).
Claims 1, 8-9, 12-17, 21-24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Shelton (US 5,164,749).
As to claim 1, Shelton teaches a protective case of a device (Shelton Fig. 1) comprising
a cover portion configured to fit of the device (Shelton Fig. 1 - 28, 30);
a latch mechanism configured to secure the cover portion to the device (Shelton Fig. 1 - A, B, C, D; Fig. 2; col. 2:40-50), the latch mechanism comprising
a latch (Shelton Fig. 3 - C) rotatable around a first axis (Shelton Fig. 4 - 52, 18; col. 2:54-55; col. 3:15-20);
a ring spring (Shelton Fig. 3 - D; col. 2:46-50) rotatable about a second axis different from the first axis (Shelton Fig. 4 - 54, 36; col. 3:35-42; spring (D) rotates around axis (54, 36) when bar (42) is pressed to move latch leges (38, 40));
wherein rotation of the latch about the first axis causes deformation of the ring spring to generate a variable latch closing force that varies with rotation of the latch about the first axis (Shelton Fig. 4 - 42, 38, D; col. 3:35-42; as shown/discussed, spring (D) being stretched/opened, thus as per Hooke’s Law, the force varies).
PNG
media_image1.png
641
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Shelton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Shelton further teaches a proximal portion of the latch is rotatably attached to the latch mechanism at the first axis (Shelton Figs. 3, 4 - A, C, 52, 18), and wherein a proximal portion of the ring spring is rotatably attached to the latch mechanism at the second axis (Shelton Figs. 3, 4 - B, D, 54, 36), and wherein a distal end of the ring spring is attached to the latch (Shelton Fig. 4 - C, D, 56, 48).
As to claim 9, Shelton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Shelton further teaches the variable latch closing force is sufficient to adhere the cover portion to the device upon impact (Shelton Fig. 5; col. 1:5-12).
As to claim 12, Shelton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Shelton further teaches one or more alignment features configured to engage with corresponding features on the device to align the cover portion into a predetermined position over the device (Shelton Fig. 3 - 10, 12; col. 2:49-53).
As to claim 13, Shelton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Shelton further teaches impact absorbing materials lining an interior surface of the latch (Shelton Fig. 1 - 38, 40; such impact absorption function is implicit at any arbitrary degree/amount for any material).
As to claim 14, Shelton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Shelton further teaches impact absorbing materials lining an interior surface of the cover portion (Shelton Fig. 1 - 28, 30; such impact absorption function is implicit at any arbitrary degree/amount for any material).
As to claim 15, Shelton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Shelton further teaches the device comprises augmented reality glasses (Shelton col. 1:5-10; Examiner’s note: claim 15 is directed to the intended use of the protective case as per the preamble of claim 1).
As to claim 16, Shelton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Shelton further teaches the cover portion is transparent or semi-transparent to allow viewing of the device (Shelton Fig. 1 - 28, 30; col. 1:5-10).
As to claim 17, Shelton teaches a latch mechanism for securing a protective cover to a device (Shelton Fig. 1) the latch mechanism comprises
a latch (Shelton Fig. 3 - C) rotatable around a first axis (Shelton Fig. 4 - 52, 18; col. 2:54-55; col. 3:15-20);
a ring spring (Shelton Fig. 3 - D; col. 2:46-50) rotatable about a second axis different from the first axis (Shelton Fig. 4 - 54, 36; col. 3:35-42; spring (D) rotates around axis (54, 36) when bar (42) is pressed to move latch leges (38, 40));
wherein rotation of the latch about the first axis causes deformation of the ring spring to generate a variable latch closing force that varies with rotation of the latch about the first axis (Shelton Fig. 4 - 42, 38, D; col. 3:35-42).
As to claim 21, Shelton teaches a method of manufacturing a protective case for a device the method comprising
providing a cover portion configured to fit of the device (Shelton Fig. 1 - 28, 30);
providing a latch (Shelton Fig. 3 - C) rotatable around a first axis (Shelton Fig. 4 - 52, 18; col. 2:54-55; col. 3:15-20);
providing a ring spring (Shelton Fig. 3 - D; col. 2:46-50) rotatable about a second axis different from the first axis (Shelton Fig. 4 - 54, 36; col. 3:35-42; spring (D) rotates around axis (54, 36) when bar (42) is pressed to move latch leges (38, 40));
assembling the latch and ring spring such that rotation of the latch about the first axis causes deformation of the ring spring to generate a variable latch closing force (Shelton Fig. 4 - 42, 38, D; col. 3:35-42).
As to claim 22, Shelton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Shelton further teaches attaching a proximal portion of the latch at the first axis (Shelton Figs. 3, 4 - A, C, 52, 18) and a proximal portion of the ring spring at the second axis to a latch mechanism (Shelton Figs. 3, 4 - B, D, 54, 36).
As to claim 23, Shelton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Shelton further teaches rotatably attaching a distal portion of the ring spring to the latch such that rotation of the latch deforms the ring spring (Shelton Fig. 4 - C, D, 56, 48).
As to claim 24, Shelton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 23, and Shelton further teaches the ring spring is rotatably attached to the latch by a ring spring compression holder (Shelton Fig. 3 - 50, 48; Fig. 4 - D, 50, 48) secured to the latch (Shelton Fig. 3 - C, 50, 48).
As to claim 26, Shelton teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Shelton further teaches incorporating impact absorbing materials on an interior surface of the latch (Shelton Fig. 1 - 38, 40; such impact absorption function is implicit at any arbitrary degree/amount for any material).
Claims 1-3, 8-19, 21-24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Carmichael (US 2,988,956).
As to claim 1, Carmichael teaches a protective case for a device (Carmichael Figs. 1-6) comprising
a cover portion configured to fit over the device (Carmichael Fig. 1 - 12, 13);
a latch mechanism configured to secure the cover portion to the device (Carmichael Fig. 2 - 10, 16, 27; Fig. 5 - 27, 28, 16 23), wherein the latch mechanism comprises
a latch (Carmichael Fig. 1 - 16) rotatable about a first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 16, 23);
a ring spring (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 28) rotatable about a second axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - center of ring spring (28); col. 2:70 - col. 3:5) different from the first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 23, 28);
wherein rotation of the latch about the first axis causes a deformation of the ring spring to generate a variable latch closing force that varies with rotation of the latch about the first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 16, 27, 23, 28; col. 2:70 - col. 3:21).
As to claim 2, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carmichael further teaches rotation of the latch about the first axis causes a compression of the ring spring to generate the variable latch closing force (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 27, 28; col. 2:70 - col. 3:21).
As to claim 3, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Carmichael further teaches the variable latch closing force increases to a maximum compression point of the ring spring at a predetermined degree of rotation of the latch about the first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 27, 28; col. 2:70 - col. 3:21).
As to claim 8, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carmichael further teaches a proximal portion of the latch is rotatably attached to the latch mechanism at the first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 16, 23, 27, 14, 10), and wherein a proximal portion of the ring spring is rotatably attached to the latch mechanism at the second axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 30, 28, 19), and wherein a distal end of the ring spring is attached to the latch (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 28, 29).
As to claim 9, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carmichael further teaches the variable latch closing force is sufficient to adhere the cover portion to the device upon an impact (Carmichael Fig. 3 - 21, 22; Fig. 4 - 21, 22; col. 1:9-16).
As to claim 10, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carmichael further teaches the ring spring comprises a close ring shape (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 28).
As to claim 11, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carmichael further teaches the ring spring compresses from a relatively circular chape to a relatively elliptical shape as the latch is rotated from an open position to a closed position (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 28; col. 2:70 - col. 3:21).
As to claim 12, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carmichael further teaches one or more alignment features configured to engage with corresponding features on the device to align the cover portion into a predetermined position over the device (Carmichael Fig. 3 - 10, 16, 17, M).
As to claim 13, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carmichael further teaches impact absorbing material lining an interior surface of the latch (Carmichael Fig. 3 - 21, 22; col. 3:69-75).
As to claim 14, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carmichael further teaches impact absorbing materials lining an interior surface of the cover portion (Carmichael Fig. 2 - 10; col. 2:1-5).
As to claim 15, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carmichael further teaches the device comprises augmented reality glasses (Carmichael Fig. 3 - M; Fig. 4 - M; Examiner’s note: claim 15 is directed to the intended use of the protective case as per the preamble of claim 1).
As to claim 16, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carmichael further teaches the cover portion is transparent or semi-transparent (Carmichael Fig. 1 - 12, 13; col. 1:9-16).
As to claim 17, Carmichael teaches a latch mechanism for securing a protective cover portion to a device (Carmichael Fig. 2 - 10, 16, 27; Fig. 5 - 27, 28, 16 23), wherein the latch mechanism comprises
a latch (Carmichael Fig. 1 - 16) rotatable about a first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 16, 23);
a ring spring (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 28) rotatable about a second axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - center of ring spring (28); col. 2:70 - col. 3:5) different from the first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 23, 28);
wherein rotation of the latch about the first axis causes a deformation of the ring spring to generate a variable latch closing force that varies with rotation of the latch about the first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 16, 27, 23, 28; col. 2:70 - col. 3:21).
As to claim 18, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Carmichael further teaches rotation of the latch about the first axis causes a compression of the ring spring to generate the variable latch closing force (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 27, 28; col. 2:70 - col. 3:21).
As to claim 19, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18, and Carmichael further teaches the variable latch closing force increases to a maximum compression point of the ring spring at a predetermined degree of rotation of the latch about the first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 27, 28; col. 2:70 - col. 3:21).
As to claim 21, Carmichael teaches a method of manufacturing a protective case for a device, the method comprising
providing a cover portion configured to fit over the device (Carmichael Fig. 1 - 12, 13);
providing a latch (Carmichael Fig. 1 - 16) rotatable about a first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 16, 23);
providing a ring spring (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 28) rotatable about a second axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - center of ring spring (28); col. 2:70 - col. 3:5) different from the first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 23, 28);
assembling the latch and the ring spring such that rotation of the latch about the first axis causes a deformation of the ring spring to generate a variable latch closing force that varies with rotation of the latch about the first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 16, 27, 23, 28; col. 2:70 - col. 3:21).
As to claim 22, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Carmichael further teaches attaching a proximal portion of the latch at the first axis (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 16, 23, 27, 14, 10) and a proximal portion of the ring spring at the second axis to a latch mechanism (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 30, 28, 19).
As to claim 23, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Carmichael further teaches rotatably attaching a distal portion of the ring spring to the latch such that rotation of the latch deforms the ring spring (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 28, 27; col. 2:70 - col. 3:21).
As to claim 24, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 23, and Carmichael further teaches the ring spring is rotatably attached to the latch by a ring spring compression holder secured to the latch (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 29).
As to claim 26, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 23, and Carmichael further teaches incorporating impact absorbing materials on an interior surface of the latch (Carmichael Fig. 3 - 21, 22; col. 3:69-75).
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.
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.
Claims 4, 5-7, 20, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tharrett (cited above).
As to claims 4, 20, 25, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 3, 19, 21, and Tharrett further teaches varying the compression point of the ring spring at an intermediate position of the latch between a fully open and fully closed position of the latch at which the latch secures the cover portion to the device (Tharrett Figs. 7A-7F; col. 9:4-34), but doesn’t specify whether the compression point is the maximum at the intermediate position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the maximum at an intermediate position, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As discussed by Tharrett, the compression is set so as to control the opening and closing force on the lid (Tharrett col. 9:4-34).
As to claim 5, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and while Tharrett teaches providing various compression conditions (Tharrett col. 9:4-34) doesn’t specify the maximum compression point of the ring spring occurs at a fully closed position of the latch at which the latch secures the cover portion to the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the maximum at an a fully closed position, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As discussed by Tharrett, the compression is set so as to control the opening and closing force on the lid (Tharrett col. 9:4-34).
As to claim 6, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Tharrett further teaches the ring spring biases the latch open when the latch is rotated in an opening direction between the predetermined degree of rotation and the fully open position of the latch (Tharrett Fig. 7F; col. 9:19-25).
As to claim 7, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Tharrett further teaches the ring spring biases the latch closed when the latch is rotated in a closing direction between the predetermined degree of rotation and the fully closed position of the latch (Tharrett Fig. 7B).
Claims 4, 7, 20, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmichael (cited above).
As to claims 4, 20, 25, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 3, 19, 21, and Carmichael further teaches varying the compression point of the ring spring at an intermediate position of the latch between a fully open and fully closed position of the latch at which the latch secures the cover portion to the device (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 27, 28; col. 2:70 - col. 3:21), but doesn’t specify whether the compression point is the maximum at the intermediate position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the maximum at an intermediate position, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As discussed by Carmichael, depressing the end (27) of the arm (16) and subsequent compression of spring (28) allows for opening/closing the latch/arm (16).
As to claim 7, Carmichael teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Carmichael further teaches the ring spring biases the latch closed when the latch is rotated in a closing direction between the predetermined degree of rotation and the fully closed position of the latch (Carmichael Fig. 5 - 27, 28; col. 2:70 - col. 3:21).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tharrett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bluhme et al. (US 2022/0376530 - Bluhme).
As to claim 16, Tharrett teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tharrett further teaches but doesn’t specify the cover portion is transparent or semi-transparent to allow viewing of the device. In the same field of endeavor Bluhme teaches protective cases of devices being transparent (Bluhme Fig. 1B - 120; para. [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a transparent cover portion since, as taught by Bluhme, such transparent covers are well known in the art for the purpose of observing the interior device(s) (Bluhme para. [0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chang (US 10,597,203); Kim (D 732,026); Huang (US 6,779,886); Chen (US 6,283,591); Jarvis (US 240,828); Sullivan (US 2,371,557); Ehlert et al. (US 2,516,764); Dexter (US 1,292,725) are additional examples of latch mechanisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 23, 2026
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookes_law
Prosecution Insights