Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "grip accessory" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 depends from claim 1, which does not introduce the grip accessory, so there is no antecedent basis for this feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loh et al (US 10,790,869 B1)
Regarding claim 1, Loh discloses a case for a foldable portable electronic device, the case comprising:
a first case body half; a second case body half, and a hinge covering structure connecting the first case body half to the second case body half, wherein the hinge covering structure is configured to cover and protect at least a portion of a hinge of the foldable portable electronic device, wherein the case is configured to fold along the hinge covering structure from an open position to a folded position. [Col. 7 lines 15-34]
Regarding claim 2, Loh discloses the case of claim 1, wherein the hinge covering structure is essentially flush with the first case body half and the second case body half when the case is in the open position. [Figs 10-11 show that the hinge cover portion 120 is covered by the side portions, making it substantially flush with the body halves]
Regarding claim 3, Loh discloses the case of claim 1, wherein the hinge covering structure separates the first case body half and the second case body half by a distance when the case is in the open position. [Fig. 10 portions of the side halves are separated when the case is open]
Regarding claim 4, Loh discloses the case of claim 1, wherein the first case body half and the second case body are in physical contact when the case is in the open position. [Fig 10-11 portions or the entire side of the side halves are in contact when opened]
Regarding claim 5, Loh discloses the case of claim 4, wherein the hinge covering structure is disposed entirely within the first case body half and the second case body half when the case is in the open position. [Figs. 10-11 show that the hinge cover 120 is concealed when the case is open]
Regarding claim 11, Loh discloses the case of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first case body half and the second case body half comprises a recess for receiving the hinge covering structure. [Figs. 10-11 show that the hinge cover 120 is concealed when the case is open]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loh in view of Ching (EP 3 759 826 B1)
Regarding claim 6, Loh discloses the case of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose in the first case body half or the second case body half is further configured with a grip accessory. Ching discloses a phone case with an accessory that allow the user to better grip the phone. [Figs 1-3; 0013] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an grip accessory to allow a user to better hold and safely use a phone and prevent dropping and loss or breakage,
Regarding claim 7, The case of claim 6, wherein the grip accessory is expandable and collapsible. {Fig. 1-3, 0013, the strap expands and collapses}
Regarding claim 8, The case of claim 1, wherein the grip accessory is disposed on a slidable platform configured to be moveable along a length of the case. [Fig. 1-3 , 0013 the strap slides along the length of the case in the accessory holder]
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loh in view of Le Gette (US 2012/0199501 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Loh discloses the case of claim 1, but does not disclose that a wherein the hinge covering structure is configured to fold away from the case in the open position so as to form a stand that maintains the foldable portable electronic device on a surface in an upright or angled position. Le Gette discloses an analogous phone case wherein a portion of the cover is usable as a kick stand to support an upright or angle position. [0183, Fig. 3A] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a hinge covering structure is configured to fold away from the case in the open position so as to form a stand that maintains the foldable portable electronic device on a surface in an upright or angled position to allow for hands free use and comfortable viewing.
Regarding claim 10, Loh discloses the case of claim 1,but does not expressly discloses fabric or a flexible strap. Le Gette discloses an analogous phone case wherein the case comprises a flexible strap [03307] and a fabric back cover. [0384]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a strap to help prevent dropping and losing a phone, and to use fabric for aesthetics and/or comfort.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loh in view of Bergreen (US 2016/0198823 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Loh discloses the case of claim 1, wherein the case comprises a bumper disposed around a periphery of the foldable portable electronic device, [item 74 and others surrounding the device] but does not disclose that the bumper comprises an interlocking ridge having alternating extensions and recesses that interconnect when the case is in the folded position. Bergreen discloses an analogous folding case wherein the edge bumpers comprise an interlocking ridge having alternating extensions and recesses that interconnect when the case is in the folded position. [0026] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use interlocking ridges and recess that interconnect when folded in order to form a better seal to better protect the phone and potentially keep out water.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 for further state of art references related to phone cases and grip accessories.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEWIS G WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-7859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LEWIS G WEST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699